Split (1)

train · 14.6k rows

category_1 stringclasses 162 values	search_query_1 stringclasses 287 values	search_type_1 stringclasses 2 values	search_engine_input_1 stringclasses 574 values	url_1 stringlengths 22 468	title_1 stringlengths 1 77	text_raw_1 stringlengths 1.17k 459k	text_window_1 stringlengths 545 2.63k	stance_1 stringclasses 2 values	category_2 stringclasses 162 values	search_query_2 stringclasses 287 values	search_type_2 stringclasses 2 values	search_engine_input_2 stringclasses 574 values	url_2 stringlengths 22 468	title_2 stringlengths 1 77	text_raw_2 stringlengths 1.17k 459k	text_window_2 stringlengths 545 2.63k	stance_2 stringclasses 2 values
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/77496-look-read-listen-what-s-the-difference.html	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference?	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading. But as “truthiness” becomes the norm, and readers declare that listening is the same as reading, it seems that the value of the direct relationship between books and readers is being minimized. Are books going the way of the theater and movies, where writers will eventually not even merit mention? Will books become an event between professional readers, sound engineers, and listeners who are driving or cleaning or missing whole paragraphs when one of the kids spills his Cheerios? And forget contemplative pauses to digest a profound morsel that the writer has spent months on. Having an actor read aloud, inflecting words with nuances and timing that the reader may not be capable of conjuring, can be a wonderful thing. Not all readers are great readers. And it is truly magnificent to create a new work based on the book. I’m told that the award-winning audio production of George Saunders’s Lincoln in the Bardo,with its star-studded cast of 166 narrators, is magical. But it is a new work! And when I spend four years honing a novel, I’m not imagining some intermediating interpreter conveying it to a reader. According to an Edison Research consumer survey, 65% of audiobook listeners imbibe books while driving; 52% while relaxing into sleep; and 45% while doing housework or chores. According to “The Brain and Reading,” an article by cognitive psychologist Sebastian Wren (published by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory), reading uses three major sections of the brain: the occipital cortex, where we visualize; the frontal lobe, where we process meaning; and the temporal lobe, where we process sound—our very own internal sound inside our own craniums. Whereas listening activates only two sections of the brain: temporal and frontal lobes. This bodes well for people who are driving: at least they are not distracting their brains with inner visions while “reading,” but nor are they enjoying the full-sensory and gloriously autonomous experience of a direct hit from words on a page. On second thought, real reading will never be replaced by listening. That would be just silly, right? Betsy Robinson’s most recent novel is The Last Will & Testament of Zelda McFigg (Black Lawrence, 2014). A version of this article appeared in the 07/16/2018 issue of Publishers Weekly under the headline: Look Read Listen NOTE: If you had a previous PW subscription, click here to reactivate your immediate access. PW site license members have access to PW’s subscriber-only website content. If working at an office location and you are not "logged in", simply close and relaunch your preferred browser. For off-site access, click here. To find out more about PW’s site license subscription options, please email Mike Popalardo at: mike@nextstepsmarketing.com. Thank you for visiting Publishers Weekly. There are 3 possible reasons you were unable to login and get access our premium online pages. You are NOT a current subscriber to Publishers Weekly magazine. To get immediate access to all of our Premium Digital Content try a monthly subscription for as little as $15 per month. You may cancel at any time with no questions asked. Click here for details about Publishers Weekly’s monthly subscription plans. You are a subscriber but you have not yet set up your account for premium online access. Contact customer service (see details below) to add your preferred email address and password to your account.	Look, Read, Listen—What's the Difference? A writer disputes the idea that listening to an audiobook is the same as reading By Betsy Robinson \| Jul 13, 2018 According to numerous sources, audiobooks are the new best thing to happen in publishing: for six years in a row, they have enjoyed double-digit sales growth. I’m all for more people enjoying books and stories and I’m all for writers enjoying subsidiary rights royalties via expanded uses of their works, but audiobooks and books are as different as movies and books. You would think it would be obvious that “listening” is different from “reading,” but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard somebody say, “I read the audiobook.” One interviewee in a recent Shelf Awareness article actually said that listening to audiobooks is reading because otherwise Braille (which truly is reading through the fingers) is not reading. Excuse me? For many years, I was primarily a playwright, and I loved seeing my words come to life through actors. And until watching the Tony Awards this year, I really believed the theater industry appreciated playwrights—unlike in movies, where most screenwriters have no clout and no ownership of their work. So I was absolutely flabbergasted that the 2018 best plays were mentioned without attribution to the people who birthed them (with the weird exceptions of Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh and Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women). In fact, the renowned Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, which won the Tony for best revival of a play, made his acceptance speech for his company without having been mentioned in the winning announcement! Ouch. But I’m mostly a novelist these days—so I’m safe, right? Novel writers enjoy something playwrights and screenwriters never do: our books exist as soon as they’re put on the page. No actors, sets, directors, production companies. It’s between my written words and the reader via the alchemy of reading.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://dailyegyptian.com/91529/opinion/youre-dumb-and-wrong-listening-to-audiobooks-is-not-reading/	You're Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading ...	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it. Advertisement Plus, you’re not going to rewind an audiobook. The rewind button takes you back an entire 15 seconds and, ugh, you just don’t have that kind of time, right? Reader agency Some audiobooks have great narration, like how my mom read “Holes” to me when my bedtime was still 8 p.m. This meant her narration limited my ability to interpret the information my own way. Your emotions are based not just on the text that you’re reading when it’s an audiobook – the voice of the narrator is set and the emotions of the scene are strictly set as however the audiobook reader says them. If you think that’s not a big deal, you need to give yourself more credit for independent thought. Interpreting an originally written work by reading it, you think more on the story and its themes. In non-fiction, authors have implicit bias with the way they write about a true story. With an audio version, the narrator compounds this with another layer of bias that could influence how you see the story, differently than how you’d see it if you’d just read for yourself. Authorial intent “But the author is the one who did the audiobook, so I know how it’s meant to be told,” said someone illiterate, probably. You want to know how an author wanted to tell their story? Through a book, because they originally wrote it as a book. That was the form they chose – it’s the same reason people have obnoxiously told you “the book was better” about a movie adaptation. Sometimes their narration sucks. Do not listen to The Fran Lebowitz Reader over reading it. When reading, the voice is that of a hilarious, sexy socialite ready to insult everyone. Lebowitz is an older woman and when she narrates these same columns they lack the brutal impact you’ll feel when reading her work. She is a fantastic writer and the picture she paints from that writing is more colorful than her voicework. Authorial intent isn’t the most important thing in the world. In fact, sometimes you can find a meaning in text that the author never intended. Their intent shouldn’t invalidate whatever you’ve gained from their work. Discussing this article with a friend, he told me that listening to audiobooks is still better than not reading at all. I agree, but for crying out loud, read also. In high school I would just Sparknotes the “jist” of so many novels. When I finally would read a full book, it was like my third eye was opened. Considering how much these columns fall on deaf ears, I think my third eye is just as nearsighted as the other two. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Daily Egyptian, its staff or its associates. You’re Dumb and Wrong is a weekly column about video games, movies and popular entertainment from Arts & Entertainment editor Jeremy Brown. Brown can be reached at [email protected]. To stay up to date with all your southern Illinois news, follow the Daily Egyptian on Facebook and Twitter. Agreed. We have a word for how you consume audiobooks. It’s called–stay with me now–it’s called…LISTENING. And yes, reading something and listening to someone tell a story (even from a book) are two distinct experiences. And yes you should if at all possible exercise the “reading muscles”. We listen to people telling us things all the time, those ear muscles are in many cases the most exercised parts of our bodies, tired and over-stimulated even, but reading however is something that needs a bit more “TLC”. Millions of people have disabilities. Imagine caring about the medium other people absorb information from so much and being so offended by the thought that it could be equal to your method that you write an article about it to make yourself feel better. Studies show no significant difference between listening, reading, or listening and reading together. This article is pretty ableist, as well as very silly. What about people who are y impaired? Are they never able to read? Reading a book is when you somehow get the words into your brain. You could be looking at the words, feeling them if you read Braille, or listening to them. The examples provided in this essay are silly. They talk about playing a video game vs. watching it being played—but a video game is intended to be interacted with, the mechanics of the game are manipulated by the player. If you just watch it, that isn’t the experience intended. BUT the experience intended by an author of a book is to have all the words of the book consumed by the reader—something you can achieve equally well with listening. The next example is watching Hamlet vs. reading it. Absurd! Hamlet is a play, and it is only meant to be watched/listened to. I am a voracious consumer of print words! I read, physically read with my eyes, all the time. It has never occurs to me that those who consume books with their ears are not reading too. Of course they are. Gotta love the commenters who take issue with you, insisting they have “read” a book when they have listened to it on audio. As the world becomes more and more misinformed, and opinions, poor logic and presumptions increasingly replace fact, assessment and actual logic, people now argue everything. Read means to use one’s eyes to read over written words on a page. It is not the only way to absorb a book. The author of this piece suggests some of the possible advantages to reading (for those who can) versus absorbing a different way, and some of the commenters take umbrage at the idea that they have not “read” the book because they feel they have absorbed more or a more full experience (such as, possibly, seeing a well done play of Hamlet might also create) than if they had merely read it. But those are different points. One can use “read” casually since it often refers to whether one has been exposed to all the written words of a work, but to argue a non point (and also one that really doesn’t matter) to turn it into something else – only the internet, and modern “thought.” Read used casually refers to exposure to all the words. But the author is right, technically, reading is different than listening to audio, and listening to audio is a a way of absorbing a book, but it is not reading it. It can be so used, as an imprecise way of referring to that exposure, but in terms of whether one has “actually” “read” a book if one has listened to it, one has not read it. And while it’s a technicality, it is also one with some implications, for as the author (and, in different ways, commenters) points out, actual reading is also a different experience and sense of the word, whether it be fuller, lesser, more creative, less creative, richer, narrower, etc. I have to admit, I was a bit offended at being called dumb for believing audiobooks is reading. I’ll explain. I read things as a way to be subjected to new ideas, increase my vocabulary, and appreciate other peoples thought processes. Those benefits ARE my entertainment. Its always a plus if I’m enjoying what I’m listening to but entertainment is not the sole reason. People who share the experience of reading can find common ground in the content within a book whether it is read or listened to. To use you’re example, if you read Hamlet and I listen to it, we can still communicate about the excellence of Shakespeare. We can discuss the Princes thirst for revenge against Claudius or any other aspect of that great work. Reading, like speech, is a way of communication and I contend that audiobooks nurture a lost art that is not required when reading to oneself; listening. Maybe I am just a dumb trucker but I assert that as someone that has learned to pay close attention to the sounds of another persons voice, that perhaps I may be more receptive to, not only the ideas that an author is trying to relay in their books but the words spoken to me by any given speaker because I don’t need to see the word visually. I am more in tune with tone, inflection, pattern, etc. There is something special about finding a nice quiet place and cracking open a good book. It is just you, the story and the journey set before you. Audiobooks do get in the way of the natural flow of your own thoughts. If you want to read something slower to make sure you understand it right, you can, if you want to go back and check the name of the chapter, you can, if you want to skip to the back of the book to see what the author looked like, you can. If the writer put in drawings or made use of the position of the words on the page to tell a story, you miss out on that. It is possible to do all those things on a computer, but that defeats the purpose of an audiobook, to be portable, to be hands-free, to be simple. I can understand what you mean. It sounds like we need a new word to describe having a book read to us. “Have you audiobooked any good books recently?” doesn’t sound as nice as “Have you read any good books recently?” I suppose you could say, “Have you audioed any good books recently?”, but the meaning is a little obscure. Personally I like to listen to sci-fi or science textbooks while playing Minecraft. “A brief History of Time” really was brief. I probably would never have read it, but now I know that Stephen Hawking believed that a theory is only useful if it still makes accurate predictions. There is nothing wrong with old theories as long as they can tell us something about the future that we don’t already know. I am glad I listened to that book, but I will admit that I probably missed some of the other details by not personally reading it. It is a trade-off. And I think there will always be a need to read, but if audiobooks bring more people into the field of lost knowledge, the world will be better for it. There are many things we have forgotten, many types of logic that are obscure, many understandings that books bring us. The people of the past had pen and paper, and their intelligence could be our intelligence. Their fantasies, our fantasies. But don’t get in the habit of ignoring people right in front of you because you only value the opinion of people that have written books. Educate yourself, but don’t isolate yourself. Disregard me, sure, but here is the same thing from an old book. “The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.” ~ Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield 1746 The purpose of books is to transfer knowledge from one person to another (or possibly many others) when other forms of communication are impossible. We read books written thousands of years ago because it is a more accurate way of conveying their thoughts than having the story passed from generation to generation, because words change over time and the original story fades. We read to learn. We read because those that know things can’t take the time to tell everyone that wants to know. We read because it is efficient. If someone could explain something to us in person, it would be superior to reading. If someone who was very good at something showed us how to do it in a YouTube video, almost as good. If someone told us something over the phone, we could ask questions, better than a YouTube video in some ways, worse in others since we can’t see what they are talking about. I think I got my point across. If you didn’t get it, reread all that and think about it. Most books just end, and you may not understand everything they were saying. You have to read between the lines and think about what the writer only hinted at. That is how you become smarter. If you can learn the same thing from watching a video as you can from reading a book, or having someone read you something, then it is all the same thing. The ability to read was a huge advantage hundreds of years ago, but now? Not really. Someone today could be a nuclear physicist, rocket scientist, and brain surgeon without being able to read. The ability to understand is way more important than how we get the information. Please don’t be a luddite, learn how to use new tools like the rest of the class. Thanks for the article and I agree completely. Reading a book and listening to an audiobook are both valid ways of consuming a book. However, reading is a defined action. Saying listening to an audiobook isn’t reading doesn’t invalidate it as a way to consume the book. It’s great that those who can’t read are able to consume books via audiobooks. Also ignore those accusing you of “ableism’ as it’s nonsense and only espoused by those perpetually offended for people who aren’t offended by what they’re getting offended over. For me, personally, listening to an audiobook is not the same as actually reading it. I do enjoy listening to audiobooks too, but I find that while I listen to one, I’m too tempted to do something else (load the dishwasher, put away some laundry, or I’m driving). Therefore, I tend to not be paying as close of attention to the book as I would be if I were reading a printed copy. Thank you for this article. I am tired of people trying to get me to “read” audiobooks. They are just as condescending to me as a bibliophile that I won’t try an audiobook. I am so tired of grown up humans who do not understand the word read. As an educator I am affronted that so many are turning future generations away from true learning and the fundamental importance of reading to the development of a learner. I appreciate you! What the commenters don’t seem to realise is that the OP is not saying that when you’ve LISTENED to an audiobook you haven’t experienced the book. He’s simply saying you haven’t READ the book. Which is completely true. I came here after I googled: Listening to an audiobook is not reading. It annoys me to no end when a booktuber says: “I’m currently reading this on audiobook.” Ehm, excuse me? That sentence makes no sense. I have no issues with audiobooks, but you don’t read them, you listen to them. People who say they read an audiobook are simply using the wrong verb. Period. You’re right and it’s hilarious how defensive people get when you mention that audio books are not the same as books, because you can tell they know you’re right and it makes them insecure. “But I don’t have time to read and now I can get through 2,000 books a year while cleaning the house, washing the kids and driving!” Yeah I’ll bet you’re really paying attention to that book…. “But I have a medical condition that prevents me from reading!” Ok so the article specifically mentioned that in the very first paragraph, nice reading comprehension there. Why do people read to their children? Because reading for yourself is fucking hard work. I get not wanting to do that hard work and wanting to be read to like a child but at least admit that this is what you are doing. And having the narrator make voices for you like you’re an infant is frankly pathetic. No, you’re not making your own emotional decisions, the narrator 100% affects them by the pitch of their voice and their intonation. No having the author do the reading doesn’t fix that. Is it impossible to really take in a book as an audiobook? No, but it’s still not reading. Because you’re not reading. You’re listening. You didn’t read an audiobook you listened to someone read a book to you. If that makes you feel like a child that’s your problem with reality. You are entitled to your opinion, as others have stated. However, your point is diluted because of your condescending manner and apparent superiority complex. I am wondering how much reading vs. listening has helped you.. oh, and it’s “gist”, not “jist”. Frankly, as an ex-special education teacher and current certified occupational therapy assistant who has worked most of her adult life with children who have special needs I didn’t think I would ever use these harsh words towards another human being but I now feel the need to say I think YOU are dumb and wrong. Dumb is not a word I like to use but in this case I will make an exception. Not everyone can sit down to read a good book. Some need to be read to. Some may not need help but prefer to listen to a book on their commute rather than listening to the radio. Some may want to hear the author’s own voice read a book. Plus, you really can use your own imagination while listening to an audiobook just like you can while reading it anyway, unless your imagination is not that great and you are dumb and wrong….. Actually, yes, I am. When I’m moved or intrigued or confused by something I hear, I will absolutely go back and give it another listen. Maybe five or ten more listens. And I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Side note: I’m sorry that you’ve never enjoyed a truly excellent audiobook. I recommend: Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One narrated by Wil Wheaton, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale narrated by Claire Danes, and Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants narrated by David LeDoux and John Randolph Jones. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As are the rest of us. First, you can change the rewind time in Audible to whatever you would like. For example, mine is set at 7 seconds. You can also bookmark passages and go back to them any time. I read many books during the year and listen to many as well. I have a 30 minute commute, both ways, every week day. Audio books are a godsend. I listen to self help, biographies, fiction and plays. I bookmark things I want for later and go back to them often. Sometimes I even write them down when I finally get to my destination. I have “met” many authors this way and heard the book from their perspective…their voice. I still love a book in my hand. I have already completed 3 this year alone. But I also love the audio experience. I am on my 5th book of the year. I get what you are trying to say. There are clear differences, but why is your tone so demeaning. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and yes, I may miss some things in listening to it, but I wouldn’t get through near as many books if it weren’t for audible. I’m also not less intelligent because I choose the audio version as opposed to reading it myself. Having dyslexia prevents me from enjoying most books because of the format of the text and length of sentences. Listening to audiobooks has opened me up to enjoying most novels that I wasn’t able to when I was in high school. To let you into my world of dyslexia think of these things. How would you feel if you were reading and you kept accidentally rereading the same sentences three times? How would you feel if you got a headache after reading for just 10 or 15 minutes? Reading a book was a chore for me and I hated it. Audiobooks have allowed me to enjoy novels finally. You said things like listening to an audiobook prevents you from making your own emotional decisions on a book. And I’d have to disagree, after listening to a chapter of a book I would sit and think about but I just listened to. I’d analyze and pull it apart and sometimes relisten to parts of the chapter. You give me a little credit on my individual thinking. Also you made a comment that someone “illiterate probably” listens to the audiobook. (While I’m sure it’s a joke, it’s still kind of triggering and insensitive.) Yet here I am reading your article and able to write a response. Also I love story so much that guess what I like to write stories myself. I even went to school for it: Creative Writing Major here. And finally I’d like to say that people have different learning styles. Have you heard that a person best learns visually or audibly? What seemed to you get a lot out of visually reading a book, understand that I get more out of the book by listening to it. To help you understand more, I think audibly too. When I think of numbers, I hear them in my head. Some people might see the number instead though. It’s all a matter of how they can absorb information best. In conclusion, I think your opinion that reading is the best way to absorb a book is actually a preference. Looking down on other people who choose to read audiobooks means that you are lacking in understanding their reason for choosing such a format. I hope my example can better help you understand that every human is different and have different ways of understanding/ processing information. No one way is the right way. I think, when someone reads something, what we do is use this inner voice to pronounce the words that we read and in that way we listen ourselves “reading it out(in) loud” (at least this is the case of a normal student that is not fast reading a text by the means of visual recognition that require some effort and a lot of training to do so)… So in one way, reading is also listening… But I agree that many will not stop or rewind the audiobook when something complex happen with the thought, I will get that later or.. “I don’t think this was important”, missing maybe the deep meaning of the phrase… In my case, maybe because I use a different reader\player I find myself playing the audio back and back and back 7\10\30 second at the time till I get it or I give up but only if I feel the book it deserves. Also I am not native English spoken… I believe that if a good professional reader read a book for you is even more immersing than doing it your self for the first time (I am sure they have read the book more than once in order to get the right tone to the reading). But for this to be you need to be doing nothing else than listening… Not working in the computer, or driving, or… Working in your car\motorbike\ikea furniture…(that’s normally me)… But some times I find this audiobook that is incredible in meaning and in reader quality and I find myself seating in the living room alone, almost in darkness listening exclusively for hours and hours this wonderful book letting it all playing in my mind and I feel like I was there, she I would feel of I would be reading it for myself. I think I should get extra credit for listening to audiobooks, because I can’t skim through the boring parts. Also, for not reading while driving. Plus bonus points for learning how to pronounce all those words no one ever uses in normal conversations. Decent points, the click bait title is off putting, but would I have read the article if there wasn’t a catchy title? No, problaly not. I will now update goodreads with only audiobooks selections, goodlisten-reads.com I agree with Will on this. As an ADD person I find it very hard to pick up a book to actually read it unless it’s a book on wild plants (which you can’t put into audio form). Not to mention the fact that I work for a living and am on the road a lot so I have very little time to actually read a hard copy of a whole book without losing interest. The topic you are addressing relates to mediational means. In cognitive development we speak of a tool that mediates between ourselves and things we want to understand or interact with. The development of mediational means allows us affordances or the value added by the use of a tool. The idea that printed books as mediational means are better than audiobooks suggests a bit of a naive response to mediation. Printed books and audiobooks simply provide different affordances for a learner. One is not necessarily better. People have learned through oral traditions for a long time. Reading books gave us different affordances. Both tools have advantages and disadvantages. Books allows for an individual to carry a lecture with them for instance. Now, with an audiobook, a learner can take the lecturer with them. James Wertsch’s research sheds light on the fact that the evolution of mediational means has always generated these kinds of reactions, decrying something new because it replaces, waters down, or corrupts something familiar. What Wertsch suggests is humans adapt to the new tools and the affordances offered by them. Some reactionary people suggest the new tool is inherently flawed, but we evolve and learn with every new tool. Think spell checker, texting, graphing calculator, etc. Each have generated a reactionary response, yet these new mediational means have all proved to be valuable new tools. So will audiobooks. Thank you very much! After this, I am convinced that: I am still going to count listening as reading, and no I didn’t read your article. The title is enough to stop me from keep on going. So, no thanks. I feel like the difference is negligible. I really and listen and as a primarily auditory learner, I find this article rather insulting. I have listened to things so profound that I have hit the “15 second back” button but you should also be aware that there are many ways to listen. Many of which supply a much more refined rewind functionality. Many narrators work with the authors when recording so any “Authorial intent” argument is mute in most cases. Though so not argue that it does not exist entirely. I simply don’t see how one can argue that one medium over another is superior. Your apparent ability to glean more meaning from written word over narration is nice and I wish I had it. “Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t.” Also, hi again Hamlet is a screen play. With your argument here in this article it would actually be worse to just read it because it was INTENDED to be seen and not read. Also, reading an audiobook where the author reads their own book is a magical experience. I reccomend Stardust by Neil Gaimen, if you listen with your third eye open you still get to form your own experience with the book while hearing the way the author imagines the characters to sound. Now, if you see the movie this no longer counts as reading a book, just a warning so you dont freak out. There is no question that what you say is so true. However, my wife has MD and see can no longer see much, never mind even read. Audio books give her a way to enjoy the story behind the book, but she and I both agree, the narrator is as important as the author. I myself find it a poor way to enjoy a book, but in her case it solves a major problem. When my sons were young I would read to them, no not for the stories sake, but to teach them that by reading as narrate the story( one case is the original hobbit) they read along side me, learning to pass me with the excitement. When the name Gandalf was coming up, they would see and I would read the name slowly, but they would yell it out and make the story more real to them. They are both in their 60’s and they still like to listen to me. Yes who the narrator is make a great deal of difference. But reading it yourself put the true meaning into each word as it flows through your mind. Thank you so much for making people realize that it’s in the reading that put true meaning to each word. Hey, Books are not accessible to a large majority of people! Be it because of learning difficulties, time, language barriers or a number of other things! Let people enjoy books in any form and stop shaming them because reading with their EYES is more important than tbe content of the book. Not to mention lots of people read both. I read both, I preferred print media until I had a major knock on the head and physical books became more of a challenge for me. While I recover listening to audiobooks doesnt mean I’ve STOPPED READING, it means I’ve changed format to how I currently learn best. I cant believe how narrow minded your argument is here, and it is exluding a huge swatch of people just because they dont learn like you do. Just because you dont get the full “book experience” when you listen to audio books doesnt mean thats true for others. Maybe instead of critizing others for how they read you could be more appreciative that so many new people have access to literature that was previously not avaliable to them!!! I do agree with some of this article. However to say that an audio book is less than a typed book because they are not the same is crap. If the audio book is abridged then yes they are not the same however if the book is unabridged they are the same words weather I read them or you read them to me. You just need to lean to listen better You make some very valid points but why degrade and belittle those who listen for various reasons?NYTimes had a thoughtful article December 8, 2018 “Is Listening to a Book the Same as Reading.” Maybe you should read it. I am 82 and had been reading 2 to 3 books a week. My eyes suddenly went bad and even after two surgeries I am still having trouble reading. The audio books are a good enjoyable way to pass time as TV is often pretty boring. Everyone can’t see good. Personally, I enjoy listening as I read the written word. It helps me stay focused and I find I absorb much more. It is well known that when we see and hear something, it is easier to understand and retain. I like to read–it makes me feel great. But I have a friend who’s blind, who listens to books. I’m saying this is a silly argument/article to be writing–if someone is learning and consuming stories that might enrich their lives, then let them do it with no judgement. At 60 years old… one of the first of many in the early seventy tested to have had dyslexia… audios saved my life ….! Starting with Dryer to hours and hours of whom every… I may not had picked up “that line” the first time but driving down the road listening pushing rewind or multiple times all six tapes. Saved my life. This isn’t ableist at all. I’m Autistic and have a hard time paying attention to my reading, but audiobooks are fundamentally different and are NOT reading. Any ability to make personal interpretations about how things look or sound is completely eradicated when listening to an audiobook. I could have “read” hundreds of books should I have lowered my standards for myself to using audiobooks, but I refuse- the academic rigor of reading for COMPREHENSION cannot be ignored. Reading feels like working my way through quicksand, but I remember every point made and almost every passage. I can’t remember a damn thing from an audiobook. Because I’m not actually paying attention. I don’t think it’s possible to pay attention to an audiobook without multi-tasking unless you have a sight impairment. If you can read, you should. If you can read, audiobooks are cheating. Audiobooks allow access for many who would otherwise not be able to read at all. My grandmother was an avid reader, a trait she passed to me. When her eyesight went, audio books were the only way she could continue her beloved hobby. But more than that, who are you to tell me how I should or should not enjoy my entertainment? I’m perfectly capable of reading, but sometimes I prefer audiobooks. I enjoy hearing how someone else reads it, how they interpret it. Sometimes you have the privilege of listening to the author read it, such as Douglas Adams reading Hitchhiker’s Guide. You can also get the same book read by Stephen Fry and Simon Jones and they all bring something new and interesting to the table. Is listening to the audiobook the same as reading it? Yea. It is. Calm yourself. Just as every human is going to have their own interpretation of their reading, everyone also has their interpretation of listening as well. Do you absorb the words of the book during both actions? Yes you do. Can I discuss a book I read with someone who listened to it? Of course. There are no fundamental differences. You wanna wave a hand and say “But IMAGINATION” and that would be nonsense that insinuates that the act of listening removes the imagination required to be invested in a book. Plus, since this is the tone you want to set here, I don’t know how much credibility we should be assigning someone who was reading cliff notes in high school. What kind of cheap cheating lazy nonsense is that? SpongeBob.gif “WhEn I fInAlLy wOulD REad A FUll BoOk, iT WaS LiKe mY thIRd EyE wAs oPeNEd.” Oh wow. Amazing. You hit high school and suddenly a reader is born and now you’re lecturing on your superiority of reading purity? Buddy, I’ve been reading multi-thousand page novels since I was 7. I lost points in Fifth grade because for book report day my analysis of the entirety of the Foundation series was “too much for the class and I needed to reel it in a little”. So how about we take it from someone who didn’t need to discover the mystic awakening of their third eye in high school to understand literacy. Your opinion is dumb and wrong. Audio books serve an important purpose. Those that depend on them and those that choose them are not lesser Intellectuals than you, so calm your jets cliff noter. I feel you have mistitled this by omitting the words “for me”. As an active reader and a active listener to audiobooks I could not disagree with you more. There have been multiple times where I have physically read half a series only to listen to the second half on audiobook or vice versa. Other than the odd pronunciation of a name I have never found myself in conflict with the way a narrator portrayed a character. The analogy of the video game is completely off base because in a video game you actually have control. You could say I would have done XYZ where you did ABC where in a book it’s just a book. Accents aside the author sets the tone for the characters much more so than the narrator. If I had to sum up the gist of this article I would probably use ” you’re dumb and wrong” listening to audiobooks is reading. Most of these arguments are too simple. I’ve “read” many books in audiobook format and I count them as read. The argument that I won’t go back and listen again, not true. I’ve gone back hundreds of times to listen to an important passage. I pause the book to take notes. I listen while cleaning, walking and commuting and still do the above. I’ve gone back to listen to a book again. I have also read many physical copies of books and had poorer results in how I digest and remember the information (even related to books for entertainment). While I understand that your argument isn’t to discredit them, it does appear to say it is inferior in it’s benefit and that one cannot say they’ve read a book by listening. I completely disagree. The only reasons I see to buy physical or electronic copies anymore is for intense study and note taking with particularly dense material that I’d like to reference repeatedly and quickly in the future. To that there is an advantage I can stand behind but your blanketed statement sounds more like you want to be superior for reading over listening. I disagree with the comment in the article “If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. ” If you are blind, listening to an audio book or a textbook using technology to read it out loud, yes, you are reading the book. Don’t be so shallow. I like your thinking here, Jeremy, and just wanted to point out a possible oversight. While most of us can relax and enjoy digging into a good book, there are some that cannot. I, for one, can not replace the feeling of grabbing the print and going to town, sometimes finding it hard to stop. My daughter, on the other hand, has a high level of ADHD and just reading a book is next to impossible. Being able to listen to the book has enabled her to get through her books and engage on a different level with their content. This has made a huge difference in how she “reads” and comprehends the content of a book. Thanks for listening to this former DE’er	You’re Dumb and Wrong: Listening to audiobooks is not reading (Update: The reasons in this column are not attempts to discredit audiobooks as a medium, but to explain why the act of listening and reading are specifically different forms of entertainment. Audiobooks are great in their own right for a different, curated experience, or for those who are unable to read due to a variety of medical reasons.) If you say listening to an audiobook is “reading” – you may as well say watching someone else play a video game is playing it. You are not the one in the driver’s seat – you were there when the action happened but you didn’t do any of it – don’t take credit for it. The form in which you absorb entertainment isn’t interchangeable between media, which is why listening to an audiobook, while having its own merits, is not the same as reading the book it’s based on. Advertisement I’m not arguing that written books are better than audiobooks. I’m just tired of getting excited when someone on Facebook asks “What are y’all reading? Here’s mine” followed by a freaking Audible hyperlink. I see you, Trevor. Processing entertainment Have you ever seen a performance of the play Hamlet or watched Kenneth Branagh’s word-for-word five-hour film version? If yes, have you now read Hamlet? No, you haven’t. The biggest difference between listening and reading is that while reading, you set the pace in which you will understand something. Example – I once read an old novel called “Rabbit, Run.” In the book, there is a line that says: “If you have the guts to be yourself, other people’ll pay your price.” I must’ve reread that 10 times over. It still hits home for me because I’m another midwestern middle-class white male who’s had the same existential crisis as Rabbit. Go figure. If I were listening to the audiobook, I’d hear that sentence with the same weight as the rest of the chapter. I invested more time into that sentence than if I heard it spoken once. My comprehension of the book is better for it.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://blog.libro.fm/listen-up-why-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading - Libro.fm Audiobooks	Listen Up! Why Audiobooks Count as Reading As we strive to create an inclusive and engaging learning environment, it’s time we embrace the fact that reading goes beyond the written word. Contrary to popular belief, audiobooks are not simply a shortcut or a substitute for reading; they are a valuable tool that can enhance comprehension, foster a love for literature, and empower our students to finally be the readers they have always dreamed they could be. Guest Author: Pernille Ripp Pernille Ripp (she/her) is a former American public school teacher, adult literacy coach, and currently is expanding work in early childhood education in Denmark. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. “What should I read next?” he says, eagerly awaiting my answer. His question takes me by surprise. After all, there is no possible way he has finished the book I downloaded for him two days ago. This child, who at first fought me to even open the pages of a book, then comfortably slid into the art of fake reading. The same child who would rather read the same graphic novel every day than venture into new pages is standing before me eagerly asking for his next read. “You’re done already? What did you think?” I ask, trying to feel out if he actually read it. “It was so sad…at the end, when his dad came. I couldn’t believe it…” He keeps going, telling me parts of the story that make me nod in recollection, and it dawns on me: he did read it. And even more, he loved it. He is proud. And he is ready for another book. “When did you find the time to read it?” I ask, still surprised. “Last night…It got interesting so I listened to it all night. Three hours, I think.” He says, “So what do I read next?” This child who has not read a chapter book all year. Who has abandoned book upon book, casting aside any favorites that we could think of. This child, whose disengagement has made us worry late at night, whose ability to tell you exactly what you want to hear has befuddled us all. He now stands before me, beaming, waiting for the next book. He has become a child that reads. And he is not alone. Many students who have never liked reading are begging for the next book, begging for more time to listen. Yes, listen. These students are devouring one audiobook after another. Comprehending the words without having to struggle through the decoding. Accessing stories that they have heard their friends talk about. They no longer grab easier books while longing for something with more substance and maturity. These children are finally feeling like readers with the help of audiobooks. Some may say that audiobooks do not count as reading; I certainly used to balk at them counting toward any reading goal. But a few years back, my students changed me. Sure, there are cognitive differences in the processes that happen when we read with our eyes versus our ears; however, the skills that we are able to utilize through reading an audiobook are monumental in building further reading success. And research has shown that the cognitive processes are surprisingly similar. Listening to audiobooks can provide many of the same cognitive benefits as reading print books, including improved vocabulary, comprehension, and critical thinking skills. (National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled) So what do audiobooks (and investing in audiobooks) do for our students? Provide equity in the reading experience. Students who read significantly below their grade level are able to access the same texts as their peers. Now, when they browse for books they can select any they are interested in and we can get copies on audio. Support critical thinking skills. Students can develop critical thinking skills without having to spend enormous brain power on decoding. And research agrees as well; children who listened to audiobooks showed significant improvements in reading comprehension and fluency, according to Stanford University. We don’t have to simplify our text choices when students can receive proper support through audiobooks. Reignite a passion for reading. Often students who are developing readers start to hate reading. And I get it; when you are constantly in struggle mode, it can be so tiring. Having access via an audiobook lets students finally enjoy a story. They can be in the zone because their brain is not occupied with the work of having to decode every single word, creating a deep immersion into the reading experience. Welcome children with disabilities. Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for improving reading comprehension and retention in individuals with ADHD or other attention disorders according to the Journal of Adolescent Psychology. Children who prefer to move rather than remain static can pace, doodle, or otherwise release energy while they listen. So often, my kids who self-confessed to hating reading tell me that what they really hate is sitting still. So providing them with a way to listen while moving, has enormous benefits. And that just speaks to the benefit of one learning difference; now consider the many ways audiobooks can support children with a variety of learning needs. Provide new strategies for teaching reading. I can now pull out segments of text to use with a student knowing that they have the proper background knowledge, which is a key component when we build understanding. I do not have to reference the entire text but instead can have them focus on the skill at hand. This, therefore, allows me to support their comprehension growth more efficiently. Give us a gateway into reading with their eyes. Oftentimes, my developing readers harbor enormous hesitancy when it comes to veering out of their known text. They are quick to dismiss, abandon, and feign disinterest, all in the interest of saving face and avoiding yet another reading disappointment. However, many students finding success within the audiobook world are building their courage, their stamina, and their desire to pick up print texts. I could list more reasons, such as being exposed to amazing fluency, students feeling like they have relevant thoughts when it comes to discussion, building overall reading self-esteem, planting high-interest books in the hands of students, and even changing the reading dynamics within a classroom. In the end, I wonder whether it really matters if having students read audiobooks is cognitively not precisely the same as when they read with their eyes. If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education. She is an international speaker and education developer, working with educators in need of better learning conditions, literacy instruction, and overall school experiences for children and adults on a global plane. She is also the founder of The Global Read Aloud which has connected millions of students in more than 85 countries. She believes in having the courage to change and even break the rules for the good of kids and education. Besides being with her own family, there is no place she would rather be than alongside children and educators fighting for change in the world. You can find her across social media platforms easily.	If our true goal of teaching reading is to make students fall in love with books, then audiobooks are a must for our classrooms. And so is the notion that they count as real reading. We should no longer denounce or diminish the very thing that can make the biggest difference to some of our students. In fact, excluding audiobooks from the definition of “reading” perpetuates an ableist mindset that overlooks the needs of individuals with disabilities, and can have negative consequences for the very children we say we care for. And so it is time to change our tune as educational communities. That boy who asked for another book started listening to All American Boys next. That boy who has faced discrimination, and judgment, and despite this has tried to rise above it all by being an amazing kid every single day. He is now reading a book that may make a huge impact on his life. That may offer him tools if he ever were to face a similar situation. And he wouldn’t have been able to before. That book would have been so far out of his zone of proximal development that he would have been robbed of the experience for a long while yet. But not anymore; he feels like a reader now. And he is proudly telling everyone he meets about the books he has read. Free audiobook with membership When you sign up for a new monthly membership in support of your local bookshop with the code CHOOSEINDIE, we’ll give you a bonus audiobook! That means you’ll have 2 audiobook credits to redeem from the start. The Author Pernille Ripp Since Pernille Ripp (she/her) was a child growing up in Denmark, she knew she wanted to work with kids. She has loved being a 4th, 5th, and 7th-grade teacher in the American public school system, as well as a literacy coach for adults. In her co-created teaching spaces, students’ identities are at the center of their explorations, as well as considering how to fight for change. Recently, Pernille moved home to Denmark where she is expanding her knowledge about children’s development and needs through her work in early childhood education.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/audiobooks-count-as-reading-37103487	Audiobooks Count as Reading — Why to Listen to an Audiobook ...	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread. “The act of digesting a story is different [with audiobooks], but the skills you use are the same,” Smith says. “You still need to form sentences in your head and create a picture of the story; it’s [just] coming to you from a different medium.” Catherine Wilde is a life coach, author of the book “Reclaim Your Inner Sparkle,” and founder of SoulCareMom. As a busy working mother who homeschools her children, she doesn’t always have time for the “luxury” of reading physical books, so she relies on audiobooks, particularly nonfiction ones that will continue to develop her abilities. “The experience is different, admittedly,” says Wilde. “But when absorbing nonfiction in particular, if the audiobook in question is narrated by the author, the experience is magical and even ethereal.” I agree. While I do listen to a lot of fiction, I also like books about entrepreneurship and personal growth. It’s energizing to hear the words come straight from the author’s mouths. (Pro tip: I bump up the reading speed a bit, and the authors sound urgent and even more empowering!) I’m also on a celebrity memoir kick of late, and when given the option to read Pete Townshend’s book detailing his years with The Who or hear him read it in his melodic British accent, which do you think I’m going to choose? Literacy and Accessibility Not everyone has the ability to read physical books, which is another reason I’m in love with audiobooks. “Listening to audiobooks can be a richer experience, but it also engages different senses, and that makes it great for accessibility,” says Tanja Hester, award-winning author of “Work Optional: Retire Early the Non-Penny-Pinching Way” and creator of the Our Next Life blog. “Though I love reading books, I often struggle to sit down and read, something I learned is connected to my ADHD,” Hester says. “But I can easily get immersed in audiobooks, and I now read many more books this way.” She also notes that she has friends who have dyslexia and also find audiobooks to be more accessible. “Anyone who gets snobby about audiobooks not being ‘real books’ is completely ignoring the vast majority of human and literary history, in which most people ‘read’ by having stories or lyric poems told or recited to them,” Hester says. “It’s a fairly recent phenomenon for most of the population to be able to read!” Peter Cox, author, literary agent, and founder of Litopia (the world’s oldest online community for writers) agrees. “I’m constantly telling writers not to become entirely fixated by the written word,” he says. “The oral tradition predates writing, obviously. Audiobooks are simply a continuation of that.” Don’t Knock it Until You Try It Still put off by the word “read” when it comes to audiobooks? Then let me swap in the word “consume” instead. I happily consume books, whether they are print, digital, or audio. Although they are calorie-free, books in every form are part of my daily diet. If you haven’t tried one of the audiobook platforms out there, allow me to recommend my favorite, LibroFM. When you sign up for an account, you can choose an independent bookstore to support with each purchase. (I proudly support Books Are Magic in Brooklyn, NY). Everyone is welcome to their opinion. But whether I turn to the last page of a book or listen to the last seconds of its audio version, it is ready to be checked off my to-be-read list. “Even with higher literacy rates now, gatekeeping what counts as reading only does harm,” Hester says. “Audiobooks are great, and so are graphic novels and anything else that give people multiple ways to engage with written work.”	Yes, Audiobooks Count as Reading — Here’s Why You Should Add Some to Your Reading List Barbara Bellesi Zito is a freelance writer from Staten Island, covering all things real estate and home improvement. When she's not watching house flipping shows or dreaming about buying a vacation home, she writes fiction. Barbara's debut novel is due out later this year. Social media can be a minefield of controversy, which is why I do my best to follow people who only post cute doggie photos, hilarious videos, and reading recommendations. #Bookstagram, that subset of Instagram where book lovers post about all things literary, is one of my happy places. So imagine my surprise when I unwittingly wandered into a conversation about audiobooks that quickly turned into a heated discussion — albeit a civil one amongst well-read individuals — about whether audiobooks “count” as reading. My opinion? They sure do. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that unless you are holding a book (or tablet) in your hands, it doesn’t count as reading. Even though I consider myself a visual learner, I find audiobooks to be a wholly satisfying experience. The words don’t just wash over me like song lyrics or podcast chatter. I have found that I can discuss listened-to audiobooks in depth with others who have read the physical version, so I know the author’s words are sinking in. A Different Version of the Reading Experience “Listening to audiobooks is the same as reading, because you still have to listen word-for-word to make up the narrative,” says Louisa Smith, editor and founder at Epic Book Society. “Listening to an audiobook requires the same level of attention as reading — if you miss a few sentences, suddenly the whole book might not make sense.” I’ve found this to be true, and I won’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten distracted and had to hit the back button on my phone when I’m listening. I equate it to zoning out while reading a physical book and having to turn back a page to reread.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.readbrightly.com/when-to-read-kids-audiobooks/	Not Just for Car Rides: When to 'Read' Kids' Audiobooks at Home ...	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!) and makes the experience less awful, even if they have to go back to the physical book to do the annotations. To Tackle Harder Books When an assigned book or even a book a child wants to read on their own is too challenging to comprehend, listen to it instead. This works because a child’s listening comprehension is almost always more advanced than their visual reading comprehension. I’d also suggest this as an option for books written in old-fashioned language or dialect. Using Kids’ Audiobooks in the Classroom I’m in awe of the teachers and librarians who creatively work within limited budgets to give kids access to audiobooks. They’ll use Overdrive, Audible, Epic, or Tales 2 Go to provide the books. Then kids will listen on computers, phones, iPods, or iPads. Here are three ideas for when to use audiobooks in the classroom: To Increase the Number of Books Read In the classroom, some teachers alternate between reading by sight and reading by ear. This benefits all kids. Just like any reading of books, it builds vocabulary, improves writing skills, develops concentration, increases an understanding of self and the world, grows imaginations, and improves school achievement. For children who don’t speak English as their first language, aren’t enthusiastic readers, or have slower processing speeds, listening to books can dramatically increase their time spent in books. Take my oldest daughter, who has a slow processing speed. For her, reading books is cumbersome — it takes forever. However, reading by ear allows her to read more. (Interestingly enough, she’ll often read the physical book after she’s listened to it.) To Model Fluency Just like reading aloud to kids models oral reading fluency, listening to audiobooks does it, too. It’s particularly delightful when the author reads their books as Mary Pope Osborne does for her Magic Tree House series. As kids listen, they’ll hear the narrator’s pauses, loud and soft places, and different voices for dialogue. Ask kids to evaluate the narrator’s inflection. Do they like the narrator’s style or do they find it unappealing? Why? This analysis adds another layer of thinking skills to the listening experience. Then have kids practice their own oral fluency by making their own audiobook. (If they’re reading a picture book, do a video recording so they can show the illustrations.) As a Gateway to Different Books and Genres When readers prefer a specific genre or format, audiobooks can introduce them to other types of stories. I had a fifth grade student who only read nonfiction (mostly the encyclopedia!) but when she and some classmates listened to The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, it opened her eyes to the possibilities of chapter books. (Thank you, audiobooks!) The same goes for kids who are addicted to fantasy but haven’t tried historical fiction or sci-fi. In many instances, audiobooks can spark an interest in reading new genres. Any audiobook is a great place to start, but you can find our favorite audiobook recommendations here.	Not Just for Car Rides: When to ‘Read’ Kids’ Audiobooks at Home and in the Classroom by Melissa Taylor Audiobooks are a staple in my family — and they have been since my kids were little. We don’t only listen to them in the car though. In my house, you might see us listening in the kitchen while snacking, in the bedrooms while drawing, or in the living room while putting together a puzzle. And these aren’t just fluff activities. As a teacher and a mom, I’ve found that audiobooks can be used in a variety of settings for specific learning purposes both at home and in the classroom. Before I get to that, let me explain how audiobooks count as “real” reading. Listening to a story, just like reading one, requires children to use reading comprehension skills. Listeners make connections, visualize, determine importance, make predictions, ask questions, and synthesize. Do not exclude the experience as authentic reading just because children aren’t reading with their eyes and decoding the words. During Quiet Time When my kids stopped napping, I realized that they could still have quiet time in their rooms with an audiobook. They could play, draw, build, and move while listening to stories. This practiced their listening skills as well as built background knowledge and vocabulary. At Bedtime Then there is bedtime. Since I don’t want to miss a day of reading out loud to my kids, audiobooks can pinch-hit as bedtime stories on those I’m-going-to-fall-asleep-while-reading nights. We don’t use them every night, of course, but I consider them helpful backup. To Get Assigned Reading from School Done As you know, elementary and middle school teachers often assign nightly reading minutes. Try an audiobook some days. My kids do — and it’s okay with their teachers. Most teachers (not all) allow audiobooks to count as minutes read. Check with your child’s teacher to be sure. Then there are those dreaded assigned books. Kids don’t generally get excited to read books they haven’t personally chosen — my oldest daughter included. For her and kids like her, listening to assigned books on audiobooks gets the reading done (phew!)	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://bookshelffantasies.com/2015/12/19/the-audiobook-debate-what-counts-as-reading/	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? \| Bookshelf ...	The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading? Earlier this week, a close friend (and one of my favorite book people – a true BBF) was moaning to me about her progress toward her Goodreads goal. Only two weeks left in December, and she’s still short 12 books! She’s planning to take a bunch of smaller books and graphic novels with her on her family holiday trip, so it’s likely she’ll make her total by the end of the year. I’ve already passed my goal (okay, I did read a lot of graphic novels this year!), and as I was talking to my friend about some of the books that pushed me over the top, numbers-wise, I mentioned Uprooted by Naomi Novik, one of my favorite audiobooks of the year. The conversation took a sudden and unexpected turn: BBF: You count audiobooks? Me: Yes. (Of course! I added in my head.) BBF: But that’s not reading! Me: Oh yes it is! BBF: Nuh-uh! Me: Yuh-huh! We didn’t stick out our tongues at each other… but in terms of childish behavior, we came close! So what is reading? What “counts”? The primary definition of the verb “read”, according to Dictionary.com, is: to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of (something written, printed, etc.): to read a book; to read music. Okay, that one focuses on the written/printed word. Here’s definition #2: to utter aloud or render in speech (something written, printed, etc.): reading a story to his children; The actor read his lines in a booming voice. Hmm. That’s the act of reading aloud. When my son was younger, I read to him all the time, even up to age 12, when we read together such books as Eragon and The Hobbit. I had never read Eragon before, and as I read it to my son, I was reading it for myself as well. But back to the original question: Is listening to a book the same as reading a book? Do your eyes have to be involved in order to have read something? What about someone who’s vision-impaired? Using a Braille book seems to obviously be reading… but what if they don’t know Braille? What if they can only enjoy books that they listen to? Does that count as reading? I’ve become a big fan of audiobooks in the past few years, so my take on the issue is pretty clear-cut. For me, whether I’ve used my eyes or my ears, my brain is certainly involved, and either way, I’m absorbing a story, ideas, plotlines, themes, and more. I suppose I’d be in favor of a more expansive definition of reading, along the lines of: Using one’s senses to take in the content of a book. (Okay, let’s agree to exclude taste and smell from the above! I love the smell of a bookstore, but sniffing books definitely isn’t reading! And I don’t recommend eating them either.) Of course, as I probably should have said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks when it comes to Goodreads stats. I’ve seen people argue about all sorts of things “counting” as real books, such as novellas, graphic novels, and re-reads. I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it. The little hurdles made me read more. Audiobooks definitely count as reading! You are absorbing a story either way, & that’s the truly important part. Personally, I tend to read over listen. It just works better with my life. But there are certain books that I feel I understand better through listening. I listened to Pride and Prejudice, & I think hearing the sentences made the grammar/wording much less confusing. I am also a huge fan of books turned into audio-dramas. Do you have any opinions on those? I listened to all of the Jane Austen books via audio this year, and I have to agree with your comments about P&P. Especially with Emma — I think I appreciated it so much more as an audiobook than when I read it in print. Something about the skill of the narrator, I think — I’d just never realized how totally laugh-out-loud funny the book is! I haven’t actually listened to any audio-dramas yet, although I do have a couple in my queue. Are there any in particular that you recommend? I have a lot from Focus on the Family Radio Theatre. A few of my favorites are: The Chronicles of Narnia series, Les Miserables, Little Women, and Oliver Twist. I don’t know of any audio drama companies that produce ADs for more recently pubished works. Most of these were gifts from my Grandfather though, so maybe I’ll ask if he has any recommendations for other AD producers. Love audiobooks and definitely count them as stories ‘read’. I have both audio and paper books going at all times but when the eyes are tired, driving in the car or doing chores and errands, audiobooks are wonderful. I even have a headband earbud that I use when I go to bed. If I fall asleep, just hit rewind in the a.m. I agree! To me, audiobooks definitely count as reading. I mean, you are using your ears instead of eyes but you still absorb the story. Except for your own voice reading inside your head, you have someone else’s (that sounded really creepy suddenly). I have never understood why some people don’t count it as reading. I don’t really get it either — although for my friend who disagreed with me on this, she’s never actually listened to a whole audiobook, even though she’s a totally avid reader of print books. Maybe those who don’t “count” them just haven’t given them a shot? I think that’s definitely possible. I do think that a lot of people underestimate audiobooks? Before I started listening to them, I never realized just how long it takes. How much of an undertaking it really is, if you know what I mean Audiobooks certainly count for me! If I have listened to it, it doesn’t make sense for me to then go read it in the regular fashion for it to “count”.and if it doesn’t count, I suppose visually impaired people who listen to audiobooks haven’t read a thing. I think that the people who quibble over things like including audiobooks on Goodreads must not have a lot of fun reading to begin with. Cheers 🙂 I think listening to audiobooks counts as “reading’ since you are experiencing the story, absorbing the information, and otherwise engaging with the text. For some reason we seem focused on experiencing things visually or textually, but I think other cultures that transmitted stories orally or read to each other aloud more (we seem to do this mostly for children now, like listening to a story is something adults don’t do) would find our print-based culture strange. Anyway, the Goodreads challenge is for fun. The only reason I could think of for an audiobook not to “count” is if you were trying to challenge a reader to become more engaged with print, with the assumption that audiobooks won’t be available for every text so you want to help him/her to become more comfortable reading plain text. There also seems to be an assumption here that listening to a book is easier than reading it, which is intriguing. I know that audiobooks are used to encourage reluctant readers or help readers who might not be reading at grade level. But…I actually find it easier to absorb information and follow a story if I am reading it rather than listening to it. It’s easier for me to concentrate solely on the text and easier to reread, skim, take notes, etc. I control the experience more if I’m reading the text. So I think we can’t really assume that listening is taking the easy way out. Listening is merely a different way of experiencing a text; it’s not necessarily a better or a worse way. Hmm, good point about oral traditions, and how storytelling seems so pigeon-holed for children these days. I agree, too, about listening being a different way of experiencing a text, not necessarily an easier way. I do have a hard time focusing sometimes when I’m listening, and I’ll end up replaying sections if they were complicated or if my mind wandered. (I’ve learned by now to pause the story if I’m driving and need to find parking — my brain apparently can’t handle searching for a space and concentrating on a story at the same time.) I don’t understand why people don’t count them. It’s not like you watched the movie and then counted it or you read spark notes and counted it. You’re getting the full written word and experiencing the story. It’s definitely reading. I can’t listen to them because I tune out so it isn’t even like I’m saying they count because I like them. I actually don’t like audiobooks at all. I do wish that listeners would read some of the time because so much can be gained by reading new words and seeing it, but listening counts as reading in my opinion. Most people I know who listen to audiobooks also read print books — just different media for different times/situations. As an audiobook fan, it really shocked me to hear that some people don’t consider them reading — I certainly do! I’m not an audiobook listener, so I can’t really speak on the subject with such confidence. My issue with audiobooks is that I can’t focus on listening someone read to me–I tend to tune them out (a bad childhood habit?) and then once I focus back in on the words, I forget what had happened earlier. So while I might not count audiobooks for myself, if others find they can listen and concentrate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count. Just my two cents! Thanks for sharing! Funny, as a kid, I couldn’t listen to people reading without falling asleep… but I feel like I’ve gotten better at focusing on audiobooks now that I’ve been doing it for a few years. 🙂 There is absolutely no question in my mind, audiobooks = reading! I’m a librarian. When we run the Summer Reading Program for kids in the summer, if a child listened to an audiobook, it’s reading. Graphic novels count as well. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on how short or long a book is. Or even on numbers at all. A book can be amazing and only be 30 pages (picture books!) and it can be crap an be 600 pages. Reading about story, and using your brain to understand the story, whether it’s read to you or you read it on your own. Whether there are pictures or not. Oh, for the love… YES IT COUNTS! I agree that what other people thing “counts” is really irrelevant, but these debates still come up. Debating is not a bad thing, I just have a really hard time understanding the other side when it comes to this particular debate. As an avid reader who sometimes doesn’t have the time to read print books, audiobooks are such a great way to read (yes, read!) more stories during times I can necessarily sit still. I count everything for my yearly GR challenge, even pictures books and I really don’t care if anyone has an issue with that. My goal was waaaaaay higher this year (and will be next year) because those are a type of book I am reading at this stage in my life. So my goals reflect the types of books I plan to be reading — I sure as heck wouldn’t set a 250 or 300 book goal if I were only reading novels. Sorry if this got a little negative — we should all count our books however we want and that is that! Very true — it’s so individual! I was just so surprised to learn that this is even an issue. I tend not to do many challenges, but I do like the Goodreads annual challenge, mostly because it’s just for my own satisfaction. Like you, my goal reflects what I expect to read, so I always push the number higher to allow for graphic novels, kids’ books, etc. When I was listening to an audiobook earlier this year, someone said that same thing to me. But they are so wrong: of course it counts as reading!!! The fact that you aren’t looking at the page doesn’t mean anything. Thursday Quotables Outlander Book Club A place to discuss the wonderful works of Diana Gabaldon, plus so much more! All are welcome. By the Numbers: 693,854 views Disclaimer: I occasionally receive review copies of books from publishers or via NetGalley. For all reviews, the source of the book I’m reviewing is identified in the details section at the start of the review. All reviews reflect my honest opinions, regardless of source. Affiliate Disclaimer: Posts on Bookshelf Fantasies may contain links to affiliate websites. We receive a commission on purchases you make on these websites through these links.	I take a pretty lenient approach with myself: If I feel like I’ve read something, then I have! And that includes all of the above. Yes, in my opinion, if I’ve listened to an audiobook, then I’ve read the book. Period. Where do you stand on the issue? Are audiobooks books? Does listening “count” as reading? And would you (or do you) include audiobooks in your list of books read in a year? 33 thoughts on “The audiobook debate: What “counts” as reading?” A very interesting topic for debate! I am one of those people who count audiobooks as reading – I think a story experienced from start to finish is by my definition a book read. I always say I have read The Hobbit, but actually my dad read it aloud to me as a child – I still visualised the story and made it my own. I’m curious to see other people’s opinions on this! I completely agree. You still know the plot, characters, themes and main take away from listening dont you, so it counts. Also, some books I think are better as an audiobook. For instance I just listened to Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari. He narrated it as well and it was hilarious. In fact, I just got a new audible credit and I am shopping for an audiobook right now! Ooh, I love Audible credits! I agree, some books really are better listened to. I’m loving a mystery series right now, and after four books, I don’t think I could read the printed version. I’ve become so hooked on the different voices the narrator uses for the recurring characters! Without a doubt I count reading aloud or listening to audiobooks. The only thing I dont count is if I reread a book in the same year (Dumplin` and Ready Player One). As long as i spent the time to listen or read with my eyes the book I will count it. I use to stress about the GR Goal but I lowered my goal to 25 and blew past it, then uped it to 50 and now I`m passed it.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.pagesandleaves.com/post/unpopular-opinion-audiobooks	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading!	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings. You will want to make sure your plant isn’t in a pot that is too big or doesn’t have the proper drainage. Nursery pots are the best and they’re free (if you never throw them away when you repot a plant). Don’t leave the cuttings in water for too long. I have found the roots get a little bit too soft. It depends on the plant but it can get nice roots (about 1-3 inches)with it being in water for about 2-3 weeks. Make sure the plant and the water is getting proper lightning. You will still want the leaves of the plant to stay healthy. SOIL MIX IS VERY IMPORTANT (all caps to emphasize just how important). My soil mix includes 1 part Miracle Gro potting mix, 1 part Miracle Gro succulent potting mix, and a cup of perlite. Super basic but super successful. After you transfer your cutting into soil, you will want to make sure the soil stays moist but also don’t drown it. We don’t want those new roots to go into shock. Biggest tip of all: PRAY and have back up cuttings in water ready to go, JUST in case it doesn’t work out. Reason 3: Some books sound better narrated. I love a physical book but there have been SOOOO many audiobooks, with the help of some bomb narrators, that have truly transformed my reading experience. For the record, this blog STANS Bahni Turpin and Elizabeth Acevedo. I really got into audiobooks last year and at one point I was looking for books narrated specifically by these women. Voice acting is a skill. These narrators can make you feel and evoke the emotion the author intended for their readers. Some narrators are a hit or miss though but it’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I don’t like their voice, I’ll revert back to the trusty voice in my head and read the physical or e-book copy. Reason 4: If I still haven’t convinced you to try out audiobooks, could I also add: they can be free! I listen to audiobooks by checking them out through my local library via the Libby app. I'm able to take them wherever I go. They are downloaded directly to my phone so if for some reason I lose internet connection, the reading continues. If you need some recommendations, here are some of my favorites of all time: I challenge you to listen to at least 10 minutes of one of these books and if you aren’t hooked, I’ll cut an aglet off my least favorite hoodie! But at the end of the day, books are to be consumed in whatever way YOU see fit. Don’t let anyone shame what you read and how you choose to read it. Read on, folks! Do you enjoy audiobooks? If so, what are your faves? If not, how do you prefer to read? Do you have any plant propagation tips?	Unpopular Opinion: Audiobooks DO Count as Reading! Controversy on my blog already? Let’s be honest, some of the divisive topics in the bookish community seem trivial in the grand scheme of things: paperback vs. hardback, book consumerism vs. supporting local libraries, Kindle vs. Nook and the most contentious of all audiobooks vs. physical books. Nothing can stir up trouble more than the debate about audiobooks. “Are you truly reading if you’re listening to an audiobook?” “It doesn’t count”. “you’re being lazy!”. So to all people who suggest that audiobooks don’t count as “real” books: mind your business. HAHAHA I’m totally kind of kidding. But in all seriousness, here is why I love and will always advocate for audiobooks: Reason 1: If we consider some facets of reading, namely comprehension, listening to a book is a way for us to comprehend it as well. Think about children who have not began reading independently or may not have mastered the skill of reading. Parents who read to their children expose them to sounds the words make and before a child starts to read on their own, they have experienced many worlds. Audiobooks afford us the same opportunity. When you think about it, audiobooks are just bedtime stories that can be read to you at all hours of the day. Reason 2: Audiobooks are pro-multitasking. They are a busy bookworm’s dream. While I listen to audiobooks I: commute to work, do my chores, walk my dog, lesson plan, and tend to my houseplants. Potting my plants and listening to audiobooks is honestly a form of therapy for me. When listening to the right book, I can feel as if I’m in another world while simultaneously nurturing a living thing. In my last blog post, I mentioned some of the plants I have propagated in water. It took me some time to get a system going but I have figured out how to successfully transfer a rooted cutting from water to soil. If you’re going to try it out, here are some of my tips: Re-use nursery pots when transferring your cuttings.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://allonsythornraxxbooks.com/2019/02/08/book-vices-audiobooks/	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY ...	BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES) Hey guys, welcome back to my blog! Today I’m coming at you with a new Book Vices post, and today I’m talking about why I love audiobooks, and why some people don’t! I’ve tried to be completely fair for each side, so I’ve included arguments from each side, against and for audiobooks. Most of these arguments are pretty good, needing a bank card, characters having the same voice, money, getting distracted. They’re all problems I have to. I get distracted when I listen to audiobooks too, for example, I was trying to listen to The Hobbit on audio this morning and was struggling with it. But, I think that’s mostly down to the author’s writing and I think I would have a similar issue if I was reading physically. For me, getting distracted usually has more to do with me or the writing than the actual audiobook, itself. As for money, I agree. Audiobooks can be pretty expensive. If you buy them physically on a CD they’re usually ($AUS) $50-100 per book [link]. So, you really would be racking up a debt that way. But, I buy my audiobooks via Audible which often has sales and ebook/audio deals. If I don’t buy the audiobook, however, I get the audiobook from my library for free. As for the other arguments like not being able to skip ahead or go back, not liking the narrator, the book being too long/slow & being able to read faster than listening. I use Libby & Audible and with those apps you can change the speed (I usually prefer 1.75x. 2.00x and 2.15x), you can set a sleep timer in case you think you might get tired, you can skip backwards and forwards, and you can bookmark whatever you’re reading. In terms of not liking the narrator though, I get that and narrators will often deter me from reading a book – if I don’t like the narrator it can ruin the whole experience but, some books, particularly with popular authors & classics, there are multiple versions to listen to so you can choose a different narrator. MY ARGUMENT FOR AUDIOBOOKS You can adjust the speed at which you listen to your book Most library systems (physical libraries, Libby, Overdrive) have audiobooks available for free Handy for long distance travel (work, holiday, school etc) Won’t weigh down your bag Not everyone has the luxury of being able to sit down and read for a few hours every day, so audiobooks are a good way to still get some reading in [link] It’s really ableist to say that audio isn’t a way to read. You can still be a reader if you can’t see the words. Helpful for pronunciation if you’re trying to learn a new language – you can always follow along with the physical book Often authors will narrate their own book (popular with memoirs) so you can hear the book exactly how they meant for it to be told. Often audiobooks for classics are available in the public domain (YouTube has a bunch) Some people learn better aurally than visually It’s environmentally friendly – no paper or ink Audiobooks are great for the people who don’t like reading in general but have to read a book whether that be for school or because they’re being dragged into a book club. I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read. So yes, I think audiobooks do count as reading even though I don’t read audiobooks myself. I can completely understand that and I do struggle with getting distracted with some audiobooks, I think it’s usually down to the writing or narrator when I can’t concentrate on the audiobook. I’m jealous of #2, I can never stick to a podcast, I always forget about them and stop listening! Reading audiobooks is amazing if it’s your only option and you have the means to acquire them, but reading in any form is amazing in itself! I usually listen to podcasts when I get changed in the morning and plan in my bullet journal. But there are too many amazing podcasts out there and I could never listen to all of them and catch up with the latest episodes. 😂 Yeah, the not really reading it thing is stupid. I wrote a blog post about it, but I agree that the point shouldn’t be “are you eyes looking at words?” unless we’re talking about school and actually trying to get a student to develop reading skills. Otherwise, you heard and comprehended and thought about the text. It’s reading. But I don’t like audiobooks because I can’t focus, they’re slow, and half the narrators annoy me. :p Exactly, as long as you’re taking and understanding the content, it should still count as reading. I mean, we’ll never win though because there are people who don’t count using an e-reader as reading. I can totally understand that. I usually recommend trying to listen to your favourite book on audio if you can’t concentrate but, if you don’t like audiobooks you don’t like audiobooks. Also, yes, a bad narrator can RUIN a good book. I don’t use audiobooks only because I don’t think they’d work for me and I have no need for them. I’m homebound, the only place I ever go is the Dr’s (and I don’t drive so I can read an ebook or physical book), and I have trouble focusing on stuff like that (which is a me thing, not the book). However they do very much count as reading and i’m so happy for all the people they work for! Maybe i’ll try them one day and find out i’m wrong about them not working for me. It’s definitely ableist to say audiobooks don’t count. Audiobooks, ebooks, physical books, it all counts as reading. A story is making a way into your noggin in any form. 🙂 I can completely understand that! I have 2 hr trips to and from school so I find audiobooks really helpful because I don’t have to take the physical book with me, but if I was at home more throughout the book I would probably listen to fewer audiobooks too. If you ever try an audiobook out I recommend listening to an excerpt first to see if you like the narrator and then listening to a book you know really well. When I first tried them I listened to the Harry Potter series because I was already familiar with the plot & characters so if I missed a bit it didn’t matter as much. I agree everything should count as reading and it makes no sense to say otherwise! Thank you for linking to me post 😊 As you know, personally I can’t concentrate on Audiobooks because I am easily distracted 🙈 But it doesn’t mean that listening to audiobooks is not reading. It off course is. As far as you are able to grab a story and words, you are reading. I hate people who judge others because of their reading medium. I wanted to include your post to try and give a balance to each argument because audiobooks aren’t for everyone and I respect that. I think reading is reading and ebooks and audiobooks should always count. I agree, judging people because of how they read is a horrible thing to do! I definitely think listening to an audiobook counts as reading! I’ve only ever listened to a few audiobooks because I have the unfortunate habit of spacing out suuuper quickly. Next thing I know I’m two chapters later and I can’t remember what’s been said 😅 I agree, I think if you’ve tried a variety of audiobooks or at least sampled a few chapters from different narrators then you have the right to an opinion. But if you’ve never tried an audiobook can you butt your nose out, please? Exactly, libraries have audiobooks for free and it’s amazing! (I had no idea that was considered fast! 🙈 I’ve actually been listening to a few on 2.15x lately so maybe I do have superpowers???) 😂😂😂	I’m an avid audiobook listener so of course, I think the pros outweigh the cons. I really think that audiobooks are a great option as a way to read books. Physically reading books – whether it be in your hand, on a tablet or through braille is always amazing. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons because as long as you have a library around problems like money aren’t as much of a problem reading-wise. Yes, there’s still somewhat of an issue if you have trouble concentrating hearing the words versus reading them physically. So, to go back to the question in the title of this post: do audiobooks count as reading? The answer should always be yes: reading on your phone vs reading a physical book with real pages & ink vs listening to a book through your headphones. They all count as reading because no matter what, you’re absorbing the story, you’re taking in the plot and learning about the characters. Reading in any form counts as reading. 20 thoughts on “BOOK VICES: THE PROS & CONS OF AUDIOBOOKS + DO THEY COUNT AS READING? (ANSWER: YES)” Thank you for this! I totally get that audio books aren’t for everyone, but of course they count as reading. It’s absurd that some actually think it’s controversial, it only serves as “gate-keeping” from the book community. It’s like people that don’t count crime novels and YA as “real-books” lmao Savannah go and read your leatherbounds Personally, I don’t read audiobooks because 1. I get distracted too easily and 2. I have too many podcasts to catch up with. But I do respect those who read audiobooks and I have also heard a lot about how audiobooks help people with reading when they just don’t have the time to sit down and take out a physical book to read.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/audiobooks-better-than-reading.html	Opinion \| When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It - The ...	When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It Over the past few years, I have been obsessed with the work of the Australian novelist Liane Moriarty. Yes, me and everyone else. Ever since her 2014 blockbuster, “Big Little Lies,” Moriarty has become one of the publishing industry’s most dependable hitmakers. Although her prose is unflashy and her subject matter seemingly pedestrian — Moriarty writes tightly plotted domestic dramas about middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites — her observations are so precise, her characters’ psychology so well realized that I often find her stories burrowing deep into my brain and taking up long, noisy residence there. It’s no wonder Hollywood has been snapping up her books as quickly as she can write them. “Big Little Lies” and her 2018 hit, “Nine Perfect Strangers,” have been turned into limited series for TV. Moriarty’s enthralling new novel, “Apples Never Fall,” which debuted last month at the top of the Times best-seller list, may also be heading to a streaming service near you. But now a confession: I heap all this praise on Moriarty having technically never read a word she’s written. Instead, I have only listened. The English audiobook versions of her novels are read by Caroline Lee, a narrator whose crystalline Australian cadences add to Moriarty’s stories what salt adds to a stew — necessary depth and dimension. Lee’s voice is an irresistible, visceral joy; like the best audiobook narrators, her delivery is endlessly malleable, shifting nimbly across accent, register and tone to create a sense that one is inside the story rather than peering in from the outside. I binged “Apples Never Fall” in a day and a half, and when I was done, I began to wonder who deserved the greater share of praise — the author or the narrator. It’s true that Moriarty’s books are difficult to put down, but would I have been as deeply hooked if they weren’t cooed by a voice that could make the Federal Register sound compelling? But if Lee’s narration really does so completely elevate Moriarty’s text, what about the people who had read the book rather than listened to Lee read it? Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone. In fact, it is the rare memoir that doesn’t work better as audio than as text. A fine recent example is “Greenlights,” by the actor Matthew McConaughey. As text, his story is discursive and sometimes indulgent, but as audio, in his strange and irresistible staccato speaking style, it exemplifies exactly the kind of weirdness that makes him so intriguing as an actor and celebrity. As I listened to “Greenlights,” I realized how much extratextual theater was going on; there’s a way in which McConaughey, through his delivery, conveys emotion that is almost entirely absent from his text. Recently I have been telling everyone I know to listen to “The Last Black Unicorn,” the comedian Tiffany Haddish’s account of her rough childhood in the foster system and the many hardships she endured on the way to making it big in show business. Her narrative is compelling enough, but she is one of the best stand-up comedians working today, so it’s hardly a surprise that the tragedy and the hilarity of her story are punched up by her delivery in the audiobook. There is a riotous extended section in the memoir about her elaborate revenge plot on a boyfriend who’d cheated on her; I pity anyone who only read Haddish’s text, because the way she explains the various parts of her plan had me laughing to tears. As spoken-word audio has taken off, the publishing industry and Amazon, whose Audible subsidiary is the audiobook business’s dominant force, have invested heavily in the medium. Now audiobooks often benefit from high-end production and big-name voice talent, and there are innovations in digital audio — like spatially rendered sound, which gives listeners a sense of being surrounded by audio — that may turn audiobooks into something like radio dramas. Still, as popular as audiobooks have become, I suspect there will remain some consternation about their rise, especially from book lovers who worry that audio is somehow eclipsing the ancient sanctity of text and print. But that is a myopic view. Telling stories, after all, is an even older form of human entertainment than reading and writing stories. Banish any guilt you might harbor about listening instead of reading. Audiobooks are not to be feared; they do not portend the death of literature on the altar of modern convenience. Their popularity is a sign, rather, of the endurance of stories and of storytelling. Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone. If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call. Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @fmanjoo•Facebook A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: When Listening to a Book Is Better Than Reading It. Order Reprints \| Today’s Paper \| Subscribe	Hadn’t they missed something crucial? When the market for audiobooks began to skyrocket in about the past decade, people would sometimes wonder whether they counted — that is, when you listened to the book, could you say that you had read it? It was a mostly silly metaphysical debate (in the vein of Have you really been to a city if you’ve only flown through its airport? or If you replace an ax’s handle and then you replace its blade, do you have the same ax?), but the question illustrated a deep cultural bias. The audio version of a book was often considered a CliffsNotes-type shortcut. It was acceptable in a pinch, but as a matter of cultural value, audio ranked somewhere lower than the real, printed thing. I rise now to liberate the audiobook from the murky shadow of text. Audiobooks aren’t cheating. They aren’t a just-add-water shortcut to cheap intellectualism. For so many titles in this heyday of audio entertainment, it’s not crazy to ask the opposite: Compared to the depth that can be conveyed via audio, does the flat text version count? Obviously, there are writers and subjects that translate poorly to audio; writers who excel at a kind of textual virtuosity, like David Foster Wallace, are better read than listened to. I have also had trouble listening to dense, especially technical books, mainly because audiobooks are often consumed while multitasking. (For me, there are few greater pleasures than cooking while listening to a book.) Yet there are just as many books that achieve a resonance via the spoken word that their text alone cannot fully deliver. Listening to a book is not only just as good as reading it. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s better. For a certain kind of literary snob, them’s fighting words, I know. But consider one of the publishing industry’s most popular genres, the memoir. When they’re read by the author, I’ve noticed that audio versions of memoirs sparkle with an authenticity often missing in the text alone.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://www.tlbranson.com/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading/	Do audiobooks count as reading? \| YA Fantasy Blog	Now before you flood my comments with arguments let’s break this discussion down. The Literal Meaning of the Question I’m going to entertain the argumentative folks out there for a minute. You know the type. Those folks who know what you really mean, but decide to play Devil’s advocate for the fun of it. Yeah, I’m talking to you. Let’s dissect the question again, thinking about it literally. “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Two words in that question are important here. The first is the word “audio” and the second is the word “read.” Can you read audio? Well…no. No you cannot. You can read the subtitles of your favorite music video, but that still implies a medium that is visual. Strictly speaking, audio cannot be read. Are you happy now? Do you feel vindicated in some way that your hyper analytical and argumentative response has somehow been validated? Ah, but you’ve forgot one very important thing: The presence of a third word in that question that is crucial to our interpretation. That’s the word “book.” When finishing an audiobook you are finishing a book. Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes. Listening to an audiobook and reading the physical book are different. Not just in medium, but in experience. When you read a book, you create the voices of the characters, you interpret inflection, and you control the pace. But when you listen to the audiobook, you relinquish all of those things and are subjected to the interpretation of the narrator. No, not the interpretation of the author, but the narrator. This provides a wholly different interaction with the same book. I’ve done a lot of back and forth reading. What I mean by this is that I’ll listen to the audiobook during my commute to work in the car, but I’ll switch to the ebook on my lunch break or during my nightly reading time at home. I’ve found that when I read a book, I tend to skip sections in an effort to keep the story flowing, only to find that I’ve skipped too much and have to read back a paragraph or two to see what I missed. But an audiobook forces me to listen to every single word. It might be slower, but it restricts my tendency to skip. But I also find that with audiobooks, I can’t see the spelling of names or places and as a result it becomes harder for me to remember names or to spatially associate them. So, yes, the experiences are different. Do audiobooks count as reading? If you’re keeping score, out of the three aspects of the question: “Do audiobooks count as reading?” there are two points for “No” and only one point for “Yes.” Why then did I start off by saying the answer to the question is yes? Well because user intent trumps everything. The asker does not care about experiences or grammar. They care about whether it counts. Yes, it counts. You finished the story. Whether that story was read or listened to makes no difference. You went from beginning to end. You silently (or not for those of you that randomly whoop out loud at their books) participated as the protagonist struggled, failed, purposed to overcome, grew, and then victoriously conquered the antagonist. There is no need to reread the book (unless you’re into that sort of thing. I know many of you are.).	Let’s say we forget about that word for a minute and instead turn the discussion back in your favor. Say the question were: “Does listening to a movie count as watching it?” This is a question that perhaps seems a little more obvious. The answer would be no. You didn’t watch it. The primary medium of a movie is visual as is the implication of the word “watch.” So to only listen would not be watching. Thus it’s the same with listening to a book, whose primary medium is paper which needs to be read. The Intent of the Question But let’s be real people. What’s the intent of the question “Do audiobooks count as reading?” Is the intent to dissect phraseology and deep dive into the etymology of words? No! Of course not. What, then, is the intent of the question? The asker wants to know if their audiobooks counts towards a reading goal, likely for Goodreads or some other similar challenge. If you’ve read 5 paperbacks and listened to 6 audiobooks, have you read 5 books or 11 books? The answer should be obvious, but let’s keep entertaining the critics among us. What is a book? It’s a gripping tale of a protagonist tangled up in an epic struggle against the antagonist and the journey that takes that character from Point A to Point B. The question then becomes, does the mode of your absorption of the story change the story? Will reading the physical copy of the audiobook you just finished change what happened. The answer is an unequivocal: No! No one can refute that. Unless it’s a magic book like the moving portraits in Harry Potter, no matter how you read it, when you read it, the story will always be the same. So do audiobooks count as reading? They absolutely do. The Underlying Issue of the Question But the discussion doesn’t end there. Will listening to an audiobook provide you with a different experience than reading it? And thereby is fundamentally different and apart from reading? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.	yes
Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	no_statement	"audiobooks" do not qualify as "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" is not the same as "reading".	https://ngoeke.medium.com/listening-to-an-audiobook-is-not-the-same-as-reading-a-real-one-196c710d5852	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One ...	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow. Naval’s criticism is harsh, but he has a point: “Listening to books instead of reading them is like drinking your vegetables instead of eating…	Listening to an Audiobook Is Not the Same as Reading a Real One Don’t fool yourself “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Two days ago, Ray Bradbury would have been 100 years old. If he could comment on his observation from 1993, he’d probably conclude we’re succeeding. In 1953, Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian vision of the world in which books are illegal and so-called “firemen” burn any that remain. 40 years later, he understood we didn’t need law and fire to destroy the written word: We just had to make sure we’re too busy to look at it. In 1993, it was tabloids and TV. Today, it’s the internet and video games. None of these things are inherently bad. They’re just too seductive — and we’re too weak to prioritize what’s important. However, even Bradbury couldn’t have anticipated the world’s most ingenious installment in tearing us away from turning the page. Instead of distracting us from books altogether, it now seduces us with an innocent prompt: “If you don’t have time to read, why don’t you just listen?” Audiobooks are the fastest-growing segment of publishing. In the US, $1.2 billion worth of them were sold in 2019, eclipsing ebooks by more than 22%. Publishers love audiobooks because they can sell them with zero marginal cost of production. Once you’ve made the thing, you can let as many people download it as you want. Each extra paperback requires, well, extra paper. Authors love them because for a few hours of recording, they might add another 50, 100, 200% in revenue for the work they’ve already done. Listeners love them because you can fit audio into all kinds of cracks in your day. Pressing play takes zero commitment, but it’ll satisfy your curiosity and desire to feel like a smart, knowledgeable person. Unfortunately, much of that feeling is hollow.	no	Publishing	Are Audiobooks Considered Real Reading?	yes_statement	"audiobooks" are a form of "real" "reading".. listening to "audiobooks" counts as "reading".	https://theorangutanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2023/04/16/stop-the-audiobook-hate/	Stop the Audiobook Hate – the orang-utan librarian	I REALLY disliked this take. Everything about it stinks of snobbery- and I just can’t stand it. Because I have seen this argument far too often at this point and I’m not having it. So be prepared for an incoming RANT. Because where does this person get off? Even before I listened to audiobooks, I considered it reading. Simply put, audiobooks are no different to books in terms of the language, ideas and story- the only difference is how we consume the words. It does not matter if the words are visual or auditory- they are the same!! Now, according to this individual, the reason they shouldn’t count as reading is that audiobooks are apparently far easier to read. To which I’d respond, A) why’d you care? Reading doesn’t have to be a chore and B) who says so? A quick google search will tell you that in the general population 65% of learners are visual and only 30% are auditory. I can attest to my own experience that I struggled to get into audiobooks for a long time because I found it required more concentration, not less. Of course, this matters only in so much as you care about other people’s reading stats (which I’ve previously established is a weird thing to do). In fairness to this poster, there is the caveat that this doesn’t apply to people with vision problems (and presumably they will make allowances for others with differing needs). Not only does this come across as patronising, like we all need this person’s permission to engage in our hobbies as we choose, but it doesn’t actually change this individual’s perspective. Listening to audiobooks either counts as reading or it doesn’t (spoiler alert, it does). It’s still “not reading” according to them- yet the author of the post feels slightly bad about holding this standard when it comes to people with disabilities (basically because they realise it’s wrong). In truth, I find this take especially bizarre since oral storytelling is the oldest form of literature. From fairy tales to the Iliad, it’s where the tradition of stories began. There is an almost forgotten artistry in sharing our world in this way- a textured ability to build up a narrative and communicate more than we can simply see. Hearing stories also happens to be how most of us begin to engage with literature. We hear stories before we have the ability to read in visual form. We form some of our greatest reading memories from this. That connection to the childhood pleasure of storytelling is part of why I love audiobooks so much- and why I will defend them and recommend them to everyone. Arguing audiobooks shouldn’t be considered reading reeks of a desire to put other readers down and is flat out wrong. You don’t have to like audiobooks. And you don’t have to engage with them. But you ought to respect them as books. You cannot decide otherwise just because you have a misguided desire to feel superior. Snobbery has no place here. Alright- what do you think? Are you a fan of audiobooks? Do you think they count as reading? Let me know in the comments! Post navigation 53 thoughts on “Stop the Audiobook Hate” I love AITA too and that’s a very pretentious take by the person. People like reading in different ways and have their own preferences. Just because you don’t do something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?” Like it doesn’t affect another person how someone consumes a media? Why is this even a topic that comes up so often?! Let people live, man. And yes, it is so weird to obsess about other people’s reading stats! We always say to not compare the number of books you read to another’s, so let’s not judge another person’s reading stats either. I don’t get it! Also, I hadn’t even thought about how we all start off just listening to stories. It’s the original way we consume books. That is an excellent point! The funny thing is that I don’t see anyone saying graphic novels or comics don’t count as reading. Like audiobooks they are a different way of consuming a story. There are graphic novels that don’t have any words in them. Do those count as reading? That an absolute yes. As someone who been having vision problems for about a year now, gee I didn’t know I needed solely one person permission to count audiobooks as reading. sarcasm. 100% agree with this post. I seen so many other bloggers talk about this and add an -ist suffix at the end of able as a reason for people not liking audiobooks. Like that makes them smart and rational. It does not. Sadly I have seen that I just don’t understand why, but people like to gatekeep other people’s reading. I really relate- one of the main reasons I’ve shifted my own habits is to do with my own vision problems. I simply would not be able to read as much if I was relying on physical or ebooks… And do not need this person’s permission to rest my eyes 😅 I continue to be baffled by this whole thing, as well. If people want to be technical and use the term “listening” instead of “reading,” whatever, I guess. I can be pedantic, too, so I can excuse that in others! But when they get into the “it’s not real reading,” thing, I agree it makes no sense and just seems weirdly like they want to declare themselves “better at reading books” than other people. We’re not in second grade and no one is assessing our reading level and there are no prizes, so why? When I ask someone if they’ve read a book, I am generally trying to have a conversation with them about that book. I want to talk about things like whether they liked the main character or what they thought about the prose or the themes or what they think will happen next. And it is possible to have that conversation whether they “listened to the audiobook” or “read the physical book,” so why would I care which one they did??? Yes same. Haha I hear you- I can be pedantic too, which is what I initially thought they’d say, but then they start saying it shouldn’t be counted in people’s stats, and just…. Why would you care about that? And why do you need to feel superior about how you read? Haha yes!! Yes absolutely!! A lot of the time it’s completely irrelevant (it only becomes relevant when you’re recommending a particular format) As someone who both loves audiobooks and also needs audiobooks due to disabilities (I have chronic migraines and chronic fatigue, both of which make reading physical formats really painful), I 100% agree and I too am so beyond done with the constant discourse. Beyond it being ableist, I also find it weird since, like you, I always point out that stories were first consumed in the oral tradition. There is also a tinge of a Western-centric worldview with the obsession with written stories too, as many Indigenous American and African societies solely used oral tradition until colonization, which mean many BIPOC mythology and folklore is instantly dismissed from being part of “The Canon.” Further, scientists have found time and time again that your brain processes a story the same whether you’re listening to it or reading it with your eyes! So it genuinely does just come down to personal opinion! Great post 🙂 I don’t get it either. I don’t read audio books as I don’t think that they would hold my attention as well and also, they take much longer than when I read to myself. However, the story and words are the same which ever method you use to read them. As a novice writer, I see “read as much as you can” a lot as a piece of writing advice. It’s not incorrect, but (beyond just acquiring a command of writing a language) what it actually means is “consume as many [works of your chosen type] as you can.” Reading books (again, talking about prose here) is not limited to the act of identifying ink symbols on a sheet of pressed paper. It’s the act of consuming and processing information, and in the case of fiction, stories, in a prosaic/narrative form. Whether the story gets told to you or you read it yourself is completely secondary. There are people who are neither visual nor auditive learners, but who learn much better from stories regardless of format. If reading was the same as just visual recognition, then you wouldn’t have that kind of distinction. Wow, I can’t believe people are still making an issue of this! I feel that there have been snobs saying audiobooks don’t count for years… and why do they care? As you say, there’s a weird fixation on what other people read. Who cares if my total for the year is higher than someone else’s? Who cares if my numbers include audiobooks? It’s just a weird thing to even bother about, in my opinion. Enjoying a book is enjoying a book, period… and if the person making the complaint makes an exception for people who are physically unable to read printed material, then they’re negating their entire point right there. Audiobooks are books! (So yes, my response to the AITA question is — definitely yes!) Sorry. I don’t like audio books and I don’t count it as reading. Whenever I’m in book club with people who listened, 90% of the time they missed important things, like no recollection of certain scenes or plot points. They had no self picture of what a hat after looked like. Admittedly they got a vivid sense of place for description. THANK YOU!!! I drive 30 miles each way for work and would not be able to read at all without audio books. This person’s perspective s fairly narrow and shows a certain level of privilege they are not accounting for. I dunno. I don’t think it’s necessarily a slam to say that something is not reading. They are two different learning channels, both using language, but reading by definition is visual. It’s like, I dunno, you went on a spinach or a kale diet. Both are accomplishments, but spinach ain’t kale. For me, it is actually much harder to focus on spoken words than on printed words. My mind is always wandering during the sermon, for example. For my husband, it’s the opposite. He cannot not listen when someone is speaking or when music is playing. He hears every word. I’m waiting for the audio versions of my books to come out so that he can finally … enjoy … them. Hehe I can understand a bit of pedantry, however once someone is worrying about other people’s stats and saying effectively that it doesn’t count as consuming the book, then there’s an issue. To use your kale/spinach analogy, your stomach will be just as full from either one 😉 I can understand that. I also have more visual tendencies (but, mostly for vision reasons, have shifted my habits). Yeah definitely. I wouldn’t argue the person hasn’t absorbed the content. For example, I hadn’t read Hegel or Gramschi or Foucault, but now I have listened to podcasts that excerpt from, analyze, and summarize them extensively. I still don’t say “I’ve read …” just because I’m pedantic I guess haha! And even if I had personally read them with my eyeballs, it would have been in translation anyway, so if someone wanted to be a snob they could ding me on that. WHAT? Who says audiobooks isn’t reading, send them to me and I’ll set them straight 😉 No seriously though, I get you points and agree completely. No matter how you consume the book you are getting the story experience, for damn sure it counts as reading! 😀 I’m not a fan of audiobooks as they aren’t for me. I get distracted too easily and having a kid at home I actually need to keep my ears open! But I don’t have anything against them and they sure count as reading. Books are books no matter the format. Socrates/Plato would probably have something to say to that anti-audiobook guy, given how they seem to prefer the oral tradition over the new written upstart. But seriously, what is with all these book gatekeeping folks? I saw one recently who was trying to argue that all books should have a minimum word count and I was like… huh?? I adore audiobooks! I have lengthy commute, that is bearable because of the audiobooks I listen to. To say audiobooks is not reading is ableist and rude. My daughter struggled with reading, but enjoyed audiobooks as it let her share in the love of stories in books that her friends were reading. Personally, I don’t prefer audio books but that is only because I like the act of reading itself and holding a book in my hand. But I do think this is just a personal preference and I do feel that audio books are a legitimate form of reading for those who enjoy them. They do serve the same purpose as reading a book and so we can’t say they are less valuable. I feel like people can get very pedantic over language (read vs listen), but strangely enough only with this issue! And when you bring up Braille as in do they say people ‘feel’ those books, they go very quiet because no one said that someone felt their book and expect to be understood. Nor do they say that someone using Braille to read books isn’t ‘really reading’. But like you mention, they wouldn’t say to someone with vision problems (or, I’m assuming, someone with dyslexia) that they’re not actually reading books when using audiobooks, so why is it okay to say to other people who are using audiobooks for other reasons? (Yes, I’ve recently had this discussion and it annoys me still). I really don’t understand where people pulled this narrative of audiobooks not not being real reading, you are getting the exact same story as would using a physical book so their point makes no sense. And I can’t help but laugh when people say it’s easier than actually reading the book. The whole reason I cant get into audiobooks is because I find them much harder and can’t focus on them long enough to actually get what is happening in the story unless it’s a book that I know really well. Maybe because I grew up with books and audiobooks weren’t really something I thought about much. I still don’t. It’s something else but I sometimes try it with podcasts and only once in the last few years where I tried reading + listening at the same time. It’s helpful for listening to various types of dialects at some sort. Maybe, I’ll do that more often, it was fun so far. To your question: I don’t really dislike or like audiobooks. Just never really thought – or think – of them.	I’m personally not a fan of audiobooks, because as you said, it requires more concentration for some people (aka me). I lose track of the plot and prefer having something visual in front of me that I can potentially go back to. I sometimes listen to audioplays regardless (like The Sandman or Daisy Jones and the Six) and find those a bit easier. But all of that is just personal preference. Audiobooks count as reading either way and I’m equally as tired of people claiming it’s easier or not as valid. You’ve consumed a story, that’s it! I totally understand that and really relate (I used to find it too hard to concentrate on them). But yes, some books work so so well in audio form (like daisy Jones and sandman) and books like that opened my eyes (or rather ears 😉) absolutely!! There are also people out there who will say that they prefer physical books to ebooks, or who don’t believe that reading a graphic novel ‘counts’. I really cannot see why any of these things matter. There are so many ways to enjoy a story, should we not embrace all of them? Definitely agree that audiobooks are a form of reading (not to mention for those with visual impairment) I have family members who are dyslexic and use audiobooks to read. And I’ve listened to audiobooks during long drives to entertain me. My friend listens to audio books to and from work, and while cleaning the house and doing her ironing to make the best use of her time. I also have elderly in-laws who listen to audiobooks because arthiritis makes it painful to hold a physical book for long periods of time. Discounting audiobooks as reading is just showing someones ignorance to other peoples situations. We already have issues with bookbanning, we don’t need someone gatekeeping audiobooks as well. On a side note: I can read a book faster than I can consume an audiobook, so it takes time and dedication to Yeah, when I read that AITA post I was just like…”why do you care at all?”	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-bees-are-essential-people-and-planet	Why bees are essential to people and planet	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole. “Increasing crop and regional farm diversity as well as targeted habitat conservation, management or restoration, is one way of combating climate change and promoting biodiversity,” says UN Environment Programme (UNEP) biodiversity specialist Marieta Sakalian. “Governments need to take the lead.” It is precisely to encourage governments, organizations, civil society and concerned citizens to protect pollinators and their habitats that the UN has declared 20 May World Bee Day. World Bee Day raises awareness of the essential role bees, and other pollinators play in keeping people and the planet healthy. The date coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard while needing so little attention. For further information please contact Marieta Sakalian, Senior Programme Management Officer and Coordinator for Healthy and Productive Ecosystems at UNEP.	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-bees-are-essential-people-and-planet	Why bees are essential to people and planet	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole. “Increasing crop and regional farm diversity as well as targeted habitat conservation, management or restoration, is one way of combating climate change and promoting biodiversity,” says UN Environment Programme (UNEP) biodiversity specialist Marieta Sakalian. “Governments need to take the lead.” It is precisely to encourage governments, organizations, civil society and concerned citizens to protect pollinators and their habitats that the UN has declared 20 May World Bee Day. World Bee Day raises awareness of the essential role bees, and other pollinators play in keeping people and the planet healthy. The date coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard while needing so little attention. For further information please contact Marieta Sakalian, Senior Programme Management Officer and Coordinator for Healthy and Productive Ecosystems at UNEP.	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/pollination	Pollination - Native Plants and Ecosystem Services	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants. Where and how do bees live? Most bee species dig nests in soil, while others utilize plants, either by boring holes in pithy plant stems or wood, or by nesting in galleries made by wood-boring beetles in trees or other preexisting cavities. Bumble bees are known to nest in abandoned rodent burrows and feral honey bees are known to nest in tree hollows. Bees use a variety of materials to build their nests. Most bees line their nest cells with a waxy material they produce themselves, but others use pieces of leaves, small pebbles mixed with resin from tree sap, or mud to form the cells in which they lay their eggs. Why do bees need flowers throughout the growing season? Many bee species are solitary (each female produces offspring in her own nest) with only one generation of bees produced per year. However, other species nest communally (several females share a nest) or have elaborate social structures with division of labor within the colony (usually with a single queen and many workers). These kinds of bees produce multiple generations per year. This means that bees that produce multiple generations each year need food resources (pollen and nectar) across most of the growing season to produce strong colonies. Providing plants in a landscape with overlapping bloom periods will help these bees survive and prosper. View our information about selecting plants for overlapping bloom and appeal to pollinators. Bees need our help! Bee communities, both wild and managed, have been declining over the last half century as pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas increased. Changes in land use have resulted in a patchy distribution of food and nesting resources. Concerned bee researchers recently met to discuss the current pollinator status in North America and to publish a report about it. Since January (2007), there have been a number of reports in the media about the mysterious disappearance of large numbers of honey bees called colony collapse disorder. This has many growers concerned about how they will continue to be able to pollinate their crops. Now more than ever, it is critical to consider practices that will benefit pollinators by providing habitats free of pesticides, full of nectar and pollen resources, and with ample potential nesting resources. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The 4-H Name and Emblem have special protections from Congress, protected by code 18 USC 707.	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/pollination	Pollination - Native Plants and Ecosystem Services	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants. Where and how do bees live? Most bee species dig nests in soil, while others utilize plants, either by boring holes in pithy plant stems or wood, or by nesting in galleries made by wood-boring beetles in trees or other preexisting cavities. Bumble bees are known to nest in abandoned rodent burrows and feral honey bees are known to nest in tree hollows. Bees use a variety of materials to build their nests. Most bees line their nest cells with a waxy material they produce themselves, but others use pieces of leaves, small pebbles mixed with resin from tree sap, or mud to form the cells in which they lay their eggs. Why do bees need flowers throughout the growing season? Many bee species are solitary (each female produces offspring in her own nest) with only one generation of bees produced per year. However, other species nest communally (several females share a nest) or have elaborate social structures with division of labor within the colony (usually with a single queen and many workers). These kinds of bees produce multiple generations per year. This means that bees that produce multiple generations each year need food resources (pollen and nectar) across most of the growing season to produce strong colonies. Providing plants in a landscape with overlapping bloom periods will help these bees survive and prosper. View our information about selecting plants for overlapping bloom and appeal to pollinators. Bees need our help! Bee communities, both wild and managed, have been declining over the last half century as pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas increased. Changes in land use have resulted in a patchy distribution of food and nesting resources. Concerned bee researchers recently met to discuss the current pollinator status in North America and to publish a report about it. Since January (2007), there have been a number of reports in the media about the mysterious disappearance of large numbers of honey bees called colony collapse disorder. This has many growers concerned about how they will continue to be able to pollinate their crops. Now more than ever, it is critical to consider practices that will benefit pollinators by providing habitats free of pesticides, full of nectar and pollen resources, and with ample potential nesting resources. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The 4-H Name and Emblem have special protections from Congress, protected by code 18 USC 707.	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/the-importance-of-bees	The importance of bees as pollinators \| Kew	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators. This, however, is just a short-term solution. What we really need is to restore our eco-systems and create landscapes to support diverse flora and fauna.	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/the-importance-of-bees	The importance of bees as pollinators \| Kew	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators. This, however, is just a short-term solution. What we really need is to restore our eco-systems and create landscapes to support diverse flora and fauna.	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-are-bees-important-to-humans	Why bees are so important to human life and health	Bees are significant for many reasons. They have historical importance, contribute to human health, and play a role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Health products Not all bees produce honey, but it is one of the main reasons people value them. The substance is a natural sweetener with many potential health qualities. People have used bees and bee-related products for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Researchers have noted claims that it has antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties. In traditional medicine, people use honey when treating a wide variety of conditions. While many of these uses do not have scientific backing, they include: Beeswax is another important product that people have previously used in waterproofing and fuel. It currently has benefits for health and features in a number of skincare products. Additionally, pharmaceutical industries use it in ointments. Pollination In recent years, it has become clear that honey may not be the most important reason to protect bees. This is because bees play a crucial role in pollination, where they use the hairs on their bodies to carry large grains of pollen between plants. Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them. In financial terms, the pollination of fruits and vegetables by wild bees across the United States has a high economic value. One 2020 study found that wild bees were responsible for a significant portion of net income from blueberries. There is a direct link between the economic yield of farmers and the presence of bees. In 2012, experts estimated that total pollination to be worth $34 billion, with a large portion of this amount due to bees. Green backyards and gardens can be vital resources for bees. Growing native flowers and leaving weeds to develop can contribute to bee health and numbers by providing food and shelter. Reducing landscaping activities, such as mowing or pruning, can help bees by increasing the amount of vegetation available. According to a 2019 study, as well as benefitting the bees, increasing rural spaces in urban areas can boost human mental and emotional well-being. Nonscientists and volunteers can contribute to research through citizen science initiatives, where people report what they see in their local area. This can help experts understand what is happening in a particular area or country. For example, a citizen-based 2020 study revealed that squash bees occupy a wide geographic range and prefer farms with less soil disturbance. Additionally, in the 2007 Great Pollinator Project, a partnership in New York encouraged members of the public to watch bees and record the types of wildflowers they visited. Such findings help scientists find useful ways to protect bees. However, this depends on people being able to identify species correctly. Therefore, learning about bee species and habits can also help individuals protect them. Bees have cultural and environmental importance as pollinators and producers of honey and medicinal products. The movement of pollen between plants is necessary for plants to fertilize and reproduce. Both farmed and wild bees control the growth and quality of vegetation — when they thrive, so do crops. Bees are vital when it comes to food security. However, the welfare and number of bees worldwide are in decline, and it is essential to protect them to maintain human well-being. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-are-bees-important-to-humans	Why bees are so important to human life and health	Bees are significant for many reasons. They have historical importance, contribute to human health, and play a role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Health products Not all bees produce honey, but it is one of the main reasons people value them. The substance is a natural sweetener with many potential health qualities. People have used bees and bee-related products for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Researchers have noted claims that it has antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties. In traditional medicine, people use honey when treating a wide variety of conditions. While many of these uses do not have scientific backing, they include: Beeswax is another important product that people have previously used in waterproofing and fuel. It currently has benefits for health and features in a number of skincare products. Additionally, pharmaceutical industries use it in ointments. Pollination In recent years, it has become clear that honey may not be the most important reason to protect bees. This is because bees play a crucial role in pollination, where they use the hairs on their bodies to carry large grains of pollen between plants. Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them. In financial terms, the pollination of fruits and vegetables by wild bees across the United States has a high economic value. One 2020 study found that wild bees were responsible for a significant portion of net income from blueberries. There is a direct link between the economic yield of farmers and the presence of bees. In 2012, experts estimated that total pollination to be worth $34 billion, with a large portion of this amount due to bees. Green backyards and gardens can be vital resources for bees. Growing native flowers and leaving weeds to develop can contribute to bee health and numbers by providing food and shelter. Reducing landscaping activities, such as mowing or pruning, can help bees by increasing the amount of vegetation available. According to a 2019 study, as well as benefitting the bees, increasing rural spaces in urban areas can boost human mental and emotional well-being. Nonscientists and volunteers can contribute to research through citizen science initiatives, where people report what they see in their local area. This can help experts understand what is happening in a particular area or country. For example, a citizen-based 2020 study revealed that squash bees occupy a wide geographic range and prefer farms with less soil disturbance. Additionally, in the 2007 Great Pollinator Project, a partnership in New York encouraged members of the public to watch bees and record the types of wildflowers they visited. Such findings help scientists find useful ways to protect bees. However, this depends on people being able to identify species correctly. Therefore, learning about bee species and habits can also help individuals protect them. Bees have cultural and environmental importance as pollinators and producers of honey and medicinal products. The movement of pollen between plants is necessary for plants to fertilize and reproduce. Both farmed and wild bees control the growth and quality of vegetation — when they thrive, so do crops. Bees are vital when it comes to food security. However, the welfare and number of bees worldwide are in decline, and it is essential to protect them to maintain human well-being. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/why-do-we-need-bees	Why do we need bees? \| Friends of the Earth	Why do we need bees? Bees are vital to a healthy environment and healthy economy. They're also simply beautiful and fascinating little insects. But what makes them so special? Published: 25 Jul 2017 \| 4 minute read The need for bees We need bees. We may take them and other pollinators like butterflies and hoverflies for granted, but they're vital to stable, healthy food supplies and key to the varied, colourful and nutritious diets we need (and have come to expect). Bees are perfectly adapted to pollinate, helping plants grow, breed and produce food. They do so by transferring pollen between flowering plants and therefore keeping the cycle of life turning. The vast majority of plants we need for food rely on pollination, especially by bees: from almonds and vanilla to apples and squash. Bees also pollinate around 80% of wildflowers in Europe, so our countryside would be far less interesting and beautiful without them. But bees are in trouble. There's growing public and political concern at bee decline across the world. This decline is caused by a combination of stresses – from loss of habitat and food sources to exposure to pesticides and the effects of climate breakdown. More than ever before, we need to recognise the importance of bees to nature and to our lives. And we need to turn that into action to ensure they don't just survive but thrive. Types of bee Not all bees are the same. There are over 20,000 known species of bee globally. Around 270 species of bee have been recorded in the UK. Only 1 of these is the famous Honeybee. Most Honeybees are kept by beekeepers in colonies of managed hives. The rest of our bees are wild, including 25 bumblebee species and more than 220 types of solitary bee. Like Honeybees, the familiar Bumblebees live in social colonies - usually in holes in the ground or tree cavities. Solitary bees tend to nest on their own, as the name suggests. Each female builds and provisions her own nest with food. Solitary bees include Mining bees which nest in the ground, as well as Mason bees and Leafcutter bees that nest in holes in dead wood, banks and walls. Bees = perfect pollinators Thanks to bees we can enjoy a range of foods from apples and pears to coffee and vanilla. And if you are wearing cotton, that's because the cotton plant your threads came from was pollinated. "More than 90% of the leading global crop types are visited by bees." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Bees gather pollen to stock their nests as food for their young. They have special features to collect it - like branched hairs called 'scopae' or combs of bristles called pollen baskets on their legs. As bees visit plants seeking food, pollen catches on their bodies and passes between plants, fertilising them – that's pollination. Bees are not the world's only pollinators. Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive. But our existence would be more precarious and our diets would be dull, poorer and less nutritious. And not just for want of honey. Even some plants grown to feed to livestock for meat production, such as clover and alfalfa, depend at least partly on bee pollination. "Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops and wild plants that provide essential micro-nutrients for human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin A, iron and folate deficiency." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Governments and food producers talk a lot about food security, yet without bees our food supply would be insecure. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified encouraging pollinators - particularly bees - as one of the best sustainable ways to boost food security and support sustainable farming. All this natural crop pollination fills pockets as well as our bellies. The global market value linked to pollinators is between US$235bn and US$557bn each year. In the UK alone, the services of bees and other pollinators are worth £691m a year, in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. It would cost the UK at least £1.8bn a year to employ people to do the work of these pollinators, yet bees do it for free. Bees are important to a healthy environment Bees are a fantastic symbol of nature. That they are in trouble is a sign that our natural environment is not in the good shape it should be. By keeping the cycle of life turning, bees boost the colour and beauty of our countryside. Some 80% of European wildflowers require insect pollination. Many of them such as foxglove, clovers and vetches rely on bees. Pollinators allow plants to fruit, set seed and breed. This in turn provides food and habitat for a range of other creatures. So the health of our natural ecosystems is fundamentally linked to the health of our bees and other pollinators. Maintaining our native flora also depends on healthy pollinator populations. This includes wild flowers such as poppies, cornflowers and bluebells, as well as trees and shrubs. The close relationship between pollinators and the plants they pollinate is evident in the parallel declines seen across the UK and Europe: 76% of plants preferred by bumblebees have declined in recent decades, with 71% seeing contractions in their geographical range. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects.	Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/why-do-we-need-bees	Why do we need bees? \| Friends of the Earth	Why do we need bees? Bees are vital to a healthy environment and healthy economy. They're also simply beautiful and fascinating little insects. But what makes them so special? Published: 25 Jul 2017 \| 4 minute read The need for bees We need bees. We may take them and other pollinators like butterflies and hoverflies for granted, but they're vital to stable, healthy food supplies and key to the varied, colourful and nutritious diets we need (and have come to expect). Bees are perfectly adapted to pollinate, helping plants grow, breed and produce food. They do so by transferring pollen between flowering plants and therefore keeping the cycle of life turning. The vast majority of plants we need for food rely on pollination, especially by bees: from almonds and vanilla to apples and squash. Bees also pollinate around 80% of wildflowers in Europe, so our countryside would be far less interesting and beautiful without them. But bees are in trouble. There's growing public and political concern at bee decline across the world. This decline is caused by a combination of stresses – from loss of habitat and food sources to exposure to pesticides and the effects of climate breakdown. More than ever before, we need to recognise the importance of bees to nature and to our lives. And we need to turn that into action to ensure they don't just survive but thrive. Types of bee Not all bees are the same. There are over 20,000 known species of bee globally. Around 270 species of bee have been recorded in the UK. Only 1 of these is the famous Honeybee. Most Honeybees are kept by beekeepers in colonies of managed hives. The rest of our bees are wild, including 25 bumblebee species and more than 220 types of solitary bee. Like Honeybees, the familiar Bumblebees live in social colonies - usually in holes in the ground or tree cavities. Solitary bees tend to nest on their own, as the name suggests. Each female builds and provisions her own nest with food. Solitary bees include Mining bees which nest in the ground, as well as Mason bees and Leafcutter bees that nest in holes in dead wood, banks and walls. Bees = perfect pollinators Thanks to bees we can enjoy a range of foods from apples and pears to coffee and vanilla. And if you are wearing cotton, that's because the cotton plant your threads came from was pollinated. "More than 90% of the leading global crop types are visited by bees." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Bees gather pollen to stock their nests as food for their young. They have special features to collect it - like branched hairs called 'scopae' or combs of bristles called pollen baskets on their legs. As bees visit plants seeking food, pollen catches on their bodies and passes between plants, fertilising them – that's pollination. Bees are not the world's only pollinators. Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive. But our existence would be more precarious and our diets would be dull, poorer and less nutritious. And not just for want of honey. Even some plants grown to feed to livestock for meat production, such as clover and alfalfa, depend at least partly on bee pollination. "Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops and wild plants that provide essential micro-nutrients for human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin A, iron and folate deficiency." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Governments and food producers talk a lot about food security, yet without bees our food supply would be insecure. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified encouraging pollinators - particularly bees - as one of the best sustainable ways to boost food security and support sustainable farming. All this natural crop pollination fills pockets as well as our bellies. The global market value linked to pollinators is between US$235bn and US$557bn each year. In the UK alone, the services of bees and other pollinators are worth £691m a year, in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. It would cost the UK at least £1.8bn a year to employ people to do the work of these pollinators, yet bees do it for free. Bees are important to a healthy environment Bees are a fantastic symbol of nature. That they are in trouble is a sign that our natural environment is not in the good shape it should be. By keeping the cycle of life turning, bees boost the colour and beauty of our countryside. Some 80% of European wildflowers require insect pollination. Many of them such as foxglove, clovers and vetches rely on bees. Pollinators allow plants to fruit, set seed and breed. This in turn provides food and habitat for a range of other creatures. So the health of our natural ecosystems is fundamentally linked to the health of our bees and other pollinators. Maintaining our native flora also depends on healthy pollinator populations. This includes wild flowers such as poppies, cornflowers and bluebells, as well as trees and shrubs. The close relationship between pollinators and the plants they pollinate is evident in the parallel declines seen across the UK and Europe: 76% of plants preferred by bumblebees have declined in recent decades, with 71% seeing contractions in their geographical range. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects.	Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment \| Premier Tech Home ...	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals. 3. Food Source Bees produce honey to feed their colonies during the cold winter months. Humans have harvested honey for thousands of years, but we aren’t the only ones who consider it a sweet snack. Critters like birds, racoons, opossums, and insects will raid beehives for a taste of nutritious honey (and bee larvae). Bees themselves are also a part of the food chain. At least 24 species of bird, including the blackbird, ruby-throated hummingbird, and starling, prey on bees. Many spiders and insects, like dragonflies and praying mantises, eat bees as well. 2. Wildlife Habitats Bees are known for their elaborate hives, but they also help build homes for millions of other insects and animals. Their role as pollinators is vital in the growth of tropical forests, savannah woodlands, and temperate deciduous forests. Many tree species, like willows and poplars, couldn’t grow without pollinators like bees. Even your own garden serves as a home for hundreds of tiny creatures, from birds and squirrels to thousands of tiny insects. If bees disappeared, the animals that depend on these plants for survival would vanish as well. 1. Biodiversity As pollinators, bees play a part in every aspect of the ecosystem. They support the growth of trees, flowers, and other plants, which serve as food and shelter for creatures large and small. Bees contribute to complex, interconnected ecosystems that allow a diverse number of different species to co-exist. There is no doubting the importance of bees to our food supply. Without them, our gardens would be bare and our plates empty. But we should also remember the other reasons bees are important to the environment.	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment \| Premier Tech Home ...	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals. 3. Food Source Bees produce honey to feed their colonies during the cold winter months. Humans have harvested honey for thousands of years, but we aren’t the only ones who consider it a sweet snack. Critters like birds, racoons, opossums, and insects will raid beehives for a taste of nutritious honey (and bee larvae). Bees themselves are also a part of the food chain. At least 24 species of bird, including the blackbird, ruby-throated hummingbird, and starling, prey on bees. Many spiders and insects, like dragonflies and praying mantises, eat bees as well. 2. Wildlife Habitats Bees are known for their elaborate hives, but they also help build homes for millions of other insects and animals. Their role as pollinators is vital in the growth of tropical forests, savannah woodlands, and temperate deciduous forests. Many tree species, like willows and poplars, couldn’t grow without pollinators like bees. Even your own garden serves as a home for hundreds of tiny creatures, from birds and squirrels to thousands of tiny insects. If bees disappeared, the animals that depend on these plants for survival would vanish as well. 1. Biodiversity As pollinators, bees play a part in every aspect of the ecosystem. They support the growth of trees, flowers, and other plants, which serve as food and shelter for creatures large and small. Bees contribute to complex, interconnected ecosystems that allow a diverse number of different species to co-exist. There is no doubting the importance of bees to our food supply. Without them, our gardens would be bare and our plates empty. But we should also remember the other reasons bees are important to the environment.	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-bees-are-essential-people-and-planet	Why bees are essential to people and planet	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole. “Increasing crop and regional farm diversity as well as targeted habitat conservation, management or restoration, is one way of combating climate change and promoting biodiversity,” says UN Environment Programme (UNEP) biodiversity specialist Marieta Sakalian. “Governments need to take the lead.” It is precisely to encourage governments, organizations, civil society and concerned citizens to protect pollinators and their habitats that the UN has declared 20 May World Bee Day. World Bee Day raises awareness of the essential role bees, and other pollinators play in keeping people and the planet healthy. The date coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard while needing so little attention. For further information please contact Marieta Sakalian, Senior Programme Management Officer and Coordinator for Healthy and Productive Ecosystems at UNEP.	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/pollination	Pollination - Native Plants and Ecosystem Services	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants. Where and how do bees live? Most bee species dig nests in soil, while others utilize plants, either by boring holes in pithy plant stems or wood, or by nesting in galleries made by wood-boring beetles in trees or other preexisting cavities. Bumble bees are known to nest in abandoned rodent burrows and feral honey bees are known to nest in tree hollows. Bees use a variety of materials to build their nests. Most bees line their nest cells with a waxy material they produce themselves, but others use pieces of leaves, small pebbles mixed with resin from tree sap, or mud to form the cells in which they lay their eggs. Why do bees need flowers throughout the growing season? Many bee species are solitary (each female produces offspring in her own nest) with only one generation of bees produced per year. However, other species nest communally (several females share a nest) or have elaborate social structures with division of labor within the colony (usually with a single queen and many workers). These kinds of bees produce multiple generations per year. This means that bees that produce multiple generations each year need food resources (pollen and nectar) across most of the growing season to produce strong colonies. Providing plants in a landscape with overlapping bloom periods will help these bees survive and prosper. View our information about selecting plants for overlapping bloom and appeal to pollinators. Bees need our help! Bee communities, both wild and managed, have been declining over the last half century as pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas increased. Changes in land use have resulted in a patchy distribution of food and nesting resources. Concerned bee researchers recently met to discuss the current pollinator status in North America and to publish a report about it. Since January (2007), there have been a number of reports in the media about the mysterious disappearance of large numbers of honey bees called colony collapse disorder. This has many growers concerned about how they will continue to be able to pollinate their crops. Now more than ever, it is critical to consider practices that will benefit pollinators by providing habitats free of pesticides, full of nectar and pollen resources, and with ample potential nesting resources. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The 4-H Name and Emblem have special protections from Congress, protected by code 18 USC 707.	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/the-importance-of-bees	The importance of bees as pollinators \| Kew	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators. This, however, is just a short-term solution. What we really need is to restore our eco-systems and create landscapes to support diverse flora and fauna.	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-are-bees-important-to-humans	Why bees are so important to human life and health	Bees are significant for many reasons. They have historical importance, contribute to human health, and play a role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Health products Not all bees produce honey, but it is one of the main reasons people value them. The substance is a natural sweetener with many potential health qualities. People have used bees and bee-related products for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Researchers have noted claims that it has antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties. In traditional medicine, people use honey when treating a wide variety of conditions. While many of these uses do not have scientific backing, they include: Beeswax is another important product that people have previously used in waterproofing and fuel. It currently has benefits for health and features in a number of skincare products. Additionally, pharmaceutical industries use it in ointments. Pollination In recent years, it has become clear that honey may not be the most important reason to protect bees. This is because bees play a crucial role in pollination, where they use the hairs on their bodies to carry large grains of pollen between plants. Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them. In financial terms, the pollination of fruits and vegetables by wild bees across the United States has a high economic value. One 2020 study found that wild bees were responsible for a significant portion of net income from blueberries. There is a direct link between the economic yield of farmers and the presence of bees. In 2012, experts estimated that total pollination to be worth $34 billion, with a large portion of this amount due to bees. Green backyards and gardens can be vital resources for bees. Growing native flowers and leaving weeds to develop can contribute to bee health and numbers by providing food and shelter. Reducing landscaping activities, such as mowing or pruning, can help bees by increasing the amount of vegetation available. According to a 2019 study, as well as benefitting the bees, increasing rural spaces in urban areas can boost human mental and emotional well-being. Nonscientists and volunteers can contribute to research through citizen science initiatives, where people report what they see in their local area. This can help experts understand what is happening in a particular area or country. For example, a citizen-based 2020 study revealed that squash bees occupy a wide geographic range and prefer farms with less soil disturbance. Additionally, in the 2007 Great Pollinator Project, a partnership in New York encouraged members of the public to watch bees and record the types of wildflowers they visited. Such findings help scientists find useful ways to protect bees. However, this depends on people being able to identify species correctly. Therefore, learning about bee species and habits can also help individuals protect them. Bees have cultural and environmental importance as pollinators and producers of honey and medicinal products. The movement of pollen between plants is necessary for plants to fertilize and reproduce. Both farmed and wild bees control the growth and quality of vegetation — when they thrive, so do crops. Bees are vital when it comes to food security. However, the welfare and number of bees worldwide are in decline, and it is essential to protect them to maintain human well-being. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/why-do-we-need-bees	Why do we need bees? \| Friends of the Earth	Why do we need bees? Bees are vital to a healthy environment and healthy economy. They're also simply beautiful and fascinating little insects. But what makes them so special? Published: 25 Jul 2017 \| 4 minute read The need for bees We need bees. We may take them and other pollinators like butterflies and hoverflies for granted, but they're vital to stable, healthy food supplies and key to the varied, colourful and nutritious diets we need (and have come to expect). Bees are perfectly adapted to pollinate, helping plants grow, breed and produce food. They do so by transferring pollen between flowering plants and therefore keeping the cycle of life turning. The vast majority of plants we need for food rely on pollination, especially by bees: from almonds and vanilla to apples and squash. Bees also pollinate around 80% of wildflowers in Europe, so our countryside would be far less interesting and beautiful without them. But bees are in trouble. There's growing public and political concern at bee decline across the world. This decline is caused by a combination of stresses – from loss of habitat and food sources to exposure to pesticides and the effects of climate breakdown. More than ever before, we need to recognise the importance of bees to nature and to our lives. And we need to turn that into action to ensure they don't just survive but thrive. Types of bee Not all bees are the same. There are over 20,000 known species of bee globally. Around 270 species of bee have been recorded in the UK. Only 1 of these is the famous Honeybee. Most Honeybees are kept by beekeepers in colonies of managed hives. The rest of our bees are wild, including 25 bumblebee species and more than 220 types of solitary bee. Like Honeybees, the familiar Bumblebees live in social colonies - usually in holes in the ground or tree cavities. Solitary bees tend to nest on their own, as the name suggests. Each female builds and provisions her own nest with food. Solitary bees include Mining bees which nest in the ground, as well as Mason bees and Leafcutter bees that nest in holes in dead wood, banks and walls. Bees = perfect pollinators Thanks to bees we can enjoy a range of foods from apples and pears to coffee and vanilla. And if you are wearing cotton, that's because the cotton plant your threads came from was pollinated. "More than 90% of the leading global crop types are visited by bees." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Bees gather pollen to stock their nests as food for their young. They have special features to collect it - like branched hairs called 'scopae' or combs of bristles called pollen baskets on their legs. As bees visit plants seeking food, pollen catches on their bodies and passes between plants, fertilising them – that's pollination. Bees are not the world's only pollinators. Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive. But our existence would be more precarious and our diets would be dull, poorer and less nutritious. And not just for want of honey. Even some plants grown to feed to livestock for meat production, such as clover and alfalfa, depend at least partly on bee pollination. "Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops and wild plants that provide essential micro-nutrients for human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin A, iron and folate deficiency." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Governments and food producers talk a lot about food security, yet without bees our food supply would be insecure. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified encouraging pollinators - particularly bees - as one of the best sustainable ways to boost food security and support sustainable farming. All this natural crop pollination fills pockets as well as our bellies. The global market value linked to pollinators is between US$235bn and US$557bn each year. In the UK alone, the services of bees and other pollinators are worth £691m a year, in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. It would cost the UK at least £1.8bn a year to employ people to do the work of these pollinators, yet bees do it for free. Bees are important to a healthy environment Bees are a fantastic symbol of nature. That they are in trouble is a sign that our natural environment is not in the good shape it should be. By keeping the cycle of life turning, bees boost the colour and beauty of our countryside. Some 80% of European wildflowers require insect pollination. Many of them such as foxglove, clovers and vetches rely on bees. Pollinators allow plants to fruit, set seed and breed. This in turn provides food and habitat for a range of other creatures. So the health of our natural ecosystems is fundamentally linked to the health of our bees and other pollinators. Maintaining our native flora also depends on healthy pollinator populations. This includes wild flowers such as poppies, cornflowers and bluebells, as well as trees and shrubs. The close relationship between pollinators and the plants they pollinate is evident in the parallel declines seen across the UK and Europe: 76% of plants preferred by bumblebees have declined in recent decades, with 71% seeing contractions in their geographical range. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects.	Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment \| Premier Tech Home ...	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals. 3. Food Source Bees produce honey to feed their colonies during the cold winter months. Humans have harvested honey for thousands of years, but we aren’t the only ones who consider it a sweet snack. Critters like birds, racoons, opossums, and insects will raid beehives for a taste of nutritious honey (and bee larvae). Bees themselves are also a part of the food chain. At least 24 species of bird, including the blackbird, ruby-throated hummingbird, and starling, prey on bees. Many spiders and insects, like dragonflies and praying mantises, eat bees as well. 2. Wildlife Habitats Bees are known for their elaborate hives, but they also help build homes for millions of other insects and animals. Their role as pollinators is vital in the growth of tropical forests, savannah woodlands, and temperate deciduous forests. Many tree species, like willows and poplars, couldn’t grow without pollinators like bees. Even your own garden serves as a home for hundreds of tiny creatures, from birds and squirrels to thousands of tiny insects. If bees disappeared, the animals that depend on these plants for survival would vanish as well. 1. Biodiversity As pollinators, bees play a part in every aspect of the ecosystem. They support the growth of trees, flowers, and other plants, which serve as food and shelter for creatures large and small. Bees contribute to complex, interconnected ecosystems that allow a diverse number of different species to co-exist. There is no doubting the importance of bees to our food supply. Without them, our gardens would be bare and our plates empty. But we should also remember the other reasons bees are important to the environment.	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Pollinators	Pollinators	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page. Iowa is a very important state for this species and the Iowa DNR along with numerous partners AND many citizens have been working hard to make sure the Monarch Butterfly is here to delight us for many years to come. Read below for more information about the Monarch Butterfly in Iowa! Learn more about the monarch: The most important thing to know about the Monarch butterfly is that it needs Milkweed. Any plant in the genus Asclepias will do; Common Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed to name a few; but the Monarch must have some milkweed to eat as a caterpillar in order to complete its life cycle which it will go through several times in a year’s span. In the middle of all of this, Monarchs throw in that truly astounding migration to Mexico and back. Monarchs usually show up in Iowa late in the month of May and in force in June. These individuals are “2nd generation” meaning that they are the offspring of butterflies that left Mexico in March and stopped over in the Southern U.S. (primarily Oklahoma and Texas) to reproduce. These first Monarchs to arrive in Iowa start nectaring and laying eggs on milkweeds which then develop through 5 stages or instars of caterpillar before forming a chrysalis and emerging as an adult butterfly. This entire cycle from egg to adult monarch takes roughly 20 - 30 days (the length of time is somewhat temperature dependent) and then the adults live for about 2-6 weeks. This cycle repeats itself at least twice more in Iowa before the notable and special migratory generation is produced (usually the 4th generation of individuals produced in the U.S.), let’s call it the Super Generation. This Super Generation is produced in late August and early September in Iowa and they start their much longer life span (6-7 months) by beginning the journey south to Mexico, nectaring along the way. A few may stop to breed again further south but most keep flying until they reach Mexico, stopping only to gather energy from nectar producing plants and often gathering in large roosts in trees along the way. Timeline: Arrive in Iowa: Late May/Early June First Iowa Generation: June-July Second Iowa Generation: July to August Third Iowa Generation “The Super Generation”: August to Early September So where can you find Monarchs while they are in Iowa? Almost anywhere! Monarchs are strong flyers and they will use that ability to seek out milkweed and flowers to nectar on wherever they can find it. Usually, because these types of plants need sunlight, monarchs are found in open areas dominated by grass and flowering plants. This could be your yard, a “weedy” roadside, a native prairie, an old field, that odd ½ acre not planted to crops...you name it! If it has milkweed, or some tasty flowers, a Monarch can find it. This is one thing Monarchs have in their favor and the best thing all of us can do to help save the monarch is put habitat, containing milkweeds and nectar plants, on the ground. See the “Creating Habitat for all Pollinators” section for tips on how to do this. Iowa is a very important state for the conservation of Monarch butterflies. An estimated 38% of Monarchs (Summary of Study on Monarch Joint Venture website) that end up in Mexico for the winter come from the Upper Midwest with Iowa right at its heart. No comprehensive population estimate of Monarchs exist for Iowa but we have been recording them as part of wider butterfly surveys across the state, mostly on public land. The Monarch is still one of the most abundant butterflies that are recorded on these surveys but the trend over the last ten years has mirrored the downward trend that has been documented in the wintering population in Mexico. Their migratory lifestyle, puts monarchs at risk and requires them to have especially large populations to be able to sustain a healthy existence as a species. This means, unlike other imperiled species which are difficult to find, just because the Monarch may still be seen regularly does not mean it isn’t in trouble. Wider continuous monitoring of the Iowa population will be necessary moving forward! Creating Habitat for all Pollinators One thing pollinators have going for them is that most species can take advantage of habitat almost anywhere it is provided. This means that any landowner, whether they own a lot that can be measured in square feet or one that is many acres, can create habitat for pollinators. The main characteristics a good pollinator garden needs to have are: 1) flowering plants in a 2) sunny spot that 3) bloom from Spring through Fall. We would also recommend, if possible, to consider using predominantly plant species that are native to Iowa. There are many species to choose from and they are adapted to Iowa’s environment. Most are perennials or good self-seeders (less maintenance!) and our native pollinators love them. A pollinator garden can be as formal or as “wild” as you would like. If planting a smaller area that you want to look more formal, it is likely best to plant plugs of prairie species rather than trying to spread seed. If planting a larger area and a more natural look is okay, a mix diverse in flowering prairie species will be more economical, though it will take a bit longer (2-3 years) and a little more maintenance (mowing) before it starts looking its best. The following pdf includes a more detailed description of how to create monarch and pollinator habitat, both large and small, and includes a species list and links to more resources. For larger areas, if you'd like some assistance, landowners can contact the DNR Wildlife Bureau’s Private Lands biologists for advice and assistance. The DNR also has staff that can work with private landowners and you will find a great guide to shrubs and trees that are good for pollinators on their webpage. Prominent Pollinators BEES and WASPS: There are 4000 species of bees in North America. The exact number of species in Iowa is unknown but there are likely between 300-400 native species. The species people are most familiar with, the Honey bee, is not a native species but was introduced to the United States for its ability to produce honey. There are many more species of native bees, like bumble and mason bees, which also play an important role in pollination. The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) which has a few occurrences in Iowa, recently became the first bumblebee to be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MOTHS: More than 2000 species of moths have been recorded in the state of Iowa! There are day-flying and night-flying moths, micromoths with a wingspan of 3 mm and giants like the Luna moth which can measure up to 114 mm from wingtip to wingtip. Little is known about the status of any of the moth species in the state. STAY CONNECTED Sign up for updates and join over 20,000 subscribers who are receiving content from the Iowa DNR directly in their inbox. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Our Mission To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in Iowa and ensure a legacy for future generations.	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Wildlife/Learn-About-Wildlife/Pollinators-in-Connecticut	Pollinators in Connecticut	It seems that JavaScript is not working in your browser. It could be because it is not supported, or that JavaScript is intentionally disabled. Some of the features on CT.gov will not function properly with out javascript enabled. Pollinators in Connecticut What Is Pollination? Some plants require pollination to reproduce. This is the process by which pollen grains, produced in flowers’ stamens, are transmitted to a pistil where the pollen grains will then fertilize the flower. This leads to seed and fruit production. As genetic diversity is important for healthy populations, flowers have evolved in several ways to ensure that pollen spreads between different plants of the same species. Pollen may be released into the wind and carried to other flowers, and some plants will even release pollen into flowing water. However, the vast majority of flowering plants make use of pollinators: animals that carry pollen from one flower to another. Plants and pollinators have a mutualistic relationship – both benefit from the association. Pollinators may consume pollen and nectar provided by the plants and, in the process, additional pollen inadvertently will get caught on the hairs on the animal’s body. When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise. Certain crops, such as tomatoes and eggplants, greatly benefit from buzz pollination to the point that bumble bees are also used as commercial pollinators. Bumble bee species are sometimes released into greenhouses to pollinate the crops within. This is how we get “hothouse tomatoes” in the cold weather months. In the wild, bumble bees form small colonies with a queen and just a few workers. These colonies are too small to yield honey like honey bee colonies. (A honey bee colony can consist of tens of thousands of individuals capable of producing an excess of honey that humans can harvest without compromising the bees' food supply.) Bumble bee colonies are usually located underground in an abandoned rodent tunnel or similar excavation. While some bees are social beings, like honey bees and bumble bees, most of the 300 Connecticut bee species are solitary, meaning that they do not form colonies. Female solitary bees lay eggs in cavities in the ground or in wood, and line those cavities with leaves and mud. Mining bees, digger bees, oil-collecting bees are all solitary, ground nesting bees. While it may be easy to notice honey bees and bumble bees in your garden, it is important to remember that they are not the only ones pollinating crops and flowers while we reap the benefits of their services. Butterflies and Moths: Although butterflies and moths do not provide the same amount of pollination services as bees, they are certainly conspicuous creatures, garnering admiration and attention from scientists and citizens alike. Lepidopterans (the scientific name for butterflies and moths) do not consume pollen, but they will drink nectar using their long, tubular mouthpart (proboscis). Some plants have evolved specifically to be pollinated by these insects, hiding nectar deep in the flower such that it may only be reached with an extended proboscis. Generally, butterflies and moths do not carry as much pollen as bees because they are not covered in fine hairs. In addition, the long proboscis allows butterflies and moths to access a flower's nectar without becoming coated in pollen. Some pollen, however, may attach to the insects' feet and abdomen, facilitating pollen transfer between the flowers they visit. In a classic story of biological detective work, Charles Darwin once predicted the existence of a moth 40 years before its eventual discovery. He was shown an orchid from Madagascar with an exceptionally long, nectar-filled tubular structure (known as a spur) on the flower. He guessed that a moth must exist with a proboscis just long enough that the animal’s head would brush up against the flower’s stamens so that it would transfer pollen to the pistil of the next flower it drank from. In 1903, such a moth was documented in Madagascar, named Xanthopan morgani praedicta in honor of the prediction. Flies are important and often overlooked pollinators. While many plants offer bright colors and nectar to attract bee visitors, other plants may mimic carrion or dung with dark-colored flowers and strong, pungent odors to draw in flies, such as fungus gnats and carrion flies. Many hover flies (family Syrphidae) are bee mimics in both appearance and behavior. Though they share the same black and yellow coloration we associate with bees and wasps, they do not sting. In this way, animals that have learned to avoid being stung by bees and wasps will leave the stingless flies alone. This type of mimicry is known as Batesian mimicry – one harmless organism resembles a harmful organism to gain protection from predation. Pollinating flies are generally not covered in as much hair as bees, though they will still transfer pollen between plants from what sticks to their bodies as they forage. Beetles: Pollination by beetles accounts for a small percentage of overall flower pollination. Nevertheless, beetles, ranging from scarab and long-horned beetles to checkered beetles and tumbling flower beetles, may transfer pollen between flowers. Magnolias, for example, are visited by many insects during their flowering period; however, it is the beetles that are present when pollen is plentiful. In fact, the fossil record shows that magnolias evolved in a world without butterflies or bees. Therefore, this plant must have relied on other insects as pollinators. Given that beetles existed at the time magnolias arose and are still associated with the plant, it is reasonable to assume that beetles were some of their early pollinators. Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly talked about pollinator declines – the noted decrease in these beneficial insects across the globe. Commercial honey bee hives have been experiencing significant losses in recent years, prompting investigation into its causes. Scientists and the public also have noticed that the once common rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) has gone missing from the majority of its range in North America. Once commonly found across most of the eastern United States, it was only documented from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Maryland between 2001 and 2008. As for other pollinators, efforts are currently underway to search through existing specimens in museum and private collections to determine changing trends in pollinator abundance and diversity over time. Understanding population trends of the often overlooked wild bees is important given the pollination services they provide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that 75 percent of the fruits and vegetables we consume require bee pollination. In commercially raised bumble bees, several parasites have been identified as sources of mortality. These parasites have unfortunately escaped into wild bumble bee populations. Pesticide application and pesticide drift (the travel of chemicals from the intended area to non-target plants) also are believed to be killing bumble bees and other insect pollinators, including butterflies and moths. Habitat loss and fragmentation are hurting pollinator populations as more and more foraging areas and nesting habitats are destroyed. These vital members of our ecosystems are being threatened in many ways, and for most species, we do not yet know the extent of the damage. In 2016, Public Act 16-17 was passed restricting the use of pesticides that cause serious harm to bees and other pollinators. It reduces the spraying of neonicotinoid pesticides, establishes a program to develop model pollinator habitat, and helps identify opportunities to conserve, protect, and enhance pollinator habitat. Pollinators are in trouble, but you can help! Local nectar and pollen sources are key to supporting local pollinators. To maximize the use of your yard, consider planting flowers that bloom from early spring through late autumn, thus providing a place where early-season up through the last-season pollinators can “fuel up.” Remove invasive plants, such as burning bush, autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and others, in favor of native plant species. For example, planting wild geranium and highbush blueberry for the early season; swamp milkweed and New Jersey tea for the middle of the season; and New England aster and wrinkleleaf goldenrod for the late season will provide blooming flowers from spring through fall. With the right mix of plants, you can turn your property into a haven for the entire year! Pollinators need places to nest, feed, and protect their offspring. By managing your property to be pollinator-friendly, you may be able to greatly improve pollinator habitat. Maintaining natural areas (unmanicured areas of your property) is key for long-term pollinator protection. If you have a forest, meadow, or wetland on your property, bees will use those areas extensively for both feeding and nesting. You can also give wild bees a helping hand by providing nesting sites. These sites could be patches of untilled, bare, well-drained soil, which is perfect for many ground-nesting bees. Sites for wood-nesting bees include old logs with beetle burrows (for mason bees and leafcutter bees), or brush piles (for safe places to hibernate). To encourage butterflies, you should plant the caterpillar host plants. For example, monarchs need milkweeds to feed on as caterpillars. New Jersey tea is eaten by many Connecticut insects, making it a great addition to a pollinator garden. Planting native food plants in your yard or garden is a great way to encourage pollinators to flourish! No matter the life stage, these insects are best protected by avoiding disturbances to their chosen wintering sites. It is important to support these organisms across their entire life cycle, including over winter. For example, mated queen bumble bees spend the winter under leaf litter or soil. Lepidopterans may overwinter as eggs, caterpillars, pupae, or adults. Plant management or soil disturbance is best conducted during late summer or fall to minimize negative effects to pollinators over wintering periods. If possible, management should occur in such a way that much of the habitat is left undisturbed in any given year, helping to protect species from the direct impacts of disturbance. Above all, any space created for pollinators should be pesticide free. Insecticides are especially harmful to pollinators if applied at the wrong time or application rate. While it may not always be possible to completely eliminate pesticides from your garden or yard, you can certainly reduce the impacts on pollinators with a simple few steps. Chemicals should not be applied when pollinators are active – most pollinators will be resting during the night. Similarly, if possible, pesticides should be applied to the parts of the plant without flowers so that pollinators are not exposed to chemicals while visiting the flowers. Pollinators and the White House, 2014: You are not alone in your interest in pollinator protection! In June 2014, President Barack Obama released a memorandum outlining his commitment to “honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.” He created a taskforce to develop and help implement recommendations for saving pollinator populations. President Obama highlighted the importance of these animals in our natural and agricultural systems, championing their cause from the highest office in the nation.	When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/	Pests and Pollinators \| Learn Science at Scitable	Humans determine if an insect is beneficial, benign or pestiferous. Even when an insect is classified as a pest, it can have, under different circumstances, a beneficial role. A fly in a house is a pest, but that same fly is beneficial in its role as a detritivore. Termites are pests when invading homes, but are beneficial when fulfilling their ecological role in a forest. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% of insects are pests (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005) but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of crops and 9% of forest production (Pimental et al. 2000). The Balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges picease, has destroyed nearly all of the Fraser firs (Abies fraseri) in the southern Appalachian Mountains and is thought to be responsible for the loss of two native bird species (Alsop & Laughlin 1991). Formosan termites, Coptotermes formosanus, cause over $1 billion in structural damage per year (Corn et al. 1999). Frequently, pest insects are invasive species, such as the Balsam woolly adelgid and the Formosan termite. Within their native ranges – Europe and southern China, respectively – these insects are less likely to be pestiferous. Most insects are beneficial to humans either directly or indirectly (Peters 1993). Directly beneficial insects include pollinators and insect predators and parasites of pests. Other insects provide humans with material goods such as honey (honey bees), silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and inks (insect galls). Without insects, weed control would be more difficult. In Australia, an introduced species of cactus, the prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), was controlled by Cactoblastis cactorum, a moth (Wilson & Schwarzlaender 2004). Predator, parasite, and parasitoid insects provide top-down management of herbivore populations (Naylor & Ehrlich 1997). During the 1800’s, cottony-cushion scale – a scale insect – was accidently introduced into California citrus groves from Australia (Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003). The citrus industry was saved when the Vedalia lady beetle, a natural predator of the cottony-cushion scale, was introduced. Indirect benefits from insects may be more numerous and important than direct benefits. Insects indirectly benefiting humans include all insect herbivores, prey, predators, and detritivores because they are an integral part of the biotic community of ecosystems (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). A well-functioning ecosystem provides services such as soil fertility, clean air, and clean water. Termites, cockroaches, and other soil dwelling insects, help to break down plant debris. Flies, beetles, and moths, help to decompose dead animals. Dung beetles are critical for the decomposition of animal feces. Insects are food for bats, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and many mammals. Aquatic insects such as mayflies and stoneflies are used to monitor the health of streams and lakes. Insect Pests An important group of insect pests is those that transmit human diseases (Table 1). Malaria, responsible for 700,000-1,000,000 deaths annually, is transmitted by Anopheles sp. mosquitoes (Centers for Disease Control). The female Anopheles ingests the disease agent, Plasmodium spp. – a parasitic protist – from an infected human. After an incubation period in the mosquito of 7-30 days, transmission to an uninfected human is possible. Sub-tropics of Africa and Asia, Western Pacific, equatorial South America Mosquito (Anopheles spp.) World-wide except Antarctica River Blindness Sub-Saharan Africa, limited area of South America, Yemen Black Flies (Simulium sp.) World-wide except Antarctica (fast flowing streams) Typhus (louse-borne) Where body lice are present Body Lice (Pediculus humanus humanus) Where humans are present West Nile Virus (humans are a dead-end host) Africa, North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania Mosquito (primarily Culex sp.) World-wide except Antarctica Table 1: Some human diseases and their insect vectors. Insects seldom become pests in natural ecosystems, but in managed or simplified ecosystems when an insect population become large enough to cause harm to people, crops, animals, or possessions, insects may be categorized as pests (Elizinga 2004). Pest outbreaks in natural ecosystems usually last 3-4 years, even with no intervention (Rotenberry et al. 1995). Various factors limit the length of a pest outbreak, including intraspecific competition for resources, diseases and parasites (Roland 1993). Agricultural pests, along with pests found in homes and landscaping, are usually problematic because of human created circumstances (Elizinga 2004). In managed, or simplified, ecosystems, such as cropland, orchards, or landscaped areas, the food supply for a pest may be increased while the habitat/niche of predators may be removed or reduced (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). The European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Ostrinia nubilalis) is a significant agricultural pest in the United States. As a result of the acreage density of corn in the Midwest, the moth larvae have an abundance of food while the prevalence of the adult parasitoid wasp, Macrocentris grandi, dependent on nectar plants for food, may be reduced. To address pest problems, the conditions favoring pest population growth must be considered. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consists of tactics to prevent and methods to monitor and control pests (Elizinga 2004, Peters 1993, Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). Some common prevention tactics used in homes include window and door screens to exclude flies and mosquitoes and washing clothes and linens, vacuuming, and bathing to prevent body parasites. Using plant varieties most suitable to environmental conditions, providing habitat for beneficial insects, keeping bushes and woodpiles away from buildings, and emptying containers with standing water are all methods to reduce pest populations in landscaping. If preventative measures fail, the least toxic pesticides are chosen first to reduce the risk of losing insects that help keep pest populations under control. Figure 6 shows the thinking process recommended when using IPM. Insects are key components of healthy ecosystems and people benefit from the goods and services provided by ecosystems. If habitat for beneficial insects is provided, fewer pest outbreaks are likely to occur. Managed ecosystems need to mimic non-simplified ecosystems by containing a mosaic of plants for beneficial insects. Butterflies and moths (Lepidopterans) are important pollinators of flowering plants in wild ecosystems and managed systems such as parks and yards. Butterflies and moths have different niches; butterflies are active during the day while moths are active in the evening and at night. Because the adult and juvenile forms of butterflies and moths do not eat the same food, it is necessary for an ecosystem – whether wild or managed – to contain both nectar and host plants (Berenbaum 2007). By ensuring the presence of host plants in an area, the adult moth or butterfly will be able to lay her eggs on the appropriate plants for the eggs to hatch and the larvae to feed. Without these host plants adult moths and butterflies may not be present even if the nectar plants are available. Some pollination relationships are quite specific. A specialist relationship exists between the yucca moth and the yucca plant. Moth larvae only eat seeds of the yucca plant, and the plant depends on adult moths carrying pollen to facilitate sexual reproduction (Pellmyr et al. 1996). These specialist relationships can be negatively impacted if there is a decline of either species. A major determinant of Monarch butterfly population size is the availability of its host and nectar plant, milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, (Brower et al. 2011). Milkweed prevalence decreased between 1999 and 2009 in Iowa corn and soybean fields following the widespread adoption of herbicide resistant cultivars (Hartzler 2010). While adult butterflies and moths are important pollinators, their larvae may be pests. The larvae of Cabbage White butterflies – an introduced speciesin the United States – are significant pests in Brassicaceae family plants (Snell-Rood & Papaj 2009, Cipollini 2002). The Eastern comma butterfly larva is a pest of hops (Dole 2003). The tobacco hornworm (larva of the sphinx moth) and the tomato hornworm (larva of the five-spot hawkmoth) can be significant pests of tobacco, tomato, potato, eggplant and pepper plants (Fraser et al. 2003). Clothes moth larvae can do damage by feeding on wool, felt, silk, fur, and feathers. Grain moths may be seen flying in kitchens and feed on flour or cereal grains. Figure 1 Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is an introduced, naturalized North American generalist pollinator. Honey bees are eusocial, forming a high organized society where each colony has overlapping generations, one queen who mates with multiple males a week after she emerges as an adult, and female workers who cooperate in the rearing of her full-, ¾- and half-sisters. Courtesy of Jon Sullivan. Bees are one of the largest groups of pollinators (Berenbaum 2007) and can be social or solitary animals. Honey bees (Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a). The frames in the top box of the hive are filled with honey and harvested by beekeepers. To prevent bears from eating the brood and honey and skunks and raccoons from eating adult bees, this apiary is enclosed with an electrified fence. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 3b The frames can be removed to inspect for pests and disease and evaluate the health of the colonies (b). Nurse bees are caring for the capped brood. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 4 Honey bees will usually build comb inside a cavity but in warm climates they may build comb outside to facilitate cooling. This hive photographed in January in Kauai, Hawaii is at least 8 years old. During the summer months, when pollen and nectar are more readily available, the number of bees occupying the hive is significantly greater and the comb will not be visible due to the number of bees. Feral colonies are common in Kauai, unlike the mainland United States, because the varroa mite, the most significant pest of honey bees, has not been introduced to Kauai. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Bumble bee colonies do not overwinter (Baer & Schmid-Hempel 2003). Each spring, mated queens emerge from hibernation to establish colonies. Each queen begins by locating a nest site and building wax pots (for nectar and pollen) and wax cells (for eggs). She will rear the first generation of adults who will take over the foraging and nest building tasks. The queen will continue to lay eggs and the colony will grow until late summer when reproductive males and females are reared and mate. All but the mated queens die before winter. There are approximately 17,000 solitary bee species (Berenbaum 2007). Many are active as adults for only a short time each year and pollinate a narrow range of plants (Bosch & Kemp 2004). For example, the mason bees (~ 130 species in North America) pollinate blueberries, blackberries, and cherries (Figure 5). After a female mason bee mates she finds a tube-like structure and builds a mud wall at the end. Her first step is to make numerous trips (~ 25) to collect nectar and pollen, which she places at the end of the tube. Next she backs into the tube and lays an egg on top of the nectar and pollen. Her final step is to build a mud wall to partition the tube. She will continue these three steps until female eggs fill the rear of the tube and male eggs fill the front. During each of her 25 foraging trips per egg, a mason bee female will visit up to 75 flowers. Figure 5 Mason bees are active in the spring and are excellent pollinators of a variety of crops including apples and blueberries. This Mason bee, Osmia cornifrons is the primary pollinator of apples in Japan and was introduced into the United States in 1977 by Suzanne Batra (USDA) for orchard pollination. Courtesy of Beatriz Moisset. To pollinate the almond crop, ~ 1 million honey bee colonies are needed in California every February. The Maine blueberries require ~ 50,000 colonies and New York apples need ~ 30,000 colonies. With the significant decline of honey bee colonies, there is concern about honey bee survival and our dependence on honey bees for crop pollination (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2011). The cause of honey bee population decline is unknown, but many researchers suspect habitat degradation, parasites, disease, and pesticides, to be contributing causes (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2010, Singh et al. 2010). Pollinator decline has not been limited to honey bees (Berenbaum 2007). Declines have been observed in bumble bee species, including a 96% decline in four North American species linked to Nosema bombi, a microsporidian (Cameron et al. 2011). Our knowledge of most native bumble bee and solitary bees is so limited that it is difficult to say conclusively if the suspected declines in populations or loss of species is occurring only at the regional level or if the declines are global (Berenbaum 2007). An insect’s relationship with humans is beneficial, benign or pestiferous only because we have defined it as such. Therefore some insects can have more than one relationship with humans. Honey bees pollinate our crops but may be considered a pest because they can sting. Ants are unwanted guests if found in a house but are important decomposer organisms for the maintenance of soil fertility. Food, lumber, clean air and water and all the other goods and services derived from ecosystems would not exist without insects. Living in balance with insects and the other component of ecosystems will aid human survival and prosperity. Glossary Apiary: A site where multiple honey bee colonies are kept in relatively close proximity. Detritivores: Detritivores feed on detritus (non-living, particulate, organic matter). Primary detritivores including fungi, bacteria and earthworms feed directly on detritus. Detritus is composed of dead plant and animal material, and the fecal waste of animals. Secondary detritivores feed on primary detritivores. Secondary detritus feeders include millipedes, centipedes, ants, termites, and wood beetles. In the case of termites and wood beetles, symbionts in their gut digest the cellulose in wood allowing these animals to obtain nutrients that would otherwise be inaccessible. Eusocial: True social. Sociality can range from solitary to true social. Solitary individuals undertake all activities alone. Aggregations for food, defense, or warmth is a type of pre-social behavior may occur in otherwise solitary species including Ladybird beetles, Monarch butterflies, and bark beetles. Subsocial behavior is when adults provide some type of care for their young, while communal behavior is when adults in the same generation share a nest site but the adults do not cooperate in caring for each other’s young. Quasisocial behavior includes communal behavior but includes cooperation in the care of the young. Semisocial individuals cooperate in care of the young but have a reproductive caste with workers who may be sterile. True social or Eusociality requires three behaviors: 1) overlapping generations in a common nest site, 2) reproductive castes, and 3) cooperate in the rearing of the young. Generalist: A generalist species is able to survive under a variety of environmental conditions. It will usually have more than one source of food, multiple acceptable types of nesting sites, etc. Usually the size of area in which generalists forage for food is smaller than is required for specialists who need a larger area because their food source is scarcer. Examples of generalists include human, rats, raccoons, cockroaches, and honey bees. Intraspecific: occurring or arising within a species. Naturalized: A naturalized species is an introduced species that has established itself outside of its native range and is acclimated to its new environment. It is able to survive and reproduce without human assistance. A naturalized species is sometimes considered an invasive species. Parasitoid: Parasitoids are insects that are free-living as adults. The adult female lays her eggs in or on a host from whom the resulting larvae obtain food. Unlike predators, the larvae of parasitoids consume only one host per lifetime. Pestiferous: bothersome or annoying. Specialist: A specialist species survives under a narrow range of environmental conditions. It will usually have a limited diet that will require it to have a larger foraging range due to their food source being scarcer. Examples of specialists include the panda, koala, Monarch butterfly and Mason bee. Snell-Rood, E. C. & Papaj, D. R. Patterns of phenotypic plasticity in common and rare environments: A study of host use and color learning in the Cabbage White butterfly Pieris rapae. The American Naturalist173, 615–631 (2009). Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America, Chair: May Berenbaum, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies Press USA, 2007.	(Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a).	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/why-bees-are-essential-people-and-planet	Why bees are essential to people and planet	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole. “Increasing crop and regional farm diversity as well as targeted habitat conservation, management or restoration, is one way of combating climate change and promoting biodiversity,” says UN Environment Programme (UNEP) biodiversity specialist Marieta Sakalian. “Governments need to take the lead.” It is precisely to encourage governments, organizations, civil society and concerned citizens to protect pollinators and their habitats that the UN has declared 20 May World Bee Day. World Bee Day raises awareness of the essential role bees, and other pollinators play in keeping people and the planet healthy. The date coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard while needing so little attention. For further information please contact Marieta Sakalian, Senior Programme Management Officer and Coordinator for Healthy and Productive Ecosystems at UNEP.	Beekeeping also provides an important source of income for many rural livelihoods. According to IPBES, the western honey bee is the most widespread managed pollinator globally, and more than 80 million hives produce an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of honey annually. When animals and insects pick up the pollen of flowers and spread it, they allow plants, including many food crops, to reproduce. Birds, rodents, monkeys and even people pollinate, but the most common pollinators are insects, and among them, bees. Bees at risk from pesticides, air pollution But sadly, bees and other pollinators, such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds, are increasingly under threat from human activities. Bee populations have been declining globally over recent decades due to habitat loss, intensive farming practices, changes in weather patterns and the excessive use of agrochemicals such as pesticides. This in turn poses a threat to a variety of plants critical to human well-being and livelihoods. Air pollution is also thought to be affecting bees. Preliminary research shows that air pollutants interact with scent molecules released by plants which bees need to locate food. The mixed signals interfere with the bees’ ability to forage efficiently, making them slower and less effective at pollination. While the vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees, the mass breeding and large-scale transport of pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of pathogens and parasites. According to the IPBES report, better regulation of their trade can decrease the risk of unintended harm. Taking urgent action But there are positive signs. In May 2018, the European Union upheld a partial ban on three insecticides known as neonicotinoids to mitigate the lethal threat they pose to bees and their trickle-down effect on pollination as a whole.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/pollination	Pollination - Native Plants and Ecosystem Services	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants. Where and how do bees live? Most bee species dig nests in soil, while others utilize plants, either by boring holes in pithy plant stems or wood, or by nesting in galleries made by wood-boring beetles in trees or other preexisting cavities. Bumble bees are known to nest in abandoned rodent burrows and feral honey bees are known to nest in tree hollows. Bees use a variety of materials to build their nests. Most bees line their nest cells with a waxy material they produce themselves, but others use pieces of leaves, small pebbles mixed with resin from tree sap, or mud to form the cells in which they lay their eggs. Why do bees need flowers throughout the growing season? Many bee species are solitary (each female produces offspring in her own nest) with only one generation of bees produced per year. However, other species nest communally (several females share a nest) or have elaborate social structures with division of labor within the colony (usually with a single queen and many workers). These kinds of bees produce multiple generations per year. This means that bees that produce multiple generations each year need food resources (pollen and nectar) across most of the growing season to produce strong colonies. Providing plants in a landscape with overlapping bloom periods will help these bees survive and prosper. View our information about selecting plants for overlapping bloom and appeal to pollinators. Bees need our help! Bee communities, both wild and managed, have been declining over the last half century as pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas increased. Changes in land use have resulted in a patchy distribution of food and nesting resources. Concerned bee researchers recently met to discuss the current pollinator status in North America and to publish a report about it. Since January (2007), there have been a number of reports in the media about the mysterious disappearance of large numbers of honey bees called colony collapse disorder. This has many growers concerned about how they will continue to be able to pollinate their crops. Now more than ever, it is critical to consider practices that will benefit pollinators by providing habitats free of pesticides, full of nectar and pollen resources, and with ample potential nesting resources. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer, committed to achieving excellence through a diverse workforce and inclusive culture that encourages all people to reach their full potential. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. The 4-H Name and Emblem have special protections from Congress, protected by code 18 USC 707.	Pollination Why are bees important? It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat. Most crops grown for their fruits (including vegetables such as squash, cucumber, tomato and eggplant), nuts, seeds, fiber (such as cotton), and hay (alfalfa grown to feed livestock), require pollination by insects. Pollinating insects also play a critical role in maintaining natural plant communities and ensuring production of seeds in most flowering plants. Pollination is the transfer of pollen from the male parts of a flower to the female parts of a flower of the same species, which results in fertilization of plant ovaries and the production of seeds. The main insect pollinators, by far, are bees, and while European honey bees are the best known and widely managed pollinators, there are also hundreds of other species of bees, mostly solitary ground nesting species, that contribute some level of pollination services to crops and are very important in natural plant communities. Why are bees good pollinators? Bees make excellent pollinators because most of their life is spent collecting pollen, a source of protein that they feed to their developing offspring. When a bee lands on a flower, the hairs all over the bees' body attract pollen grains through electrostatic forces. Stiff hairs on their legs enable them to groom the pollen into specialized brushes or pockets on their legs or body, and then carry it back to their nest. Individual bees tend to focus on one kind of flower at a time, which means it is more likely that pollen from one flower will be transferred to another flower of the same species by a particular bee. Many plants require this kind of pollen distribution, known as cross-pollination, in order to produce viable seeds. The business of collecting pollen requires a lot of energy, and so many flowers attract and also reward bees with nectar, a mixture of water and sugars produced by plants.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/the-importance-of-bees	The importance of bees as pollinators \| Kew	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators. This, however, is just a short-term solution. What we really need is to restore our eco-systems and create landscapes to support diverse flora and fauna.	Breadcrumb The importance of bees as pollinators Pollination is one of the most important biological processes on our planet. And bees one of the most important pollinators. But what is pollination and why is it so important? What is pollination? Pollination is the transfer of the pollen grain from the stamen (the male part of the flower) to the stigma and egg (the female part of the flower). It is through pollination that plants are fertilised and able to produce the next generation of plants, including the fruit and crops we eat. Since plants can’t move, they have to employ other tactics to ensure pollen is carried from flower to flower. Some plants rely on wind and water, most flowering plants reproduce through animal pollination. Around 75% of crop plants require some degree of animal pollination, including many of our everyday fruit and vegetables. Of all the different animals and insects that serve as pollinators, the most important are bees. Bees and pollination In the past we relied on wild bees to pollinate our crops but wild bee populations are now in decline due to disease, extreme weather, competition from invasive species, habitat loss and climate change. To make up for the decline in wild pollinators, farmers buy in commercially bred bumblebees and put them on farmland hoping that the bees will forage on the crops they want pollinated. This method is expensive, could spread disease and the introduced bees might forage on food that wild pollinators need. Kew and bees At Kew we’re working on developing a technology which incorporates a small amount of caffeinated nectar alongside an artificial odour of strawberry flowers. We know that caffeine improves bees’ memory so that they are more likely to remember a food source. This means that when the commercialised bees are in transit they’re already learning to associate good food reward with the smell of strawberries, so that when they arrive on the farm they are focused on strawberries, making them more efficient and ensuring they do not take food from wild pollinators.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-are-bees-important-to-humans	Why bees are so important to human life and health	Bees are significant for many reasons. They have historical importance, contribute to human health, and play a role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Health products Not all bees produce honey, but it is one of the main reasons people value them. The substance is a natural sweetener with many potential health qualities. People have used bees and bee-related products for medicinal purposes for thousands of years. Researchers have noted claims that it has antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties. In traditional medicine, people use honey when treating a wide variety of conditions. While many of these uses do not have scientific backing, they include: Beeswax is another important product that people have previously used in waterproofing and fuel. It currently has benefits for health and features in a number of skincare products. Additionally, pharmaceutical industries use it in ointments. Pollination In recent years, it has become clear that honey may not be the most important reason to protect bees. This is because bees play a crucial role in pollination, where they use the hairs on their bodies to carry large grains of pollen between plants. Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them. In financial terms, the pollination of fruits and vegetables by wild bees across the United States has a high economic value. One 2020 study found that wild bees were responsible for a significant portion of net income from blueberries. There is a direct link between the economic yield of farmers and the presence of bees. In 2012, experts estimated that total pollination to be worth $34 billion, with a large portion of this amount due to bees. Green backyards and gardens can be vital resources for bees. Growing native flowers and leaving weeds to develop can contribute to bee health and numbers by providing food and shelter. Reducing landscaping activities, such as mowing or pruning, can help bees by increasing the amount of vegetation available. According to a 2019 study, as well as benefitting the bees, increasing rural spaces in urban areas can boost human mental and emotional well-being. Nonscientists and volunteers can contribute to research through citizen science initiatives, where people report what they see in their local area. This can help experts understand what is happening in a particular area or country. For example, a citizen-based 2020 study revealed that squash bees occupy a wide geographic range and prefer farms with less soil disturbance. Additionally, in the 2007 Great Pollinator Project, a partnership in New York encouraged members of the public to watch bees and record the types of wildflowers they visited. Such findings help scientists find useful ways to protect bees. However, this depends on people being able to identify species correctly. Therefore, learning about bee species and habits can also help individuals protect them. Bees have cultural and environmental importance as pollinators and producers of honey and medicinal products. The movement of pollen between plants is necessary for plants to fertilize and reproduce. Both farmed and wild bees control the growth and quality of vegetation — when they thrive, so do crops. Bees are vital when it comes to food security. However, the welfare and number of bees worldwide are in decline, and it is essential to protect them to maintain human well-being. How we reviewed this article: Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy.	Around 75% of crops produce better yields if animals help them pollinate. Of all animals, bees are the most dominant pollinators of wild and crop plants. They visit over 90% of the world’s top 107 crops. In other words, bees are essential for the growth of many plants, including food crops. Historical importance People have been working with bees around the world for millennia. The significance comes from the direct harvesting of honey and beeswax and cultural beliefs. For example, the Ancient Greeks thought of bees as a symbol of immortality. In the 19th century, beekeepers in New England would inform their bees of any major events in human society. Meanwhile, native northern Australians used beeswax when producing rock art. For history experts, bee products are a key aspect of archaeology. This is because beeswax produces a “chemical fingerprint” that people can assess to identify components in organic residue. Society and the environment Bees are very intelligent, and people have applied knowledge of their mannerisms and social interactions when creating human initiatives. For example, researchers have suggested that studying the actions of bees could help experts develop emergency plans to evacuate people from an overcrowded environment. Observing honeybee dances can also help scientists understand where changes are taking place in the environment. Farming practices, global warming, and disease are just a few reasons why bee numbers are declining. Experts are concerned about the impact on world food supplies, especially fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They say that without bees, there will be no more nuts, coffee, cocoa, tomatoes, apples, or almonds, to name a few crops. This could lead to nutritional deficiencies in the human diet, as these products are essential sources of vital nutrients. Additionally, the emerging medicinal properties of bee venom and other bee products may never be accessible without bees to provide them.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/why-do-we-need-bees	Why do we need bees? \| Friends of the Earth	Why do we need bees? Bees are vital to a healthy environment and healthy economy. They're also simply beautiful and fascinating little insects. But what makes them so special? Published: 25 Jul 2017 \| 4 minute read The need for bees We need bees. We may take them and other pollinators like butterflies and hoverflies for granted, but they're vital to stable, healthy food supplies and key to the varied, colourful and nutritious diets we need (and have come to expect). Bees are perfectly adapted to pollinate, helping plants grow, breed and produce food. They do so by transferring pollen between flowering plants and therefore keeping the cycle of life turning. The vast majority of plants we need for food rely on pollination, especially by bees: from almonds and vanilla to apples and squash. Bees also pollinate around 80% of wildflowers in Europe, so our countryside would be far less interesting and beautiful without them. But bees are in trouble. There's growing public and political concern at bee decline across the world. This decline is caused by a combination of stresses – from loss of habitat and food sources to exposure to pesticides and the effects of climate breakdown. More than ever before, we need to recognise the importance of bees to nature and to our lives. And we need to turn that into action to ensure they don't just survive but thrive. Types of bee Not all bees are the same. There are over 20,000 known species of bee globally. Around 270 species of bee have been recorded in the UK. Only 1 of these is the famous Honeybee. Most Honeybees are kept by beekeepers in colonies of managed hives. The rest of our bees are wild, including 25 bumblebee species and more than 220 types of solitary bee. Like Honeybees, the familiar Bumblebees live in social colonies - usually in holes in the ground or tree cavities. Solitary bees tend to nest on their own, as the name suggests. Each female builds and provisions her own nest with food. Solitary bees include Mining bees which nest in the ground, as well as Mason bees and Leafcutter bees that nest in holes in dead wood, banks and walls. Bees = perfect pollinators Thanks to bees we can enjoy a range of foods from apples and pears to coffee and vanilla. And if you are wearing cotton, that's because the cotton plant your threads came from was pollinated. "More than 90% of the leading global crop types are visited by bees." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Bees gather pollen to stock their nests as food for their young. They have special features to collect it - like branched hairs called 'scopae' or combs of bristles called pollen baskets on their legs. As bees visit plants seeking food, pollen catches on their bodies and passes between plants, fertilising them – that's pollination. Bees are not the world's only pollinators. Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive. But our existence would be more precarious and our diets would be dull, poorer and less nutritious. And not just for want of honey. Even some plants grown to feed to livestock for meat production, such as clover and alfalfa, depend at least partly on bee pollination. "Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops and wild plants that provide essential micro-nutrients for human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin A, iron and folate deficiency." Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Governments and food producers talk a lot about food security, yet without bees our food supply would be insecure. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identified encouraging pollinators - particularly bees - as one of the best sustainable ways to boost food security and support sustainable farming. All this natural crop pollination fills pockets as well as our bellies. The global market value linked to pollinators is between US$235bn and US$557bn each year. In the UK alone, the services of bees and other pollinators are worth £691m a year, in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. It would cost the UK at least £1.8bn a year to employ people to do the work of these pollinators, yet bees do it for free. Bees are important to a healthy environment Bees are a fantastic symbol of nature. That they are in trouble is a sign that our natural environment is not in the good shape it should be. By keeping the cycle of life turning, bees boost the colour and beauty of our countryside. Some 80% of European wildflowers require insect pollination. Many of them such as foxglove, clovers and vetches rely on bees. Pollinators allow plants to fruit, set seed and breed. This in turn provides food and habitat for a range of other creatures. So the health of our natural ecosystems is fundamentally linked to the health of our bees and other pollinators. Maintaining our native flora also depends on healthy pollinator populations. This includes wild flowers such as poppies, cornflowers and bluebells, as well as trees and shrubs. The close relationship between pollinators and the plants they pollinate is evident in the parallel declines seen across the UK and Europe: 76% of plants preferred by bumblebees have declined in recent decades, with 71% seeing contractions in their geographical range. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects. Donate today and get everything you need to create a haven for bees and pollinating insects.	Flies, wasps, moths, beetles and even some birds, bats and lizards all pollinate, but they only visit flowers enough to feed themselves. Because they gather pollen to stock their nests, bees are generally the most effective pollinators since they visit many more flowers and carry more pollen between them. Some bee species are also specially developed to pollinate particular plants and without them those plants would be less well-pollinated. Bees and farmers Many bees have different characteristics that make them suited to pollinate certain plants. For example, the Early bumblebee's small size and agility allow it to enter plants with drooping flowers such as comfrey. Garden bumblebees are better at pollinating the deep flowers of honeysuckle and foxgloves than most other species because their longer tongue can reach deep inside them. Many farmers rely on a diversity of bees to pollinate their produce. For example, commercial apple growers benefit from the free pollination services of the Red mason bee. This species can be 120 times more efficient at pollinating apple blossoms than honeybees. There is evidence that natural pollination by the right type of bee improves the quality of the crop - from its nutritional value to its shelf life. For example, bumblebees and solitary bees feed from different parts of strawberry flowers. In combination they produce bigger, juicier and more evenly-shaped strawberries. Some bee species have an affinity to particular plants, so need particular natural habitats. For example, in the UK the scabious bee, our largest mining bee, needs the pollen of field scabious or small scabious to provision its young. These plants grow on sandy or chalky open grassland, an important habitat for a variety of bees and wildflowers that is under threat from changing land use. The loss of particular habitats like this is the main driver of bee decline. Bees are important for more than honey In a world without bees we would probably survive.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.pthomeandgarden.com/5-ways-bees-are-important-to-the-environment/	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment \| Premier Tech Home ...	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals. 3. Food Source Bees produce honey to feed their colonies during the cold winter months. Humans have harvested honey for thousands of years, but we aren’t the only ones who consider it a sweet snack. Critters like birds, racoons, opossums, and insects will raid beehives for a taste of nutritious honey (and bee larvae). Bees themselves are also a part of the food chain. At least 24 species of bird, including the blackbird, ruby-throated hummingbird, and starling, prey on bees. Many spiders and insects, like dragonflies and praying mantises, eat bees as well. 2. Wildlife Habitats Bees are known for their elaborate hives, but they also help build homes for millions of other insects and animals. Their role as pollinators is vital in the growth of tropical forests, savannah woodlands, and temperate deciduous forests. Many tree species, like willows and poplars, couldn’t grow without pollinators like bees. Even your own garden serves as a home for hundreds of tiny creatures, from birds and squirrels to thousands of tiny insects. If bees disappeared, the animals that depend on these plants for survival would vanish as well. 1. Biodiversity As pollinators, bees play a part in every aspect of the ecosystem. They support the growth of trees, flowers, and other plants, which serve as food and shelter for creatures large and small. Bees contribute to complex, interconnected ecosystems that allow a diverse number of different species to co-exist. There is no doubting the importance of bees to our food supply. Without them, our gardens would be bare and our plates empty. But we should also remember the other reasons bees are important to the environment.	5 Ways Bees are Important to the Environment It takes more than soil, water, and sunshine to make the world green. At least 30% of the world’s crops and 90% of all plants require cross-pollination to spread and thrive, and here in Canada, bees are our most important pollinators. Unfortunately, bee populations here and around the world are in decline. Climate change causes some flowers to bloom earlier or later than usual, leaving bees with fewer food sources at the start of the season. Bees suffer habitat loss from development, abandoned farms, and the lack of bee-friendly flowers. Some colonies collapse due to plants and seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, or harmful parasites like mites. Even one of Ontario’s most common species of bumble bee recently became an endangered species. The good news is there are ways gardeners can help bee populations bounce back. Planting a bee-friendly garden will not only lead to healthy and vibrant plants, it will ensure that bees continue to play their critical role in our ecosystem. Let’s explore five of the reasons bees are important to the environment. 5. Pollination To germinate, these plants require the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower (the anther) to the female part (the stigma). As bees move from flower to flower in search of nectar, they leave behind grains of pollen on the sticky surface, allowing plants to grow and produce food. Bees earn their reputation as busy workers by pollinating billions of plants each year, including millions of agricultural crops. In fact, pollinators like bees play a key role in one out of every three bites of food we eat. Without them, many plants we rely on for food would die off. 4. Wild Plant Growth It’s not just farm-grown fruits and vegetables that rely on pollinators to thrive. Many species of wild plants depend on insect pollinators as well. Bees are responsible for the production of many seeds, nuts, berries, and fruit, which serve as a vital food source for wild animals.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Pollinators	Pollinators	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page. Iowa is a very important state for this species and the Iowa DNR along with numerous partners AND many citizens have been working hard to make sure the Monarch Butterfly is here to delight us for many years to come. Read below for more information about the Monarch Butterfly in Iowa! Learn more about the monarch: The most important thing to know about the Monarch butterfly is that it needs Milkweed. Any plant in the genus Asclepias will do; Common Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed to name a few; but the Monarch must have some milkweed to eat as a caterpillar in order to complete its life cycle which it will go through several times in a year’s span. In the middle of all of this, Monarchs throw in that truly astounding migration to Mexico and back. Monarchs usually show up in Iowa late in the month of May and in force in June. These individuals are “2nd generation” meaning that they are the offspring of butterflies that left Mexico in March and stopped over in the Southern U.S. (primarily Oklahoma and Texas) to reproduce. These first Monarchs to arrive in Iowa start nectaring and laying eggs on milkweeds which then develop through 5 stages or instars of caterpillar before forming a chrysalis and emerging as an adult butterfly. This entire cycle from egg to adult monarch takes roughly 20 - 30 days (the length of time is somewhat temperature dependent) and then the adults live for about 2-6 weeks. This cycle repeats itself at least twice more in Iowa before the notable and special migratory generation is produced (usually the 4th generation of individuals produced in the U.S.), let’s call it the Super Generation. This Super Generation is produced in late August and early September in Iowa and they start their much longer life span (6-7 months) by beginning the journey south to Mexico, nectaring along the way. A few may stop to breed again further south but most keep flying until they reach Mexico, stopping only to gather energy from nectar producing plants and often gathering in large roosts in trees along the way. Timeline: Arrive in Iowa: Late May/Early June First Iowa Generation: June-July Second Iowa Generation: July to August Third Iowa Generation “The Super Generation”: August to Early September So where can you find Monarchs while they are in Iowa? Almost anywhere! Monarchs are strong flyers and they will use that ability to seek out milkweed and flowers to nectar on wherever they can find it. Usually, because these types of plants need sunlight, monarchs are found in open areas dominated by grass and flowering plants. This could be your yard, a “weedy” roadside, a native prairie, an old field, that odd ½ acre not planted to crops...you name it! If it has milkweed, or some tasty flowers, a Monarch can find it. This is one thing Monarchs have in their favor and the best thing all of us can do to help save the monarch is put habitat, containing milkweeds and nectar plants, on the ground. See the “Creating Habitat for all Pollinators” section for tips on how to do this. Iowa is a very important state for the conservation of Monarch butterflies. An estimated 38% of Monarchs (Summary of Study on Monarch Joint Venture website) that end up in Mexico for the winter come from the Upper Midwest with Iowa right at its heart. No comprehensive population estimate of Monarchs exist for Iowa but we have been recording them as part of wider butterfly surveys across the state, mostly on public land. The Monarch is still one of the most abundant butterflies that are recorded on these surveys but the trend over the last ten years has mirrored the downward trend that has been documented in the wintering population in Mexico. Their migratory lifestyle, puts monarchs at risk and requires them to have especially large populations to be able to sustain a healthy existence as a species. This means, unlike other imperiled species which are difficult to find, just because the Monarch may still be seen regularly does not mean it isn’t in trouble. Wider continuous monitoring of the Iowa population will be necessary moving forward! Creating Habitat for all Pollinators One thing pollinators have going for them is that most species can take advantage of habitat almost anywhere it is provided. This means that any landowner, whether they own a lot that can be measured in square feet or one that is many acres, can create habitat for pollinators. The main characteristics a good pollinator garden needs to have are: 1) flowering plants in a 2) sunny spot that 3) bloom from Spring through Fall. We would also recommend, if possible, to consider using predominantly plant species that are native to Iowa. There are many species to choose from and they are adapted to Iowa’s environment. Most are perennials or good self-seeders (less maintenance!) and our native pollinators love them. A pollinator garden can be as formal or as “wild” as you would like. If planting a smaller area that you want to look more formal, it is likely best to plant plugs of prairie species rather than trying to spread seed. If planting a larger area and a more natural look is okay, a mix diverse in flowering prairie species will be more economical, though it will take a bit longer (2-3 years) and a little more maintenance (mowing) before it starts looking its best. The following pdf includes a more detailed description of how to create monarch and pollinator habitat, both large and small, and includes a species list and links to more resources. For larger areas, if you'd like some assistance, landowners can contact the DNR Wildlife Bureau’s Private Lands biologists for advice and assistance. The DNR also has staff that can work with private landowners and you will find a great guide to shrubs and trees that are good for pollinators on their webpage. Prominent Pollinators BEES and WASPS: There are 4000 species of bees in North America. The exact number of species in Iowa is unknown but there are likely between 300-400 native species. The species people are most familiar with, the Honey bee, is not a native species but was introduced to the United States for its ability to produce honey. There are many more species of native bees, like bumble and mason bees, which also play an important role in pollination. The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) which has a few occurrences in Iowa, recently became the first bumblebee to be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MOTHS: More than 2000 species of moths have been recorded in the state of Iowa! There are day-flying and night-flying moths, micromoths with a wingspan of 3 mm and giants like the Luna moth which can measure up to 114 mm from wingtip to wingtip. Little is known about the status of any of the moth species in the state. STAY CONNECTED Sign up for updates and join over 20,000 subscribers who are receiving content from the Iowa DNR directly in their inbox. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Our Mission To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in Iowa and ensure a legacy for future generations.	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Wildlife/Learn-About-Wildlife/Pollinators-in-Connecticut	Pollinators in Connecticut	It seems that JavaScript is not working in your browser. It could be because it is not supported, or that JavaScript is intentionally disabled. Some of the features on CT.gov will not function properly with out javascript enabled. Pollinators in Connecticut What Is Pollination? Some plants require pollination to reproduce. This is the process by which pollen grains, produced in flowers’ stamens, are transmitted to a pistil where the pollen grains will then fertilize the flower. This leads to seed and fruit production. As genetic diversity is important for healthy populations, flowers have evolved in several ways to ensure that pollen spreads between different plants of the same species. Pollen may be released into the wind and carried to other flowers, and some plants will even release pollen into flowing water. However, the vast majority of flowering plants make use of pollinators: animals that carry pollen from one flower to another. Plants and pollinators have a mutualistic relationship – both benefit from the association. Pollinators may consume pollen and nectar provided by the plants and, in the process, additional pollen inadvertently will get caught on the hairs on the animal’s body. When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise. Certain crops, such as tomatoes and eggplants, greatly benefit from buzz pollination to the point that bumble bees are also used as commercial pollinators. Bumble bee species are sometimes released into greenhouses to pollinate the crops within. This is how we get “hothouse tomatoes” in the cold weather months. In the wild, bumble bees form small colonies with a queen and just a few workers. These colonies are too small to yield honey like honey bee colonies. (A honey bee colony can consist of tens of thousands of individuals capable of producing an excess of honey that humans can harvest without compromising the bees' food supply.) Bumble bee colonies are usually located underground in an abandoned rodent tunnel or similar excavation. While some bees are social beings, like honey bees and bumble bees, most of the 300 Connecticut bee species are solitary, meaning that they do not form colonies. Female solitary bees lay eggs in cavities in the ground or in wood, and line those cavities with leaves and mud. Mining bees, digger bees, oil-collecting bees are all solitary, ground nesting bees. While it may be easy to notice honey bees and bumble bees in your garden, it is important to remember that they are not the only ones pollinating crops and flowers while we reap the benefits of their services. Butterflies and Moths: Although butterflies and moths do not provide the same amount of pollination services as bees, they are certainly conspicuous creatures, garnering admiration and attention from scientists and citizens alike. Lepidopterans (the scientific name for butterflies and moths) do not consume pollen, but they will drink nectar using their long, tubular mouthpart (proboscis). Some plants have evolved specifically to be pollinated by these insects, hiding nectar deep in the flower such that it may only be reached with an extended proboscis. Generally, butterflies and moths do not carry as much pollen as bees because they are not covered in fine hairs. In addition, the long proboscis allows butterflies and moths to access a flower's nectar without becoming coated in pollen. Some pollen, however, may attach to the insects' feet and abdomen, facilitating pollen transfer between the flowers they visit. In a classic story of biological detective work, Charles Darwin once predicted the existence of a moth 40 years before its eventual discovery. He was shown an orchid from Madagascar with an exceptionally long, nectar-filled tubular structure (known as a spur) on the flower. He guessed that a moth must exist with a proboscis just long enough that the animal’s head would brush up against the flower’s stamens so that it would transfer pollen to the pistil of the next flower it drank from. In 1903, such a moth was documented in Madagascar, named Xanthopan morgani praedicta in honor of the prediction. Flies are important and often overlooked pollinators. While many plants offer bright colors and nectar to attract bee visitors, other plants may mimic carrion or dung with dark-colored flowers and strong, pungent odors to draw in flies, such as fungus gnats and carrion flies. Many hover flies (family Syrphidae) are bee mimics in both appearance and behavior. Though they share the same black and yellow coloration we associate with bees and wasps, they do not sting. In this way, animals that have learned to avoid being stung by bees and wasps will leave the stingless flies alone. This type of mimicry is known as Batesian mimicry – one harmless organism resembles a harmful organism to gain protection from predation. Pollinating flies are generally not covered in as much hair as bees, though they will still transfer pollen between plants from what sticks to their bodies as they forage. Beetles: Pollination by beetles accounts for a small percentage of overall flower pollination. Nevertheless, beetles, ranging from scarab and long-horned beetles to checkered beetles and tumbling flower beetles, may transfer pollen between flowers. Magnolias, for example, are visited by many insects during their flowering period; however, it is the beetles that are present when pollen is plentiful. In fact, the fossil record shows that magnolias evolved in a world without butterflies or bees. Therefore, this plant must have relied on other insects as pollinators. Given that beetles existed at the time magnolias arose and are still associated with the plant, it is reasonable to assume that beetles were some of their early pollinators. Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly talked about pollinator declines – the noted decrease in these beneficial insects across the globe. Commercial honey bee hives have been experiencing significant losses in recent years, prompting investigation into its causes. Scientists and the public also have noticed that the once common rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) has gone missing from the majority of its range in North America. Once commonly found across most of the eastern United States, it was only documented from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Maryland between 2001 and 2008. As for other pollinators, efforts are currently underway to search through existing specimens in museum and private collections to determine changing trends in pollinator abundance and diversity over time. Understanding population trends of the often overlooked wild bees is important given the pollination services they provide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that 75 percent of the fruits and vegetables we consume require bee pollination. In commercially raised bumble bees, several parasites have been identified as sources of mortality. These parasites have unfortunately escaped into wild bumble bee populations. Pesticide application and pesticide drift (the travel of chemicals from the intended area to non-target plants) also are believed to be killing bumble bees and other insect pollinators, including butterflies and moths. Habitat loss and fragmentation are hurting pollinator populations as more and more foraging areas and nesting habitats are destroyed. These vital members of our ecosystems are being threatened in many ways, and for most species, we do not yet know the extent of the damage. In 2016, Public Act 16-17 was passed restricting the use of pesticides that cause serious harm to bees and other pollinators. It reduces the spraying of neonicotinoid pesticides, establishes a program to develop model pollinator habitat, and helps identify opportunities to conserve, protect, and enhance pollinator habitat. Pollinators are in trouble, but you can help! Local nectar and pollen sources are key to supporting local pollinators. To maximize the use of your yard, consider planting flowers that bloom from early spring through late autumn, thus providing a place where early-season up through the last-season pollinators can “fuel up.” Remove invasive plants, such as burning bush, autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and others, in favor of native plant species. For example, planting wild geranium and highbush blueberry for the early season; swamp milkweed and New Jersey tea for the middle of the season; and New England aster and wrinkleleaf goldenrod for the late season will provide blooming flowers from spring through fall. With the right mix of plants, you can turn your property into a haven for the entire year! Pollinators need places to nest, feed, and protect their offspring. By managing your property to be pollinator-friendly, you may be able to greatly improve pollinator habitat. Maintaining natural areas (unmanicured areas of your property) is key for long-term pollinator protection. If you have a forest, meadow, or wetland on your property, bees will use those areas extensively for both feeding and nesting. You can also give wild bees a helping hand by providing nesting sites. These sites could be patches of untilled, bare, well-drained soil, which is perfect for many ground-nesting bees. Sites for wood-nesting bees include old logs with beetle burrows (for mason bees and leafcutter bees), or brush piles (for safe places to hibernate). To encourage butterflies, you should plant the caterpillar host plants. For example, monarchs need milkweeds to feed on as caterpillars. New Jersey tea is eaten by many Connecticut insects, making it a great addition to a pollinator garden. Planting native food plants in your yard or garden is a great way to encourage pollinators to flourish! No matter the life stage, these insects are best protected by avoiding disturbances to their chosen wintering sites. It is important to support these organisms across their entire life cycle, including over winter. For example, mated queen bumble bees spend the winter under leaf litter or soil. Lepidopterans may overwinter as eggs, caterpillars, pupae, or adults. Plant management or soil disturbance is best conducted during late summer or fall to minimize negative effects to pollinators over wintering periods. If possible, management should occur in such a way that much of the habitat is left undisturbed in any given year, helping to protect species from the direct impacts of disturbance. Above all, any space created for pollinators should be pesticide free. Insecticides are especially harmful to pollinators if applied at the wrong time or application rate. While it may not always be possible to completely eliminate pesticides from your garden or yard, you can certainly reduce the impacts on pollinators with a simple few steps. Chemicals should not be applied when pollinators are active – most pollinators will be resting during the night. Similarly, if possible, pesticides should be applied to the parts of the plant without flowers so that pollinators are not exposed to chemicals while visiting the flowers. Pollinators and the White House, 2014: You are not alone in your interest in pollinator protection! In June 2014, President Barack Obama released a memorandum outlining his commitment to “honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.” He created a taskforce to develop and help implement recommendations for saving pollinator populations. President Obama highlighted the importance of these animals in our natural and agricultural systems, championing their cause from the highest office in the nation.	When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise.	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/	Pests and Pollinators \| Learn Science at Scitable	Humans determine if an insect is beneficial, benign or pestiferous. Even when an insect is classified as a pest, it can have, under different circumstances, a beneficial role. A fly in a house is a pest, but that same fly is beneficial in its role as a detritivore. Termites are pests when invading homes, but are beneficial when fulfilling their ecological role in a forest. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% of insects are pests (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005) but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of crops and 9% of forest production (Pimental et al. 2000). The Balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges picease, has destroyed nearly all of the Fraser firs (Abies fraseri) in the southern Appalachian Mountains and is thought to be responsible for the loss of two native bird species (Alsop & Laughlin 1991). Formosan termites, Coptotermes formosanus, cause over $1 billion in structural damage per year (Corn et al. 1999). Frequently, pest insects are invasive species, such as the Balsam woolly adelgid and the Formosan termite. Within their native ranges – Europe and southern China, respectively – these insects are less likely to be pestiferous. Most insects are beneficial to humans either directly or indirectly (Peters 1993). Directly beneficial insects include pollinators and insect predators and parasites of pests. Other insects provide humans with material goods such as honey (honey bees), silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and inks (insect galls). Without insects, weed control would be more difficult. In Australia, an introduced species of cactus, the prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), was controlled by Cactoblastis cactorum, a moth (Wilson & Schwarzlaender 2004). Predator, parasite, and parasitoid insects provide top-down management of herbivore populations (Naylor & Ehrlich 1997). During the 1800’s, cottony-cushion scale – a scale insect – was accidently introduced into California citrus groves from Australia (Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003). The citrus industry was saved when the Vedalia lady beetle, a natural predator of the cottony-cushion scale, was introduced. Indirect benefits from insects may be more numerous and important than direct benefits. Insects indirectly benefiting humans include all insect herbivores, prey, predators, and detritivores because they are an integral part of the biotic community of ecosystems (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). A well-functioning ecosystem provides services such as soil fertility, clean air, and clean water. Termites, cockroaches, and other soil dwelling insects, help to break down plant debris. Flies, beetles, and moths, help to decompose dead animals. Dung beetles are critical for the decomposition of animal feces. Insects are food for bats, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and many mammals. Aquatic insects such as mayflies and stoneflies are used to monitor the health of streams and lakes. Insect Pests An important group of insect pests is those that transmit human diseases (Table 1). Malaria, responsible for 700,000-1,000,000 deaths annually, is transmitted by Anopheles sp. mosquitoes (Centers for Disease Control). The female Anopheles ingests the disease agent, Plasmodium spp. – a parasitic protist – from an infected human. After an incubation period in the mosquito of 7-30 days, transmission to an uninfected human is possible. Sub-tropics of Africa and Asia, Western Pacific, equatorial South America Mosquito (Anopheles spp.) World-wide except Antarctica River Blindness Sub-Saharan Africa, limited area of South America, Yemen Black Flies (Simulium sp.) World-wide except Antarctica (fast flowing streams) Typhus (louse-borne) Where body lice are present Body Lice (Pediculus humanus humanus) Where humans are present West Nile Virus (humans are a dead-end host) Africa, North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania Mosquito (primarily Culex sp.) World-wide except Antarctica Table 1: Some human diseases and their insect vectors. Insects seldom become pests in natural ecosystems, but in managed or simplified ecosystems when an insect population become large enough to cause harm to people, crops, animals, or possessions, insects may be categorized as pests (Elizinga 2004). Pest outbreaks in natural ecosystems usually last 3-4 years, even with no intervention (Rotenberry et al. 1995). Various factors limit the length of a pest outbreak, including intraspecific competition for resources, diseases and parasites (Roland 1993). Agricultural pests, along with pests found in homes and landscaping, are usually problematic because of human created circumstances (Elizinga 2004). In managed, or simplified, ecosystems, such as cropland, orchards, or landscaped areas, the food supply for a pest may be increased while the habitat/niche of predators may be removed or reduced (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). The European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Ostrinia nubilalis) is a significant agricultural pest in the United States. As a result of the acreage density of corn in the Midwest, the moth larvae have an abundance of food while the prevalence of the adult parasitoid wasp, Macrocentris grandi, dependent on nectar plants for food, may be reduced. To address pest problems, the conditions favoring pest population growth must be considered. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consists of tactics to prevent and methods to monitor and control pests (Elizinga 2004, Peters 1993, Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). Some common prevention tactics used in homes include window and door screens to exclude flies and mosquitoes and washing clothes and linens, vacuuming, and bathing to prevent body parasites. Using plant varieties most suitable to environmental conditions, providing habitat for beneficial insects, keeping bushes and woodpiles away from buildings, and emptying containers with standing water are all methods to reduce pest populations in landscaping. If preventative measures fail, the least toxic pesticides are chosen first to reduce the risk of losing insects that help keep pest populations under control. Figure 6 shows the thinking process recommended when using IPM. Insects are key components of healthy ecosystems and people benefit from the goods and services provided by ecosystems. If habitat for beneficial insects is provided, fewer pest outbreaks are likely to occur. Managed ecosystems need to mimic non-simplified ecosystems by containing a mosaic of plants for beneficial insects. Butterflies and moths (Lepidopterans) are important pollinators of flowering plants in wild ecosystems and managed systems such as parks and yards. Butterflies and moths have different niches; butterflies are active during the day while moths are active in the evening and at night. Because the adult and juvenile forms of butterflies and moths do not eat the same food, it is necessary for an ecosystem – whether wild or managed – to contain both nectar and host plants (Berenbaum 2007). By ensuring the presence of host plants in an area, the adult moth or butterfly will be able to lay her eggs on the appropriate plants for the eggs to hatch and the larvae to feed. Without these host plants adult moths and butterflies may not be present even if the nectar plants are available. Some pollination relationships are quite specific. A specialist relationship exists between the yucca moth and the yucca plant. Moth larvae only eat seeds of the yucca plant, and the plant depends on adult moths carrying pollen to facilitate sexual reproduction (Pellmyr et al. 1996). These specialist relationships can be negatively impacted if there is a decline of either species. A major determinant of Monarch butterfly population size is the availability of its host and nectar plant, milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, (Brower et al. 2011). Milkweed prevalence decreased between 1999 and 2009 in Iowa corn and soybean fields following the widespread adoption of herbicide resistant cultivars (Hartzler 2010). While adult butterflies and moths are important pollinators, their larvae may be pests. The larvae of Cabbage White butterflies – an introduced speciesin the United States – are significant pests in Brassicaceae family plants (Snell-Rood & Papaj 2009, Cipollini 2002). The Eastern comma butterfly larva is a pest of hops (Dole 2003). The tobacco hornworm (larva of the sphinx moth) and the tomato hornworm (larva of the five-spot hawkmoth) can be significant pests of tobacco, tomato, potato, eggplant and pepper plants (Fraser et al. 2003). Clothes moth larvae can do damage by feeding on wool, felt, silk, fur, and feathers. Grain moths may be seen flying in kitchens and feed on flour or cereal grains. Figure 1 Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is an introduced, naturalized North American generalist pollinator. Honey bees are eusocial, forming a high organized society where each colony has overlapping generations, one queen who mates with multiple males a week after she emerges as an adult, and female workers who cooperate in the rearing of her full-, ¾- and half-sisters. Courtesy of Jon Sullivan. Bees are one of the largest groups of pollinators (Berenbaum 2007) and can be social or solitary animals. Honey bees (Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a). The frames in the top box of the hive are filled with honey and harvested by beekeepers. To prevent bears from eating the brood and honey and skunks and raccoons from eating adult bees, this apiary is enclosed with an electrified fence. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 3b The frames can be removed to inspect for pests and disease and evaluate the health of the colonies (b). Nurse bees are caring for the capped brood. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 4 Honey bees will usually build comb inside a cavity but in warm climates they may build comb outside to facilitate cooling. This hive photographed in January in Kauai, Hawaii is at least 8 years old. During the summer months, when pollen and nectar are more readily available, the number of bees occupying the hive is significantly greater and the comb will not be visible due to the number of bees. Feral colonies are common in Kauai, unlike the mainland United States, because the varroa mite, the most significant pest of honey bees, has not been introduced to Kauai. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Bumble bee colonies do not overwinter (Baer & Schmid-Hempel 2003). Each spring, mated queens emerge from hibernation to establish colonies. Each queen begins by locating a nest site and building wax pots (for nectar and pollen) and wax cells (for eggs). She will rear the first generation of adults who will take over the foraging and nest building tasks. The queen will continue to lay eggs and the colony will grow until late summer when reproductive males and females are reared and mate. All but the mated queens die before winter. There are approximately 17,000 solitary bee species (Berenbaum 2007). Many are active as adults for only a short time each year and pollinate a narrow range of plants (Bosch & Kemp 2004). For example, the mason bees (~ 130 species in North America) pollinate blueberries, blackberries, and cherries (Figure 5). After a female mason bee mates she finds a tube-like structure and builds a mud wall at the end. Her first step is to make numerous trips (~ 25) to collect nectar and pollen, which she places at the end of the tube. Next she backs into the tube and lays an egg on top of the nectar and pollen. Her final step is to build a mud wall to partition the tube. She will continue these three steps until female eggs fill the rear of the tube and male eggs fill the front. During each of her 25 foraging trips per egg, a mason bee female will visit up to 75 flowers. Figure 5 Mason bees are active in the spring and are excellent pollinators of a variety of crops including apples and blueberries. This Mason bee, Osmia cornifrons is the primary pollinator of apples in Japan and was introduced into the United States in 1977 by Suzanne Batra (USDA) for orchard pollination. Courtesy of Beatriz Moisset. To pollinate the almond crop, ~ 1 million honey bee colonies are needed in California every February. The Maine blueberries require ~ 50,000 colonies and New York apples need ~ 30,000 colonies. With the significant decline of honey bee colonies, there is concern about honey bee survival and our dependence on honey bees for crop pollination (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2011). The cause of honey bee population decline is unknown, but many researchers suspect habitat degradation, parasites, disease, and pesticides, to be contributing causes (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2010, Singh et al. 2010). Pollinator decline has not been limited to honey bees (Berenbaum 2007). Declines have been observed in bumble bee species, including a 96% decline in four North American species linked to Nosema bombi, a microsporidian (Cameron et al. 2011). Our knowledge of most native bumble bee and solitary bees is so limited that it is difficult to say conclusively if the suspected declines in populations or loss of species is occurring only at the regional level or if the declines are global (Berenbaum 2007). An insect’s relationship with humans is beneficial, benign or pestiferous only because we have defined it as such. Therefore some insects can have more than one relationship with humans. Honey bees pollinate our crops but may be considered a pest because they can sting. Ants are unwanted guests if found in a house but are important decomposer organisms for the maintenance of soil fertility. Food, lumber, clean air and water and all the other goods and services derived from ecosystems would not exist without insects. Living in balance with insects and the other component of ecosystems will aid human survival and prosperity. Glossary Apiary: A site where multiple honey bee colonies are kept in relatively close proximity. Detritivores: Detritivores feed on detritus (non-living, particulate, organic matter). Primary detritivores including fungi, bacteria and earthworms feed directly on detritus. Detritus is composed of dead plant and animal material, and the fecal waste of animals. Secondary detritivores feed on primary detritivores. Secondary detritus feeders include millipedes, centipedes, ants, termites, and wood beetles. In the case of termites and wood beetles, symbionts in their gut digest the cellulose in wood allowing these animals to obtain nutrients that would otherwise be inaccessible. Eusocial: True social. Sociality can range from solitary to true social. Solitary individuals undertake all activities alone. Aggregations for food, defense, or warmth is a type of pre-social behavior may occur in otherwise solitary species including Ladybird beetles, Monarch butterflies, and bark beetles. Subsocial behavior is when adults provide some type of care for their young, while communal behavior is when adults in the same generation share a nest site but the adults do not cooperate in caring for each other’s young. Quasisocial behavior includes communal behavior but includes cooperation in the care of the young. Semisocial individuals cooperate in care of the young but have a reproductive caste with workers who may be sterile. True social or Eusociality requires three behaviors: 1) overlapping generations in a common nest site, 2) reproductive castes, and 3) cooperate in the rearing of the young. Generalist: A generalist species is able to survive under a variety of environmental conditions. It will usually have more than one source of food, multiple acceptable types of nesting sites, etc. Usually the size of area in which generalists forage for food is smaller than is required for specialists who need a larger area because their food source is scarcer. Examples of generalists include human, rats, raccoons, cockroaches, and honey bees. Intraspecific: occurring or arising within a species. Naturalized: A naturalized species is an introduced species that has established itself outside of its native range and is acclimated to its new environment. It is able to survive and reproduce without human assistance. A naturalized species is sometimes considered an invasive species. Parasitoid: Parasitoids are insects that are free-living as adults. The adult female lays her eggs in or on a host from whom the resulting larvae obtain food. Unlike predators, the larvae of parasitoids consume only one host per lifetime. Pestiferous: bothersome or annoying. Specialist: A specialist species survives under a narrow range of environmental conditions. It will usually have a limited diet that will require it to have a larger foraging range due to their food source being scarcer. Examples of specialists include the panda, koala, Monarch butterfly and Mason bee. Snell-Rood, E. C. & Papaj, D. R. Patterns of phenotypic plasticity in common and rare environments: A study of host use and color learning in the Cabbage White butterfly Pieris rapae. The American Naturalist173, 615–631 (2009). Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America, Chair: May Berenbaum, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies Press USA, 2007.	(Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a).	yes
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Pollinators	Pollinators	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page. Iowa is a very important state for this species and the Iowa DNR along with numerous partners AND many citizens have been working hard to make sure the Monarch Butterfly is here to delight us for many years to come. Read below for more information about the Monarch Butterfly in Iowa! Learn more about the monarch: The most important thing to know about the Monarch butterfly is that it needs Milkweed. Any plant in the genus Asclepias will do; Common Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed to name a few; but the Monarch must have some milkweed to eat as a caterpillar in order to complete its life cycle which it will go through several times in a year’s span. In the middle of all of this, Monarchs throw in that truly astounding migration to Mexico and back. Monarchs usually show up in Iowa late in the month of May and in force in June. These individuals are “2nd generation” meaning that they are the offspring of butterflies that left Mexico in March and stopped over in the Southern U.S. (primarily Oklahoma and Texas) to reproduce. These first Monarchs to arrive in Iowa start nectaring and laying eggs on milkweeds which then develop through 5 stages or instars of caterpillar before forming a chrysalis and emerging as an adult butterfly. This entire cycle from egg to adult monarch takes roughly 20 - 30 days (the length of time is somewhat temperature dependent) and then the adults live for about 2-6 weeks. This cycle repeats itself at least twice more in Iowa before the notable and special migratory generation is produced (usually the 4th generation of individuals produced in the U.S.), let’s call it the Super Generation. This Super Generation is produced in late August and early September in Iowa and they start their much longer life span (6-7 months) by beginning the journey south to Mexico, nectaring along the way. A few may stop to breed again further south but most keep flying until they reach Mexico, stopping only to gather energy from nectar producing plants and often gathering in large roosts in trees along the way. Timeline: Arrive in Iowa: Late May/Early June First Iowa Generation: June-July Second Iowa Generation: July to August Third Iowa Generation “The Super Generation”: August to Early September So where can you find Monarchs while they are in Iowa? Almost anywhere! Monarchs are strong flyers and they will use that ability to seek out milkweed and flowers to nectar on wherever they can find it. Usually, because these types of plants need sunlight, monarchs are found in open areas dominated by grass and flowering plants. This could be your yard, a “weedy” roadside, a native prairie, an old field, that odd ½ acre not planted to crops...you name it! If it has milkweed, or some tasty flowers, a Monarch can find it. This is one thing Monarchs have in their favor and the best thing all of us can do to help save the monarch is put habitat, containing milkweeds and nectar plants, on the ground. See the “Creating Habitat for all Pollinators” section for tips on how to do this. Iowa is a very important state for the conservation of Monarch butterflies. An estimated 38% of Monarchs (Summary of Study on Monarch Joint Venture website) that end up in Mexico for the winter come from the Upper Midwest with Iowa right at its heart. No comprehensive population estimate of Monarchs exist for Iowa but we have been recording them as part of wider butterfly surveys across the state, mostly on public land. The Monarch is still one of the most abundant butterflies that are recorded on these surveys but the trend over the last ten years has mirrored the downward trend that has been documented in the wintering population in Mexico. Their migratory lifestyle, puts monarchs at risk and requires them to have especially large populations to be able to sustain a healthy existence as a species. This means, unlike other imperiled species which are difficult to find, just because the Monarch may still be seen regularly does not mean it isn’t in trouble. Wider continuous monitoring of the Iowa population will be necessary moving forward! Creating Habitat for all Pollinators One thing pollinators have going for them is that most species can take advantage of habitat almost anywhere it is provided. This means that any landowner, whether they own a lot that can be measured in square feet or one that is many acres, can create habitat for pollinators. The main characteristics a good pollinator garden needs to have are: 1) flowering plants in a 2) sunny spot that 3) bloom from Spring through Fall. We would also recommend, if possible, to consider using predominantly plant species that are native to Iowa. There are many species to choose from and they are adapted to Iowa’s environment. Most are perennials or good self-seeders (less maintenance!) and our native pollinators love them. A pollinator garden can be as formal or as “wild” as you would like. If planting a smaller area that you want to look more formal, it is likely best to plant plugs of prairie species rather than trying to spread seed. If planting a larger area and a more natural look is okay, a mix diverse in flowering prairie species will be more economical, though it will take a bit longer (2-3 years) and a little more maintenance (mowing) before it starts looking its best. The following pdf includes a more detailed description of how to create monarch and pollinator habitat, both large and small, and includes a species list and links to more resources. For larger areas, if you'd like some assistance, landowners can contact the DNR Wildlife Bureau’s Private Lands biologists for advice and assistance. The DNR also has staff that can work with private landowners and you will find a great guide to shrubs and trees that are good for pollinators on their webpage. Prominent Pollinators BEES and WASPS: There are 4000 species of bees in North America. The exact number of species in Iowa is unknown but there are likely between 300-400 native species. The species people are most familiar with, the Honey bee, is not a native species but was introduced to the United States for its ability to produce honey. There are many more species of native bees, like bumble and mason bees, which also play an important role in pollination. The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) which has a few occurrences in Iowa, recently became the first bumblebee to be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MOTHS: More than 2000 species of moths have been recorded in the state of Iowa! There are day-flying and night-flying moths, micromoths with a wingspan of 3 mm and giants like the Luna moth which can measure up to 114 mm from wingtip to wingtip. Little is known about the status of any of the moth species in the state. STAY CONNECTED Sign up for updates and join over 20,000 subscribers who are receiving content from the Iowa DNR directly in their inbox. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Our Mission To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in Iowa and ensure a legacy for future generations.	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Pollinators	Pollinators	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page. Iowa is a very important state for this species and the Iowa DNR along with numerous partners AND many citizens have been working hard to make sure the Monarch Butterfly is here to delight us for many years to come. Read below for more information about the Monarch Butterfly in Iowa! Learn more about the monarch: The most important thing to know about the Monarch butterfly is that it needs Milkweed. Any plant in the genus Asclepias will do; Common Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed to name a few; but the Monarch must have some milkweed to eat as a caterpillar in order to complete its life cycle which it will go through several times in a year’s span. In the middle of all of this, Monarchs throw in that truly astounding migration to Mexico and back. Monarchs usually show up in Iowa late in the month of May and in force in June. These individuals are “2nd generation” meaning that they are the offspring of butterflies that left Mexico in March and stopped over in the Southern U.S. (primarily Oklahoma and Texas) to reproduce. These first Monarchs to arrive in Iowa start nectaring and laying eggs on milkweeds which then develop through 5 stages or instars of caterpillar before forming a chrysalis and emerging as an adult butterfly. This entire cycle from egg to adult monarch takes roughly 20 - 30 days (the length of time is somewhat temperature dependent) and then the adults live for about 2-6 weeks. This cycle repeats itself at least twice more in Iowa before the notable and special migratory generation is produced (usually the 4th generation of individuals produced in the U.S.), let’s call it the Super Generation. This Super Generation is produced in late August and early September in Iowa and they start their much longer life span (6-7 months) by beginning the journey south to Mexico, nectaring along the way. A few may stop to breed again further south but most keep flying until they reach Mexico, stopping only to gather energy from nectar producing plants and often gathering in large roosts in trees along the way. Timeline: Arrive in Iowa: Late May/Early June First Iowa Generation: June-July Second Iowa Generation: July to August Third Iowa Generation “The Super Generation”: August to Early September So where can you find Monarchs while they are in Iowa? Almost anywhere! Monarchs are strong flyers and they will use that ability to seek out milkweed and flowers to nectar on wherever they can find it. Usually, because these types of plants need sunlight, monarchs are found in open areas dominated by grass and flowering plants. This could be your yard, a “weedy” roadside, a native prairie, an old field, that odd ½ acre not planted to crops...you name it! If it has milkweed, or some tasty flowers, a Monarch can find it. This is one thing Monarchs have in their favor and the best thing all of us can do to help save the monarch is put habitat, containing milkweeds and nectar plants, on the ground. See the “Creating Habitat for all Pollinators” section for tips on how to do this. Iowa is a very important state for the conservation of Monarch butterflies. An estimated 38% of Monarchs (Summary of Study on Monarch Joint Venture website) that end up in Mexico for the winter come from the Upper Midwest with Iowa right at its heart. No comprehensive population estimate of Monarchs exist for Iowa but we have been recording them as part of wider butterfly surveys across the state, mostly on public land. The Monarch is still one of the most abundant butterflies that are recorded on these surveys but the trend over the last ten years has mirrored the downward trend that has been documented in the wintering population in Mexico. Their migratory lifestyle, puts monarchs at risk and requires them to have especially large populations to be able to sustain a healthy existence as a species. This means, unlike other imperiled species which are difficult to find, just because the Monarch may still be seen regularly does not mean it isn’t in trouble. Wider continuous monitoring of the Iowa population will be necessary moving forward! Creating Habitat for all Pollinators One thing pollinators have going for them is that most species can take advantage of habitat almost anywhere it is provided. This means that any landowner, whether they own a lot that can be measured in square feet or one that is many acres, can create habitat for pollinators. The main characteristics a good pollinator garden needs to have are: 1) flowering plants in a 2) sunny spot that 3) bloom from Spring through Fall. We would also recommend, if possible, to consider using predominantly plant species that are native to Iowa. There are many species to choose from and they are adapted to Iowa’s environment. Most are perennials or good self-seeders (less maintenance!) and our native pollinators love them. A pollinator garden can be as formal or as “wild” as you would like. If planting a smaller area that you want to look more formal, it is likely best to plant plugs of prairie species rather than trying to spread seed. If planting a larger area and a more natural look is okay, a mix diverse in flowering prairie species will be more economical, though it will take a bit longer (2-3 years) and a little more maintenance (mowing) before it starts looking its best. The following pdf includes a more detailed description of how to create monarch and pollinator habitat, both large and small, and includes a species list and links to more resources. For larger areas, if you'd like some assistance, landowners can contact the DNR Wildlife Bureau’s Private Lands biologists for advice and assistance. The DNR also has staff that can work with private landowners and you will find a great guide to shrubs and trees that are good for pollinators on their webpage. Prominent Pollinators BEES and WASPS: There are 4000 species of bees in North America. The exact number of species in Iowa is unknown but there are likely between 300-400 native species. The species people are most familiar with, the Honey bee, is not a native species but was introduced to the United States for its ability to produce honey. There are many more species of native bees, like bumble and mason bees, which also play an important role in pollination. The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) which has a few occurrences in Iowa, recently became the first bumblebee to be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. MOTHS: More than 2000 species of moths have been recorded in the state of Iowa! There are day-flying and night-flying moths, micromoths with a wingspan of 3 mm and giants like the Luna moth which can measure up to 114 mm from wingtip to wingtip. Little is known about the status of any of the moth species in the state. STAY CONNECTED Sign up for updates and join over 20,000 subscribers who are receiving content from the Iowa DNR directly in their inbox. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Our Mission To conserve and enhance our natural resources in cooperation with individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in Iowa and ensure a legacy for future generations.	What’s a Pollinator? A pollinator is any organism that helps with the cross-pollination of plants. They are vital to the survival of most of the world’s ecosystems, with an estimated 70-87% of flowering plants relying on pollinators! Many of these plants are food crops that humans rely upon and most of the others are key members of all our natural ecosystems. Bottomline: Pollinators are extremely important! In Iowa, pollinators include numerous insects and perhaps the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. In other parts of the world, bats can also play a role in pollination. However, in Iowa, pollination is overwhelmingly helped along by insects, most notably bees but also butterflies, moths, and even flies and beetles. The most important pollinators are bees and wasps, butterflies and moths. The Monarch Butterfly One of the most famous pollinators, which has been in the news a lot lately, is the Monarch butterfly. Probably no other insect species is as well known and evokes the amount of love as this species. Most children, at least in Midwestern states like Iowa, are introduced to the process of monarch metamorphosis at least once in their elementary school when a yellow, black and white monarch caterpillar is brought into their classroom. The eastern Monarch butterfly population, of which Iowa’s Monarchs are a part, is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico, flying a distance of roughly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). For comparison, Iowa at its widest point from the Mississippi to the Missouri is just a smidge over 300 miles, 1/10 of the distance most migratory Monarchs fly. Pretty astounding for such a small critter! In recent years there has been increasing concern about the health of the population and migration of Monarch Butterflies. Their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10-15 years. For more information on what’s happening nationally visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Save the Monarch page.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Wildlife/Learn-About-Wildlife/Pollinators-in-Connecticut	Pollinators in Connecticut	It seems that JavaScript is not working in your browser. It could be because it is not supported, or that JavaScript is intentionally disabled. Some of the features on CT.gov will not function properly with out javascript enabled. Pollinators in Connecticut What Is Pollination? Some plants require pollination to reproduce. This is the process by which pollen grains, produced in flowers’ stamens, are transmitted to a pistil where the pollen grains will then fertilize the flower. This leads to seed and fruit production. As genetic diversity is important for healthy populations, flowers have evolved in several ways to ensure that pollen spreads between different plants of the same species. Pollen may be released into the wind and carried to other flowers, and some plants will even release pollen into flowing water. However, the vast majority of flowering plants make use of pollinators: animals that carry pollen from one flower to another. Plants and pollinators have a mutualistic relationship – both benefit from the association. Pollinators may consume pollen and nectar provided by the plants and, in the process, additional pollen inadvertently will get caught on the hairs on the animal’s body. When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise. Certain crops, such as tomatoes and eggplants, greatly benefit from buzz pollination to the point that bumble bees are also used as commercial pollinators. Bumble bee species are sometimes released into greenhouses to pollinate the crops within. This is how we get “hothouse tomatoes” in the cold weather months. In the wild, bumble bees form small colonies with a queen and just a few workers. These colonies are too small to yield honey like honey bee colonies. (A honey bee colony can consist of tens of thousands of individuals capable of producing an excess of honey that humans can harvest without compromising the bees' food supply.) Bumble bee colonies are usually located underground in an abandoned rodent tunnel or similar excavation. While some bees are social beings, like honey bees and bumble bees, most of the 300 Connecticut bee species are solitary, meaning that they do not form colonies. Female solitary bees lay eggs in cavities in the ground or in wood, and line those cavities with leaves and mud. Mining bees, digger bees, oil-collecting bees are all solitary, ground nesting bees. While it may be easy to notice honey bees and bumble bees in your garden, it is important to remember that they are not the only ones pollinating crops and flowers while we reap the benefits of their services. Butterflies and Moths: Although butterflies and moths do not provide the same amount of pollination services as bees, they are certainly conspicuous creatures, garnering admiration and attention from scientists and citizens alike. Lepidopterans (the scientific name for butterflies and moths) do not consume pollen, but they will drink nectar using their long, tubular mouthpart (proboscis). Some plants have evolved specifically to be pollinated by these insects, hiding nectar deep in the flower such that it may only be reached with an extended proboscis. Generally, butterflies and moths do not carry as much pollen as bees because they are not covered in fine hairs. In addition, the long proboscis allows butterflies and moths to access a flower's nectar without becoming coated in pollen. Some pollen, however, may attach to the insects' feet and abdomen, facilitating pollen transfer between the flowers they visit. In a classic story of biological detective work, Charles Darwin once predicted the existence of a moth 40 years before its eventual discovery. He was shown an orchid from Madagascar with an exceptionally long, nectar-filled tubular structure (known as a spur) on the flower. He guessed that a moth must exist with a proboscis just long enough that the animal’s head would brush up against the flower’s stamens so that it would transfer pollen to the pistil of the next flower it drank from. In 1903, such a moth was documented in Madagascar, named Xanthopan morgani praedicta in honor of the prediction. Flies are important and often overlooked pollinators. While many plants offer bright colors and nectar to attract bee visitors, other plants may mimic carrion or dung with dark-colored flowers and strong, pungent odors to draw in flies, such as fungus gnats and carrion flies. Many hover flies (family Syrphidae) are bee mimics in both appearance and behavior. Though they share the same black and yellow coloration we associate with bees and wasps, they do not sting. In this way, animals that have learned to avoid being stung by bees and wasps will leave the stingless flies alone. This type of mimicry is known as Batesian mimicry – one harmless organism resembles a harmful organism to gain protection from predation. Pollinating flies are generally not covered in as much hair as bees, though they will still transfer pollen between plants from what sticks to their bodies as they forage. Beetles: Pollination by beetles accounts for a small percentage of overall flower pollination. Nevertheless, beetles, ranging from scarab and long-horned beetles to checkered beetles and tumbling flower beetles, may transfer pollen between flowers. Magnolias, for example, are visited by many insects during their flowering period; however, it is the beetles that are present when pollen is plentiful. In fact, the fossil record shows that magnolias evolved in a world without butterflies or bees. Therefore, this plant must have relied on other insects as pollinators. Given that beetles existed at the time magnolias arose and are still associated with the plant, it is reasonable to assume that beetles were some of their early pollinators. Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly talked about pollinator declines – the noted decrease in these beneficial insects across the globe. Commercial honey bee hives have been experiencing significant losses in recent years, prompting investigation into its causes. Scientists and the public also have noticed that the once common rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) has gone missing from the majority of its range in North America. Once commonly found across most of the eastern United States, it was only documented from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Maryland between 2001 and 2008. As for other pollinators, efforts are currently underway to search through existing specimens in museum and private collections to determine changing trends in pollinator abundance and diversity over time. Understanding population trends of the often overlooked wild bees is important given the pollination services they provide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that 75 percent of the fruits and vegetables we consume require bee pollination. In commercially raised bumble bees, several parasites have been identified as sources of mortality. These parasites have unfortunately escaped into wild bumble bee populations. Pesticide application and pesticide drift (the travel of chemicals from the intended area to non-target plants) also are believed to be killing bumble bees and other insect pollinators, including butterflies and moths. Habitat loss and fragmentation are hurting pollinator populations as more and more foraging areas and nesting habitats are destroyed. These vital members of our ecosystems are being threatened in many ways, and for most species, we do not yet know the extent of the damage. In 2016, Public Act 16-17 was passed restricting the use of pesticides that cause serious harm to bees and other pollinators. It reduces the spraying of neonicotinoid pesticides, establishes a program to develop model pollinator habitat, and helps identify opportunities to conserve, protect, and enhance pollinator habitat. Pollinators are in trouble, but you can help! Local nectar and pollen sources are key to supporting local pollinators. To maximize the use of your yard, consider planting flowers that bloom from early spring through late autumn, thus providing a place where early-season up through the last-season pollinators can “fuel up.” Remove invasive plants, such as burning bush, autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and others, in favor of native plant species. For example, planting wild geranium and highbush blueberry for the early season; swamp milkweed and New Jersey tea for the middle of the season; and New England aster and wrinkleleaf goldenrod for the late season will provide blooming flowers from spring through fall. With the right mix of plants, you can turn your property into a haven for the entire year! Pollinators need places to nest, feed, and protect their offspring. By managing your property to be pollinator-friendly, you may be able to greatly improve pollinator habitat. Maintaining natural areas (unmanicured areas of your property) is key for long-term pollinator protection. If you have a forest, meadow, or wetland on your property, bees will use those areas extensively for both feeding and nesting. You can also give wild bees a helping hand by providing nesting sites. These sites could be patches of untilled, bare, well-drained soil, which is perfect for many ground-nesting bees. Sites for wood-nesting bees include old logs with beetle burrows (for mason bees and leafcutter bees), or brush piles (for safe places to hibernate). To encourage butterflies, you should plant the caterpillar host plants. For example, monarchs need milkweeds to feed on as caterpillars. New Jersey tea is eaten by many Connecticut insects, making it a great addition to a pollinator garden. Planting native food plants in your yard or garden is a great way to encourage pollinators to flourish! No matter the life stage, these insects are best protected by avoiding disturbances to their chosen wintering sites. It is important to support these organisms across their entire life cycle, including over winter. For example, mated queen bumble bees spend the winter under leaf litter or soil. Lepidopterans may overwinter as eggs, caterpillars, pupae, or adults. Plant management or soil disturbance is best conducted during late summer or fall to minimize negative effects to pollinators over wintering periods. If possible, management should occur in such a way that much of the habitat is left undisturbed in any given year, helping to protect species from the direct impacts of disturbance. Above all, any space created for pollinators should be pesticide free. Insecticides are especially harmful to pollinators if applied at the wrong time or application rate. While it may not always be possible to completely eliminate pesticides from your garden or yard, you can certainly reduce the impacts on pollinators with a simple few steps. Chemicals should not be applied when pollinators are active – most pollinators will be resting during the night. Similarly, if possible, pesticides should be applied to the parts of the plant without flowers so that pollinators are not exposed to chemicals while visiting the flowers. Pollinators and the White House, 2014: You are not alone in your interest in pollinator protection! In June 2014, President Barack Obama released a memorandum outlining his commitment to “honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.” He created a taskforce to develop and help implement recommendations for saving pollinator populations. President Obama highlighted the importance of these animals in our natural and agricultural systems, championing their cause from the highest office in the nation.	When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Wildlife/Learn-About-Wildlife/Pollinators-in-Connecticut	Pollinators in Connecticut	It seems that JavaScript is not working in your browser. It could be because it is not supported, or that JavaScript is intentionally disabled. Some of the features on CT.gov will not function properly with out javascript enabled. Pollinators in Connecticut What Is Pollination? Some plants require pollination to reproduce. This is the process by which pollen grains, produced in flowers’ stamens, are transmitted to a pistil where the pollen grains will then fertilize the flower. This leads to seed and fruit production. As genetic diversity is important for healthy populations, flowers have evolved in several ways to ensure that pollen spreads between different plants of the same species. Pollen may be released into the wind and carried to other flowers, and some plants will even release pollen into flowing water. However, the vast majority of flowering plants make use of pollinators: animals that carry pollen from one flower to another. Plants and pollinators have a mutualistic relationship – both benefit from the association. Pollinators may consume pollen and nectar provided by the plants and, in the process, additional pollen inadvertently will get caught on the hairs on the animal’s body. When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise. Certain crops, such as tomatoes and eggplants, greatly benefit from buzz pollination to the point that bumble bees are also used as commercial pollinators. Bumble bee species are sometimes released into greenhouses to pollinate the crops within. This is how we get “hothouse tomatoes” in the cold weather months. In the wild, bumble bees form small colonies with a queen and just a few workers. These colonies are too small to yield honey like honey bee colonies. (A honey bee colony can consist of tens of thousands of individuals capable of producing an excess of honey that humans can harvest without compromising the bees' food supply.) Bumble bee colonies are usually located underground in an abandoned rodent tunnel or similar excavation. While some bees are social beings, like honey bees and bumble bees, most of the 300 Connecticut bee species are solitary, meaning that they do not form colonies. Female solitary bees lay eggs in cavities in the ground or in wood, and line those cavities with leaves and mud. Mining bees, digger bees, oil-collecting bees are all solitary, ground nesting bees. While it may be easy to notice honey bees and bumble bees in your garden, it is important to remember that they are not the only ones pollinating crops and flowers while we reap the benefits of their services. Butterflies and Moths: Although butterflies and moths do not provide the same amount of pollination services as bees, they are certainly conspicuous creatures, garnering admiration and attention from scientists and citizens alike. Lepidopterans (the scientific name for butterflies and moths) do not consume pollen, but they will drink nectar using their long, tubular mouthpart (proboscis). Some plants have evolved specifically to be pollinated by these insects, hiding nectar deep in the flower such that it may only be reached with an extended proboscis. Generally, butterflies and moths do not carry as much pollen as bees because they are not covered in fine hairs. In addition, the long proboscis allows butterflies and moths to access a flower's nectar without becoming coated in pollen. Some pollen, however, may attach to the insects' feet and abdomen, facilitating pollen transfer between the flowers they visit. In a classic story of biological detective work, Charles Darwin once predicted the existence of a moth 40 years before its eventual discovery. He was shown an orchid from Madagascar with an exceptionally long, nectar-filled tubular structure (known as a spur) on the flower. He guessed that a moth must exist with a proboscis just long enough that the animal’s head would brush up against the flower’s stamens so that it would transfer pollen to the pistil of the next flower it drank from. In 1903, such a moth was documented in Madagascar, named Xanthopan morgani praedicta in honor of the prediction. Flies are important and often overlooked pollinators. While many plants offer bright colors and nectar to attract bee visitors, other plants may mimic carrion or dung with dark-colored flowers and strong, pungent odors to draw in flies, such as fungus gnats and carrion flies. Many hover flies (family Syrphidae) are bee mimics in both appearance and behavior. Though they share the same black and yellow coloration we associate with bees and wasps, they do not sting. In this way, animals that have learned to avoid being stung by bees and wasps will leave the stingless flies alone. This type of mimicry is known as Batesian mimicry – one harmless organism resembles a harmful organism to gain protection from predation. Pollinating flies are generally not covered in as much hair as bees, though they will still transfer pollen between plants from what sticks to their bodies as they forage. Beetles: Pollination by beetles accounts for a small percentage of overall flower pollination. Nevertheless, beetles, ranging from scarab and long-horned beetles to checkered beetles and tumbling flower beetles, may transfer pollen between flowers. Magnolias, for example, are visited by many insects during their flowering period; however, it is the beetles that are present when pollen is plentiful. In fact, the fossil record shows that magnolias evolved in a world without butterflies or bees. Therefore, this plant must have relied on other insects as pollinators. Given that beetles existed at the time magnolias arose and are still associated with the plant, it is reasonable to assume that beetles were some of their early pollinators. Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly talked about pollinator declines – the noted decrease in these beneficial insects across the globe. Commercial honey bee hives have been experiencing significant losses in recent years, prompting investigation into its causes. Scientists and the public also have noticed that the once common rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) has gone missing from the majority of its range in North America. Once commonly found across most of the eastern United States, it was only documented from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Maryland between 2001 and 2008. As for other pollinators, efforts are currently underway to search through existing specimens in museum and private collections to determine changing trends in pollinator abundance and diversity over time. Understanding population trends of the often overlooked wild bees is important given the pollination services they provide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that 75 percent of the fruits and vegetables we consume require bee pollination. In commercially raised bumble bees, several parasites have been identified as sources of mortality. These parasites have unfortunately escaped into wild bumble bee populations. Pesticide application and pesticide drift (the travel of chemicals from the intended area to non-target plants) also are believed to be killing bumble bees and other insect pollinators, including butterflies and moths. Habitat loss and fragmentation are hurting pollinator populations as more and more foraging areas and nesting habitats are destroyed. These vital members of our ecosystems are being threatened in many ways, and for most species, we do not yet know the extent of the damage. In 2016, Public Act 16-17 was passed restricting the use of pesticides that cause serious harm to bees and other pollinators. It reduces the spraying of neonicotinoid pesticides, establishes a program to develop model pollinator habitat, and helps identify opportunities to conserve, protect, and enhance pollinator habitat. Pollinators are in trouble, but you can help! Local nectar and pollen sources are key to supporting local pollinators. To maximize the use of your yard, consider planting flowers that bloom from early spring through late autumn, thus providing a place where early-season up through the last-season pollinators can “fuel up.” Remove invasive plants, such as burning bush, autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and others, in favor of native plant species. For example, planting wild geranium and highbush blueberry for the early season; swamp milkweed and New Jersey tea for the middle of the season; and New England aster and wrinkleleaf goldenrod for the late season will provide blooming flowers from spring through fall. With the right mix of plants, you can turn your property into a haven for the entire year! Pollinators need places to nest, feed, and protect their offspring. By managing your property to be pollinator-friendly, you may be able to greatly improve pollinator habitat. Maintaining natural areas (unmanicured areas of your property) is key for long-term pollinator protection. If you have a forest, meadow, or wetland on your property, bees will use those areas extensively for both feeding and nesting. You can also give wild bees a helping hand by providing nesting sites. These sites could be patches of untilled, bare, well-drained soil, which is perfect for many ground-nesting bees. Sites for wood-nesting bees include old logs with beetle burrows (for mason bees and leafcutter bees), or brush piles (for safe places to hibernate). To encourage butterflies, you should plant the caterpillar host plants. For example, monarchs need milkweeds to feed on as caterpillars. New Jersey tea is eaten by many Connecticut insects, making it a great addition to a pollinator garden. Planting native food plants in your yard or garden is a great way to encourage pollinators to flourish! No matter the life stage, these insects are best protected by avoiding disturbances to their chosen wintering sites. It is important to support these organisms across their entire life cycle, including over winter. For example, mated queen bumble bees spend the winter under leaf litter or soil. Lepidopterans may overwinter as eggs, caterpillars, pupae, or adults. Plant management or soil disturbance is best conducted during late summer or fall to minimize negative effects to pollinators over wintering periods. If possible, management should occur in such a way that much of the habitat is left undisturbed in any given year, helping to protect species from the direct impacts of disturbance. Above all, any space created for pollinators should be pesticide free. Insecticides are especially harmful to pollinators if applied at the wrong time or application rate. While it may not always be possible to completely eliminate pesticides from your garden or yard, you can certainly reduce the impacts on pollinators with a simple few steps. Chemicals should not be applied when pollinators are active – most pollinators will be resting during the night. Similarly, if possible, pesticides should be applied to the parts of the plant without flowers so that pollinators are not exposed to chemicals while visiting the flowers. Pollinators and the White House, 2014: You are not alone in your interest in pollinator protection! In June 2014, President Barack Obama released a memorandum outlining his commitment to “honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.” He created a taskforce to develop and help implement recommendations for saving pollinator populations. President Obama highlighted the importance of these animals in our natural and agricultural systems, championing their cause from the highest office in the nation.	When the pollinator visits another flower, this pollen will be transferred, thereby fertilizing the second flower. More pollen is transferred to the pollinator, and the process continues. By offering rewards to these visitors, plants have shaped and continue to shape the evolution of their pollinators. You may be familiar with the pollinating habits of bees and butterflies, but many other organisms may be pollinators. Certain flies visit flowers, as do some beetles, moths, and wasps. Hummingbirds are known to pollinate and, in some parts of the world, lizards, bats, and lemurs are also spreading pollen between flowers. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators on the planet, and are responsible for the vast majority of insect-driven pollination. Bees are generally covered in fine hairs that can collect pollen, making them very effective at fertilizing the flowers they visit. When thinking about bees, your first thoughts may be of honey bees. These industrious creatures are truly important in supplying us with fruits and vegetables (and honey too, of course). Honey bees can be domestic or wild. In North America, honey bees were actually brought to North America with the colonists. Honey bees, however, are not the only type of bees we have to thank for our food and flowers in Connecticut. Connecticut is home to over 300 different species of bees! Squash bees are important and efficient pollinators of squashes and related plants, such as cucumbers and pumpkins. Carpenter bees are a common sight in summer, appearing like giant bumble bees with shiny black abdomens. Mason bees, such as orchard mason bees, are important pollinators of many fruiting trees. Bumble bees are another group of bees commonly seen. Capable of rapidly twitching their flight muscles, bumble bees engage in a behavior known as buzz pollination. The vibrations dislodge pollen from flowers that would not be released otherwise.	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/	Pests and Pollinators \| Learn Science at Scitable	Humans determine if an insect is beneficial, benign or pestiferous. Even when an insect is classified as a pest, it can have, under different circumstances, a beneficial role. A fly in a house is a pest, but that same fly is beneficial in its role as a detritivore. Termites are pests when invading homes, but are beneficial when fulfilling their ecological role in a forest. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% of insects are pests (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005) but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of crops and 9% of forest production (Pimental et al. 2000). The Balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges picease, has destroyed nearly all of the Fraser firs (Abies fraseri) in the southern Appalachian Mountains and is thought to be responsible for the loss of two native bird species (Alsop & Laughlin 1991). Formosan termites, Coptotermes formosanus, cause over $1 billion in structural damage per year (Corn et al. 1999). Frequently, pest insects are invasive species, such as the Balsam woolly adelgid and the Formosan termite. Within their native ranges – Europe and southern China, respectively – these insects are less likely to be pestiferous. Most insects are beneficial to humans either directly or indirectly (Peters 1993). Directly beneficial insects include pollinators and insect predators and parasites of pests. Other insects provide humans with material goods such as honey (honey bees), silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and inks (insect galls). Without insects, weed control would be more difficult. In Australia, an introduced species of cactus, the prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), was controlled by Cactoblastis cactorum, a moth (Wilson & Schwarzlaender 2004). Predator, parasite, and parasitoid insects provide top-down management of herbivore populations (Naylor & Ehrlich 1997). During the 1800’s, cottony-cushion scale – a scale insect – was accidently introduced into California citrus groves from Australia (Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003). The citrus industry was saved when the Vedalia lady beetle, a natural predator of the cottony-cushion scale, was introduced. Indirect benefits from insects may be more numerous and important than direct benefits. Insects indirectly benefiting humans include all insect herbivores, prey, predators, and detritivores because they are an integral part of the biotic community of ecosystems (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). A well-functioning ecosystem provides services such as soil fertility, clean air, and clean water. Termites, cockroaches, and other soil dwelling insects, help to break down plant debris. Flies, beetles, and moths, help to decompose dead animals. Dung beetles are critical for the decomposition of animal feces. Insects are food for bats, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and many mammals. Aquatic insects such as mayflies and stoneflies are used to monitor the health of streams and lakes. Insect Pests An important group of insect pests is those that transmit human diseases (Table 1). Malaria, responsible for 700,000-1,000,000 deaths annually, is transmitted by Anopheles sp. mosquitoes (Centers for Disease Control). The female Anopheles ingests the disease agent, Plasmodium spp. – a parasitic protist – from an infected human. After an incubation period in the mosquito of 7-30 days, transmission to an uninfected human is possible. Sub-tropics of Africa and Asia, Western Pacific, equatorial South America Mosquito (Anopheles spp.) World-wide except Antarctica River Blindness Sub-Saharan Africa, limited area of South America, Yemen Black Flies (Simulium sp.) World-wide except Antarctica (fast flowing streams) Typhus (louse-borne) Where body lice are present Body Lice (Pediculus humanus humanus) Where humans are present West Nile Virus (humans are a dead-end host) Africa, North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania Mosquito (primarily Culex sp.) World-wide except Antarctica Table 1: Some human diseases and their insect vectors. Insects seldom become pests in natural ecosystems, but in managed or simplified ecosystems when an insect population become large enough to cause harm to people, crops, animals, or possessions, insects may be categorized as pests (Elizinga 2004). Pest outbreaks in natural ecosystems usually last 3-4 years, even with no intervention (Rotenberry et al. 1995). Various factors limit the length of a pest outbreak, including intraspecific competition for resources, diseases and parasites (Roland 1993). Agricultural pests, along with pests found in homes and landscaping, are usually problematic because of human created circumstances (Elizinga 2004). In managed, or simplified, ecosystems, such as cropland, orchards, or landscaped areas, the food supply for a pest may be increased while the habitat/niche of predators may be removed or reduced (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). The European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Ostrinia nubilalis) is a significant agricultural pest in the United States. As a result of the acreage density of corn in the Midwest, the moth larvae have an abundance of food while the prevalence of the adult parasitoid wasp, Macrocentris grandi, dependent on nectar plants for food, may be reduced. To address pest problems, the conditions favoring pest population growth must be considered. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consists of tactics to prevent and methods to monitor and control pests (Elizinga 2004, Peters 1993, Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). Some common prevention tactics used in homes include window and door screens to exclude flies and mosquitoes and washing clothes and linens, vacuuming, and bathing to prevent body parasites. Using plant varieties most suitable to environmental conditions, providing habitat for beneficial insects, keeping bushes and woodpiles away from buildings, and emptying containers with standing water are all methods to reduce pest populations in landscaping. If preventative measures fail, the least toxic pesticides are chosen first to reduce the risk of losing insects that help keep pest populations under control. Figure 6 shows the thinking process recommended when using IPM. Insects are key components of healthy ecosystems and people benefit from the goods and services provided by ecosystems. If habitat for beneficial insects is provided, fewer pest outbreaks are likely to occur. Managed ecosystems need to mimic non-simplified ecosystems by containing a mosaic of plants for beneficial insects. Butterflies and moths (Lepidopterans) are important pollinators of flowering plants in wild ecosystems and managed systems such as parks and yards. Butterflies and moths have different niches; butterflies are active during the day while moths are active in the evening and at night. Because the adult and juvenile forms of butterflies and moths do not eat the same food, it is necessary for an ecosystem – whether wild or managed – to contain both nectar and host plants (Berenbaum 2007). By ensuring the presence of host plants in an area, the adult moth or butterfly will be able to lay her eggs on the appropriate plants for the eggs to hatch and the larvae to feed. Without these host plants adult moths and butterflies may not be present even if the nectar plants are available. Some pollination relationships are quite specific. A specialist relationship exists between the yucca moth and the yucca plant. Moth larvae only eat seeds of the yucca plant, and the plant depends on adult moths carrying pollen to facilitate sexual reproduction (Pellmyr et al. 1996). These specialist relationships can be negatively impacted if there is a decline of either species. A major determinant of Monarch butterfly population size is the availability of its host and nectar plant, milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, (Brower et al. 2011). Milkweed prevalence decreased between 1999 and 2009 in Iowa corn and soybean fields following the widespread adoption of herbicide resistant cultivars (Hartzler 2010). While adult butterflies and moths are important pollinators, their larvae may be pests. The larvae of Cabbage White butterflies – an introduced speciesin the United States – are significant pests in Brassicaceae family plants (Snell-Rood & Papaj 2009, Cipollini 2002). The Eastern comma butterfly larva is a pest of hops (Dole 2003). The tobacco hornworm (larva of the sphinx moth) and the tomato hornworm (larva of the five-spot hawkmoth) can be significant pests of tobacco, tomato, potato, eggplant and pepper plants (Fraser et al. 2003). Clothes moth larvae can do damage by feeding on wool, felt, silk, fur, and feathers. Grain moths may be seen flying in kitchens and feed on flour or cereal grains. Figure 1 Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is an introduced, naturalized North American generalist pollinator. Honey bees are eusocial, forming a high organized society where each colony has overlapping generations, one queen who mates with multiple males a week after she emerges as an adult, and female workers who cooperate in the rearing of her full-, ¾- and half-sisters. Courtesy of Jon Sullivan. Bees are one of the largest groups of pollinators (Berenbaum 2007) and can be social or solitary animals. Honey bees (Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a). The frames in the top box of the hive are filled with honey and harvested by beekeepers. To prevent bears from eating the brood and honey and skunks and raccoons from eating adult bees, this apiary is enclosed with an electrified fence. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 3b The frames can be removed to inspect for pests and disease and evaluate the health of the colonies (b). Nurse bees are caring for the capped brood. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 4 Honey bees will usually build comb inside a cavity but in warm climates they may build comb outside to facilitate cooling. This hive photographed in January in Kauai, Hawaii is at least 8 years old. During the summer months, when pollen and nectar are more readily available, the number of bees occupying the hive is significantly greater and the comb will not be visible due to the number of bees. Feral colonies are common in Kauai, unlike the mainland United States, because the varroa mite, the most significant pest of honey bees, has not been introduced to Kauai. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Bumble bee colonies do not overwinter (Baer & Schmid-Hempel 2003). Each spring, mated queens emerge from hibernation to establish colonies. Each queen begins by locating a nest site and building wax pots (for nectar and pollen) and wax cells (for eggs). She will rear the first generation of adults who will take over the foraging and nest building tasks. The queen will continue to lay eggs and the colony will grow until late summer when reproductive males and females are reared and mate. All but the mated queens die before winter. There are approximately 17,000 solitary bee species (Berenbaum 2007). Many are active as adults for only a short time each year and pollinate a narrow range of plants (Bosch & Kemp 2004). For example, the mason bees (~ 130 species in North America) pollinate blueberries, blackberries, and cherries (Figure 5). After a female mason bee mates she finds a tube-like structure and builds a mud wall at the end. Her first step is to make numerous trips (~ 25) to collect nectar and pollen, which she places at the end of the tube. Next she backs into the tube and lays an egg on top of the nectar and pollen. Her final step is to build a mud wall to partition the tube. She will continue these three steps until female eggs fill the rear of the tube and male eggs fill the front. During each of her 25 foraging trips per egg, a mason bee female will visit up to 75 flowers. Figure 5 Mason bees are active in the spring and are excellent pollinators of a variety of crops including apples and blueberries. This Mason bee, Osmia cornifrons is the primary pollinator of apples in Japan and was introduced into the United States in 1977 by Suzanne Batra (USDA) for orchard pollination. Courtesy of Beatriz Moisset. To pollinate the almond crop, ~ 1 million honey bee colonies are needed in California every February. The Maine blueberries require ~ 50,000 colonies and New York apples need ~ 30,000 colonies. With the significant decline of honey bee colonies, there is concern about honey bee survival and our dependence on honey bees for crop pollination (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2011). The cause of honey bee population decline is unknown, but many researchers suspect habitat degradation, parasites, disease, and pesticides, to be contributing causes (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2010, Singh et al. 2010). Pollinator decline has not been limited to honey bees (Berenbaum 2007). Declines have been observed in bumble bee species, including a 96% decline in four North American species linked to Nosema bombi, a microsporidian (Cameron et al. 2011). Our knowledge of most native bumble bee and solitary bees is so limited that it is difficult to say conclusively if the suspected declines in populations or loss of species is occurring only at the regional level or if the declines are global (Berenbaum 2007). An insect’s relationship with humans is beneficial, benign or pestiferous only because we have defined it as such. Therefore some insects can have more than one relationship with humans. Honey bees pollinate our crops but may be considered a pest because they can sting. Ants are unwanted guests if found in a house but are important decomposer organisms for the maintenance of soil fertility. Food, lumber, clean air and water and all the other goods and services derived from ecosystems would not exist without insects. Living in balance with insects and the other component of ecosystems will aid human survival and prosperity. Glossary Apiary: A site where multiple honey bee colonies are kept in relatively close proximity. Detritivores: Detritivores feed on detritus (non-living, particulate, organic matter). Primary detritivores including fungi, bacteria and earthworms feed directly on detritus. Detritus is composed of dead plant and animal material, and the fecal waste of animals. Secondary detritivores feed on primary detritivores. Secondary detritus feeders include millipedes, centipedes, ants, termites, and wood beetles. In the case of termites and wood beetles, symbionts in their gut digest the cellulose in wood allowing these animals to obtain nutrients that would otherwise be inaccessible. Eusocial: True social. Sociality can range from solitary to true social. Solitary individuals undertake all activities alone. Aggregations for food, defense, or warmth is a type of pre-social behavior may occur in otherwise solitary species including Ladybird beetles, Monarch butterflies, and bark beetles. Subsocial behavior is when adults provide some type of care for their young, while communal behavior is when adults in the same generation share a nest site but the adults do not cooperate in caring for each other’s young. Quasisocial behavior includes communal behavior but includes cooperation in the care of the young. Semisocial individuals cooperate in care of the young but have a reproductive caste with workers who may be sterile. True social or Eusociality requires three behaviors: 1) overlapping generations in a common nest site, 2) reproductive castes, and 3) cooperate in the rearing of the young. Generalist: A generalist species is able to survive under a variety of environmental conditions. It will usually have more than one source of food, multiple acceptable types of nesting sites, etc. Usually the size of area in which generalists forage for food is smaller than is required for specialists who need a larger area because their food source is scarcer. Examples of generalists include human, rats, raccoons, cockroaches, and honey bees. Intraspecific: occurring or arising within a species. Naturalized: A naturalized species is an introduced species that has established itself outside of its native range and is acclimated to its new environment. It is able to survive and reproduce without human assistance. A naturalized species is sometimes considered an invasive species. Parasitoid: Parasitoids are insects that are free-living as adults. The adult female lays her eggs in or on a host from whom the resulting larvae obtain food. Unlike predators, the larvae of parasitoids consume only one host per lifetime. Pestiferous: bothersome or annoying. Specialist: A specialist species survives under a narrow range of environmental conditions. It will usually have a limited diet that will require it to have a larger foraging range due to their food source being scarcer. Examples of specialists include the panda, koala, Monarch butterfly and Mason bee. Snell-Rood, E. C. & Papaj, D. R. Patterns of phenotypic plasticity in common and rare environments: A study of host use and color learning in the Cabbage White butterfly Pieris rapae. The American Naturalist173, 615–631 (2009). Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America, Chair: May Berenbaum, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies Press USA, 2007.	(Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a).	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence	How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators ...	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%. The same is true of bumblebees: numerous studies across Europe and North America show that, while some populations remain stable or are even growing, many bee populations have seen a steep decline.5 That’s just for richer countries, where agricultural systems have been relatively stagnant for decades. Where ecosystems are changing the most rapidly – across the tropics – we have very little data on how pollinator insects are changing. They could be doing even worse. Pollinator insects face multiple threats.6 One is simply habitat loss: the area they can live in shrinks as human land use for farming and infrastructure expands. Another is climatic changes: they can be particularly vulnerable to intense drought. A single year of intense drought in the UK in 1976 resulted in a dramatic decline in butterfly populations. Populations of some butterfly species fell by 76%.7 There are also threats on agricultural lands when we use pesticides and fertilizers to increase crop yields.8 This presents us with a dilemma: some of the ways we can increase food production might also put it at risk. That raises an important question: how dependent are we on pollinators? What would happen if pollinators decline dramatically, or worse, if they disappeared? What crops are dependent on pollinators? There are two things that are important to clarify. First, not all crops are dependent on pollinators. Many of our staples are completely unaffected by them. Second, if a crop is defined as being pollinator-dependent, this does not necessarily mean that it would fail without them. In fact, there are only a couple of crops where pollinator insects are essential. For all others a decline in pollinators would result in a decline in yields. Researchers differentiate crops into categories using a scale of pollinator dependence. This ranges from having no dependency, to pollinators being essential. Between these extremes is ‘partial dependency’: pollinators increase their yields. The table shows us what crops fall into each category.9 Most of our staple crops – cereals such as maize, wheat and rice; roots and tubers such as cassava; and legumes such as peas and lentils – do not rely on bees and butterflies at all. A lot of our fruits and vegetables, oilcrops, coffee, nuts and avocados are partially dependent. There are only a few crops that are fully dependent: brazil nuts, fruits including kiwi and melons, and cocoa beans. A world without pollinators would mean a world without chocolate. How much of the world’s food production depends on pollinators? With this background we can better-understand the role that these insects play in our food production. We can also navigate the numbers that often hit the headlines on this topic. The numbers we need to understand are shown in the chart. Many reports – including those from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) quote the figure that “75% of our crops” rely on pollinators. It’s true: around three-quarters (75%) of the different crops we grow for food depend on pollinators to some extent. This is based on the number of different crops. This is the top bar in the chart. But, we grow very different amounts of these crops. We harvest much more wheat and rice than strawberries and apples. When we calculate how much of our food production (in tonnes10) comes from pollinator-dependent crops, it’s much lower: around one-third of our food production (35%) relies on pollinators.11 Finally, as we just discussed, most of these crops are only partially dependent on pollinators. Their yields would decline, but they would not fail to grow. When we account for this, researchers estimate that crop production in high-income countries would fall by around 5%; in low-to-middle income countries this would be 8% in the absence of pollinators.12 These figures come from a study a decade ago [the latest study available] – today, they might be slightly higher. I would think it might be 10% by now. This is because the world has become slightly more dependent on pollinators over time.13 Pollinator-dependent crops tend to be important cash crops for farmers This figure of 10% might seem low. But there are a few things we should keep in mind. Our dependence on pollinators will probably grow over time as global diets diversify. As countries get richer they tend to shift away from staple crops towards fruits, vegetables, nuts and other nutrient-rich foods. It’s also important to consider not only the amount of food that would be lost, but also the amount of income that could be lost. This is especially true for low-income farmers. Many of the crops that are dependent on pollinators – cocoa, coffee, soybeans, palm oil, avocados – are cash crops that many lower-income countries rely on for trade. A steep decline in pollinators might not see a dramatic change in the world’s production of calories, but it could hit some of the world’s poorest economically. This leaves us with a delicate balance to navigate. We want to achieve high crop yields. This is not only important for food security and farmer incomes, but also brings important ecological benefits: it means we need less farmland and we can spare habitat for wildlife. The catch is that achieving high crop yields often requires some agricultural inputs such as fertilizers or pesticides; inputs that could potentially reduce pollinator populations. A decline in pollinators would in turn, reduce yields. Moving forward we therefore need to focus on agricultural practices that can do both: maximise yields and preserve pollinator biodiversity at the same time. This needs a better understanding of what agricultural inputs affect pollinator populations, and whether there are particular management practices – such as specific timings or application rates – that can limit the damage to insect populations. Balancing both is key for biodiversity on and off the farm: maximising yields with pollinators present would save surrounding habitat from being turned into farmland, allowing wildlife to flourish. Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Max Roser for the invaluable feedback and suggestions on this work. Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Biodiversity. I would myself argue that this might be better-expressed in terms of kilocalories rather than in tonnes. But I think in this case there are downsides to expressing it in kilocalories too. The biggest threat of losing pollinators is that it reduces our production of diverse crop types that we don’t typically rely on solely for calories: fruits, vegetables and other crops that provide us with important dietary diversity and micronutrients, even if we don’t get a lot of energy from them. Tonnes is not necessarily the perfect metric to capture this either: we might prefer vitamin-A, vitamin-C or another nutrient. In short, there’s not really a perfect metric to capture this, so I have stuck with the figures used in the original study: tonnes. Reuse this work freely All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors.	How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators? Summary The populations of many pollinator insects – bees, wasps, and butterflies – are in decline. Many crops rely on pollinators which raises concerns about the future of our food. Three-quarters of our crops depend on pollinators to some extent, but only one-third of global crop production does. This is because many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but would not collapse completely. Taking all this in account, studies suggest crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished. It’s unfortunate that the wildlife we care least about provides us with the most functional value. We favor the bears over the insects and bacteria, despite relying on the latter much more. There is nowhere that this is more obvious than food production. Pollinator insects – bees, wasps, beetles, flies, ants and butterflies – play an important role in agriculture.1 We might associate crop pollination with honey bees, but a range of studies have shown that non-bee pollinators (such as butterflies, beetles and hoverflies) also play an important role in the pollination of fruits, vegetables, and oilcrops.2 Many people worry about the stability of our food systems as more studies suggest that the world’s pollinator insects are disappearing. Many recent studies report a decline in insect populations in different regions. This is not the case everywhere – some species are stable, and some have actually increased – but most show an overall decline. A study in the Netherlands reported that average butterfly populations had almost halved since 1991.3 The European Environment Agency measured changes in grassland butterfly populations across 17 species and 17 countries.4 Since 1991, average populations have declined by around 25%.	no
Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	yes_statement	"bees" are the most "important" "pollinators".. "bees" play a crucial role as "pollinators".	https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/pests-and-pollinators-23564436/	Pests and Pollinators \| Learn Science at Scitable	Humans determine if an insect is beneficial, benign or pestiferous. Even when an insect is classified as a pest, it can have, under different circumstances, a beneficial role. A fly in a house is a pest, but that same fly is beneficial in its role as a detritivore. Termites are pests when invading homes, but are beneficial when fulfilling their ecological role in a forest. Of all the insects in the world, only 1% of insects are pests (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005) but they are responsible for the loss of 13% of crops and 9% of forest production (Pimental et al. 2000). The Balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges picease, has destroyed nearly all of the Fraser firs (Abies fraseri) in the southern Appalachian Mountains and is thought to be responsible for the loss of two native bird species (Alsop & Laughlin 1991). Formosan termites, Coptotermes formosanus, cause over $1 billion in structural damage per year (Corn et al. 1999). Frequently, pest insects are invasive species, such as the Balsam woolly adelgid and the Formosan termite. Within their native ranges – Europe and southern China, respectively – these insects are less likely to be pestiferous. Most insects are beneficial to humans either directly or indirectly (Peters 1993). Directly beneficial insects include pollinators and insect predators and parasites of pests. Other insects provide humans with material goods such as honey (honey bees), silk (silk moths), dyes and shellac (scale insects), and tannic acid and inks (insect galls). Without insects, weed control would be more difficult. In Australia, an introduced species of cactus, the prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), was controlled by Cactoblastis cactorum, a moth (Wilson & Schwarzlaender 2004). Predator, parasite, and parasitoid insects provide top-down management of herbivore populations (Naylor & Ehrlich 1997). During the 1800’s, cottony-cushion scale – a scale insect – was accidently introduced into California citrus groves from Australia (Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003). The citrus industry was saved when the Vedalia lady beetle, a natural predator of the cottony-cushion scale, was introduced. Indirect benefits from insects may be more numerous and important than direct benefits. Insects indirectly benefiting humans include all insect herbivores, prey, predators, and detritivores because they are an integral part of the biotic community of ecosystems (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). A well-functioning ecosystem provides services such as soil fertility, clean air, and clean water. Termites, cockroaches, and other soil dwelling insects, help to break down plant debris. Flies, beetles, and moths, help to decompose dead animals. Dung beetles are critical for the decomposition of animal feces. Insects are food for bats, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and many mammals. Aquatic insects such as mayflies and stoneflies are used to monitor the health of streams and lakes. Insect Pests An important group of insect pests is those that transmit human diseases (Table 1). Malaria, responsible for 700,000-1,000,000 deaths annually, is transmitted by Anopheles sp. mosquitoes (Centers for Disease Control). The female Anopheles ingests the disease agent, Plasmodium spp. – a parasitic protist – from an infected human. After an incubation period in the mosquito of 7-30 days, transmission to an uninfected human is possible. Sub-tropics of Africa and Asia, Western Pacific, equatorial South America Mosquito (Anopheles spp.) World-wide except Antarctica River Blindness Sub-Saharan Africa, limited area of South America, Yemen Black Flies (Simulium sp.) World-wide except Antarctica (fast flowing streams) Typhus (louse-borne) Where body lice are present Body Lice (Pediculus humanus humanus) Where humans are present West Nile Virus (humans are a dead-end host) Africa, North America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania Mosquito (primarily Culex sp.) World-wide except Antarctica Table 1: Some human diseases and their insect vectors. Insects seldom become pests in natural ecosystems, but in managed or simplified ecosystems when an insect population become large enough to cause harm to people, crops, animals, or possessions, insects may be categorized as pests (Elizinga 2004). Pest outbreaks in natural ecosystems usually last 3-4 years, even with no intervention (Rotenberry et al. 1995). Various factors limit the length of a pest outbreak, including intraspecific competition for resources, diseases and parasites (Roland 1993). Agricultural pests, along with pests found in homes and landscaping, are usually problematic because of human created circumstances (Elizinga 2004). In managed, or simplified, ecosystems, such as cropland, orchards, or landscaped areas, the food supply for a pest may be increased while the habitat/niche of predators may be removed or reduced (Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). The European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Ostrinia nubilalis) is a significant agricultural pest in the United States. As a result of the acreage density of corn in the Midwest, the moth larvae have an abundance of food while the prevalence of the adult parasitoid wasp, Macrocentris grandi, dependent on nectar plants for food, may be reduced. To address pest problems, the conditions favoring pest population growth must be considered. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consists of tactics to prevent and methods to monitor and control pests (Elizinga 2004, Peters 1993, Triplehorn & Johnson 2005). Some common prevention tactics used in homes include window and door screens to exclude flies and mosquitoes and washing clothes and linens, vacuuming, and bathing to prevent body parasites. Using plant varieties most suitable to environmental conditions, providing habitat for beneficial insects, keeping bushes and woodpiles away from buildings, and emptying containers with standing water are all methods to reduce pest populations in landscaping. If preventative measures fail, the least toxic pesticides are chosen first to reduce the risk of losing insects that help keep pest populations under control. Figure 6 shows the thinking process recommended when using IPM. Insects are key components of healthy ecosystems and people benefit from the goods and services provided by ecosystems. If habitat for beneficial insects is provided, fewer pest outbreaks are likely to occur. Managed ecosystems need to mimic non-simplified ecosystems by containing a mosaic of plants for beneficial insects. Butterflies and moths (Lepidopterans) are important pollinators of flowering plants in wild ecosystems and managed systems such as parks and yards. Butterflies and moths have different niches; butterflies are active during the day while moths are active in the evening and at night. Because the adult and juvenile forms of butterflies and moths do not eat the same food, it is necessary for an ecosystem – whether wild or managed – to contain both nectar and host plants (Berenbaum 2007). By ensuring the presence of host plants in an area, the adult moth or butterfly will be able to lay her eggs on the appropriate plants for the eggs to hatch and the larvae to feed. Without these host plants adult moths and butterflies may not be present even if the nectar plants are available. Some pollination relationships are quite specific. A specialist relationship exists between the yucca moth and the yucca plant. Moth larvae only eat seeds of the yucca plant, and the plant depends on adult moths carrying pollen to facilitate sexual reproduction (Pellmyr et al. 1996). These specialist relationships can be negatively impacted if there is a decline of either species. A major determinant of Monarch butterfly population size is the availability of its host and nectar plant, milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, (Brower et al. 2011). Milkweed prevalence decreased between 1999 and 2009 in Iowa corn and soybean fields following the widespread adoption of herbicide resistant cultivars (Hartzler 2010). While adult butterflies and moths are important pollinators, their larvae may be pests. The larvae of Cabbage White butterflies – an introduced speciesin the United States – are significant pests in Brassicaceae family plants (Snell-Rood & Papaj 2009, Cipollini 2002). The Eastern comma butterfly larva is a pest of hops (Dole 2003). The tobacco hornworm (larva of the sphinx moth) and the tomato hornworm (larva of the five-spot hawkmoth) can be significant pests of tobacco, tomato, potato, eggplant and pepper plants (Fraser et al. 2003). Clothes moth larvae can do damage by feeding on wool, felt, silk, fur, and feathers. Grain moths may be seen flying in kitchens and feed on flour or cereal grains. Figure 1 Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is an introduced, naturalized North American generalist pollinator. Honey bees are eusocial, forming a high organized society where each colony has overlapping generations, one queen who mates with multiple males a week after she emerges as an adult, and female workers who cooperate in the rearing of her full-, ¾- and half-sisters. Courtesy of Jon Sullivan. Bees are one of the largest groups of pollinators (Berenbaum 2007) and can be social or solitary animals. Honey bees (Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a). The frames in the top box of the hive are filled with honey and harvested by beekeepers. To prevent bears from eating the brood and honey and skunks and raccoons from eating adult bees, this apiary is enclosed with an electrified fence. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 3b The frames can be removed to inspect for pests and disease and evaluate the health of the colonies (b). Nurse bees are caring for the capped brood. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Figure 4 Honey bees will usually build comb inside a cavity but in warm climates they may build comb outside to facilitate cooling. This hive photographed in January in Kauai, Hawaii is at least 8 years old. During the summer months, when pollen and nectar are more readily available, the number of bees occupying the hive is significantly greater and the comb will not be visible due to the number of bees. Feral colonies are common in Kauai, unlike the mainland United States, because the varroa mite, the most significant pest of honey bees, has not been introduced to Kauai. Courtesy of Nancy Ostiguy. Bumble bee colonies do not overwinter (Baer & Schmid-Hempel 2003). Each spring, mated queens emerge from hibernation to establish colonies. Each queen begins by locating a nest site and building wax pots (for nectar and pollen) and wax cells (for eggs). She will rear the first generation of adults who will take over the foraging and nest building tasks. The queen will continue to lay eggs and the colony will grow until late summer when reproductive males and females are reared and mate. All but the mated queens die before winter. There are approximately 17,000 solitary bee species (Berenbaum 2007). Many are active as adults for only a short time each year and pollinate a narrow range of plants (Bosch & Kemp 2004). For example, the mason bees (~ 130 species in North America) pollinate blueberries, blackberries, and cherries (Figure 5). After a female mason bee mates she finds a tube-like structure and builds a mud wall at the end. Her first step is to make numerous trips (~ 25) to collect nectar and pollen, which she places at the end of the tube. Next she backs into the tube and lays an egg on top of the nectar and pollen. Her final step is to build a mud wall to partition the tube. She will continue these three steps until female eggs fill the rear of the tube and male eggs fill the front. During each of her 25 foraging trips per egg, a mason bee female will visit up to 75 flowers. Figure 5 Mason bees are active in the spring and are excellent pollinators of a variety of crops including apples and blueberries. This Mason bee, Osmia cornifrons is the primary pollinator of apples in Japan and was introduced into the United States in 1977 by Suzanne Batra (USDA) for orchard pollination. Courtesy of Beatriz Moisset. To pollinate the almond crop, ~ 1 million honey bee colonies are needed in California every February. The Maine blueberries require ~ 50,000 colonies and New York apples need ~ 30,000 colonies. With the significant decline of honey bee colonies, there is concern about honey bee survival and our dependence on honey bees for crop pollination (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2011). The cause of honey bee population decline is unknown, but many researchers suspect habitat degradation, parasites, disease, and pesticides, to be contributing causes (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2010, Singh et al. 2010). Pollinator decline has not been limited to honey bees (Berenbaum 2007). Declines have been observed in bumble bee species, including a 96% decline in four North American species linked to Nosema bombi, a microsporidian (Cameron et al. 2011). Our knowledge of most native bumble bee and solitary bees is so limited that it is difficult to say conclusively if the suspected declines in populations or loss of species is occurring only at the regional level or if the declines are global (Berenbaum 2007). An insect’s relationship with humans is beneficial, benign or pestiferous only because we have defined it as such. Therefore some insects can have more than one relationship with humans. Honey bees pollinate our crops but may be considered a pest because they can sting. Ants are unwanted guests if found in a house but are important decomposer organisms for the maintenance of soil fertility. Food, lumber, clean air and water and all the other goods and services derived from ecosystems would not exist without insects. Living in balance with insects and the other component of ecosystems will aid human survival and prosperity. Glossary Apiary: A site where multiple honey bee colonies are kept in relatively close proximity. Detritivores: Detritivores feed on detritus (non-living, particulate, organic matter). Primary detritivores including fungi, bacteria and earthworms feed directly on detritus. Detritus is composed of dead plant and animal material, and the fecal waste of animals. Secondary detritivores feed on primary detritivores. Secondary detritus feeders include millipedes, centipedes, ants, termites, and wood beetles. In the case of termites and wood beetles, symbionts in their gut digest the cellulose in wood allowing these animals to obtain nutrients that would otherwise be inaccessible. Eusocial: True social. Sociality can range from solitary to true social. Solitary individuals undertake all activities alone. Aggregations for food, defense, or warmth is a type of pre-social behavior may occur in otherwise solitary species including Ladybird beetles, Monarch butterflies, and bark beetles. Subsocial behavior is when adults provide some type of care for their young, while communal behavior is when adults in the same generation share a nest site but the adults do not cooperate in caring for each other’s young. Quasisocial behavior includes communal behavior but includes cooperation in the care of the young. Semisocial individuals cooperate in care of the young but have a reproductive caste with workers who may be sterile. True social or Eusociality requires three behaviors: 1) overlapping generations in a common nest site, 2) reproductive castes, and 3) cooperate in the rearing of the young. Generalist: A generalist species is able to survive under a variety of environmental conditions. It will usually have more than one source of food, multiple acceptable types of nesting sites, etc. Usually the size of area in which generalists forage for food is smaller than is required for specialists who need a larger area because their food source is scarcer. Examples of generalists include human, rats, raccoons, cockroaches, and honey bees. Intraspecific: occurring or arising within a species. Naturalized: A naturalized species is an introduced species that has established itself outside of its native range and is acclimated to its new environment. It is able to survive and reproduce without human assistance. A naturalized species is sometimes considered an invasive species. Parasitoid: Parasitoids are insects that are free-living as adults. The adult female lays her eggs in or on a host from whom the resulting larvae obtain food. Unlike predators, the larvae of parasitoids consume only one host per lifetime. Pestiferous: bothersome or annoying. Specialist: A specialist species survives under a narrow range of environmental conditions. It will usually have a limited diet that will require it to have a larger foraging range due to their food source being scarcer. Examples of specialists include the panda, koala, Monarch butterfly and Mason bee. Snell-Rood, E. C. & Papaj, D. R. Patterns of phenotypic plasticity in common and rare environments: A study of host use and color learning in the Cabbage White butterfly Pieris rapae. The American Naturalist173, 615–631 (2009). Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America, Chair: May Berenbaum, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: The National Academies Press USA, 2007.	(Figure 1) and bumble bees (Figure 2), common eusocial pollinators, are generalists that visit many plant species to obtain nectar and pollen. Honey bees, the most important crop pollinator, pollinate over 100 different fruits and vegetables, while bumble bees, which vibrate as they pollinate, are more efficient pollinators for plants such as tomatoes (Berenbaum 2007). Native pollinators assist in the pollination of native crops such as blueberries, squash, pumpkin, cucumbers, and cranberries but more research needs to be done to understand how to improve pollination rates and support healthy populations of native pollinators. Figure 2 Bumble bees are some of the largest and interesting eusocial pollinators. This bumble bee, Bombus fervidus, the Golden Northern Bumble Bee, is pollinating lavender. Courtesy of John Baker. Honey bees, first brought to North American by European settlers as a source of sweetener, have naturalized (Gullan & Cranston 2010). A honey bee colony has a single reproductive female and 10,000 – 60,000 female workers (Winston 1987). The workers pollinate as they forage. Today, most honey bees are found in managed colonies housed within apiaries (Figure 3). A honey bee colony lives through cold winters by clustering in a tight ball with individual bees vibrating wing muscles to generate heat. The colony will consume 18-27 kg of honey during the winter to supply the energy needed to generate temperatures up to 35oC. In warm climates, honey bees may build their comb outside to facilitate hive cooling in warm weather (Figure 4). Figure 3a Managed honey bees are housed in apiaries and each colony occupies a wooden hive consisting of hive boxes and frames (a).	yes	Biodiversity	Are Bees the Most Important Pollinators?	no_statement	"bees" are not the most "important" "pollinators".. there are other "pollinators" that are more "important" than "bees".	https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/06/11/moths-pollinators-insects/	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release. “It’s becoming apparent that there needs to be a much more focused effort to raise awareness of the important role moths play in establishing healthy environments, especially as we know moth populations have drastically declined over the past 50 years,” Ellis said. Advertisement That population loss could present a “significant and previously unacknowledged threat” to pollination of both wild and crop plants, the researchers noted. They said conservation efforts should target both bees and moths and take into consideration that moths seem to prefer wild plants. These “important, but overlooked” insects may be more sensitive to urbanization than bees, the researchers said — all the more reason to include them in conservation plans.	Bees get the glory, but moths are also key pollinators, study says A hummingbird hawk-moth feeds on a flower's nectar. Scientists say moths play a larger role in pollination than once thought. (iStock) Listen 2 min Share Comment Modern gardeners often plant bee-friendly flowers in a bid to attract the pollinators and ensure their long-term survival. But recent research on moths’ role in plant pollination suggests the less-heralded insects are just as important as bees — and hints it might be time to give them the respect they deserve. Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study looked at moths and bees in community gardens in Leeds, England, during the 2019 growing season. Bees and moths were collected during May, June and September. Researchers removed pollen from the insects using DNA sequencing to determine what kinds of pollen stuck to the moths and bees during their flights. Their analysis revealed that the creatures visit different types of plants. While bees were most drawn to brassica crops like cabbage, maple trees and brambling plants, moths visited most often nightshade plants like tomatoes and potatoes, butterfly bushes and linden trees. Advertisement They also play a larger role in pollination than once thought: The researchers discovered that moths are involved in the pollination of redcurrants, strawberries and stone fruit, preferences they say were not previously known to be moth-pollinated. The moths carried more diverse pollen than the bees during the midsummer, accounting for a third of all plant-pollinator visits studied. “People don’t generally appreciate moths so they can often be overlooked compared to bees when talking about protection and conservation,” said Emilie Ellis, a University of Helsinki doctoral researcher who was a co-author on the paper while working at the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, in a news release.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093044/	Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and ...	Share RESOURCES As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer \| PMC Copyright Notice This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly. INTRODUCTION Parallel with changes in production efficiency, farm animal phenotypes, herd structure, housing and management, there have been great changes in consumers’ attitudes towards domestic animals. Nowadays, animal husbandry may well be questioned, not only as regards efficiency of organization, ownership, production, health and economy but also ethically. It is quite clear that there is a strong link between animal welfare and overall efficiency in the production chain and that public concerns about ethics of production have an important role in modern animal husbandry (Szűcs, 1999; Szűcs et al., 2006). Animal welfare has become a growing factor affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world (Broom, 2001, 2010). The public view is that the meaning of: dominion over animals is responsibility for animal welfare, including minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation while providing for needs (Broom, 2003). The general public, livestock producers and research scientists have shown an increasing interest in assuring proper animal care in the production chain. There is a corresponding increase in efforts by research and educational institutions, government agencies, enterprises, health care organizations and others in developing and accessing information that assists in creating appropriate housing environments, management procedures and humane conditions for the production of foods of animal origin. Most of the developed countries have guidelines in which these minimal requirements or information on the care and use of agricultural animals are given. Regularly updated handbooks on management and husbandry practices for the proper care of farm animals are issued by producer organizations and commodity groups. These guidelines are usually not legally binding but attempt to represent the state of the art on production practices. Human attitudes towards animals have been influenced by the ancient Greek philosophies addressing the formulation of such terms as ethos (ἦθος, ἔθος), ethics (δέον) and moral (ευδαιμονία). Ethos is defined as character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone of an institution or social organization. Ethos is a Greek word corresponding roughly to “ethics”. Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues (Broom, 2003). Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. Moral behaviour is a necessity for stable social groups, including those of humans, so the basis for it has evolved (Ridley, 1996; de Waal, 1996; Broom, 2003; 2006). A major factor affecting animal welfare issues in many parts of the world is the Judeo-Christian concept of human dominion over animals. Differing attitudes and beliefs regarding the relationship of humankind to other creatures has been a topic of interest for civilizations. The ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals. There were four basic schools of thought in ancient Greece regarding human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) are a cornerstone in western philosophical consideration of human-animal relationships. The anthropocentric philosophy professed by Aquinas continues to influence Christian attitudes on the subject still today. In their development Eastern religions (Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism) abandoned animal sacrifice. Each religion emphasizes two concepts with regard to human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings and a repeated, cyclical embodiment of all living beings. The doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist philosophies. Muslims are taught that Allah has given people power over animals, yet to treat them badly is disobey his will (see review by Broom, 2003). In the period of renaissance and enlightenment, the basics of modern philosophy developed. Descartes (1596–1650) was a major figure in these changes in philosophy. More recently, Regan (1983), Singer (1975) and others have presented the view that pain and suffering of any animal, or at least of certain complex animals, are bad and should be prevented or minimized. It is important to consider a range of opinions in an attempt to determine the truth (Rohr, 1989). DISCUSSION Ancient attitudes related to animal ethics Like many documents centred on human economics, the statements formulated in the Code of Hammurabi (1728 to 1686 BC, Susa, Iraq) do not seem to cover issues of animal welfare or livestock ethics, for example: • If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen. • If a man hire an ox, and he breaks its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. • If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value. • If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money. Even at that time sick animals were already treated: • If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. However, veterinary treatment was not free of risks: • If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. The Code does not mention anything about pain, suffering or injury of animals. Religious perspectives Judeo-Christian faith The great religions have had a profound impact on the attitudes of humans toward animals. For example, The Bible (Genesis 1:26 to 28, 1982), states: “Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Thus, the biblical concept of God’s dominion over man and man’s dominion over animals is still the foundation of the attitudes of many toward human beings and animals (Gatward, 2001). That is why ancient Hebrew writings in the Old Testament give rise to humane treatment of animals (Proverbs 12:10): “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The verse refers to how kindness to animals is equated with the legality of righteousness and the very characteristic of God himself. The writer suggests that the individual who behaves in a caring way towards his stock is reflecting an attribute of the Divine. This one verse expresses an important aspect of biblical teaching with regard to the human-animal relationship. The relationship should be based on responsibility, care and use allied to sympathy and kindness (Gatward, 2001). The idea means that, dominion over animals implies responsibility and obligation to them, rather than exploitation alone (Broom, 2003). There is reference to care for and obligation to domestic animals in a number of biblical commandments (Exodus 20:10): “… but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” Other laws in relation to animal welfare explain that cattle should not to be muzzled when threshing cereals (Deuteronomy 25:4), should be allowed to eat when hungry and that a hen laying eggs or young is not to be taken (Deuteronomy 22:6): • “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” and “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young.” In spite of the Jewish and early Christian view that animals had no souls to be respected, it was stated that they should be rescued if trapped, treated if they are hurt and have water and food provided when they are hungry or thirsty (Luke 13:15; 14:15): • “Then He answered them, saying, which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” and • “The Lord then answered him and said, Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it?” In Wade’s (2004) view, the traditional Christian ethic concerning the kind of respect that is due to animals can be summed up as follows: avoid cruelty to animals and treat them with kindness. However, for many people in the past and now, animal lives are not considered sacred, they have no significant right to life and, as they lack reason, animals may be used for human benefit (food, companionship, transport, work, recreation and so on). The architect of this ethic was Thomas Aquinas who argued that cruelty to animals was wrong because it encouraged people to behave in a similarly cruel fashion towards others. In addition, if people practiced pity or compassion towards animals, they would be disposed to do the same towards humans. Aquinas’ theology, which was greatly influenced by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), has a major flaw in his hierarchical model of creation. Human beings are at the top of the pyramid because they are rational beings (“imago Dei”). Animals are lower down the pyramid since they lack rationality. As lower forms of life, irrational animals were under the dominion of and subject to rational beings. Hence, animals could be killed for food and used for human benefit (Linzey, 1987). Ryder (1989) describes this view as “speciesist”. He explains this as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another”. The manner in which human beings relate to animals and take constructive responsibility for them is a fundamental dimension of our relationship with God. Linzey (1996) advocates a Christian ethic of vegetarianism. However, Singer (1975) and many others have affections for animals that do not appear to result in ceasing to eat them. Aquinas’s (1963, 1969) teaching of avoiding cruelty to animals and treating them with kindness, although human centred, has the seeds of the development of a Theo-centric animal ethic whose growth is encouraged by current world attitudes (Wade, 2004). Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Concern for the welfare of other animals arose as a system of thought in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in Jainism, and in several other South East Asian religions. Abandonment of animal sacrifice in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism resulted in a substantial dislike of unnecessary destruction of life and widespread vegetarianism. Eastern religions emphasize two aspects of human-animal relationships: non-injury to living beings (ahisma) and a repeated, cyclical embodiment (reincarnation) of all living beings (samsara). Ahisma, a doctrine of non-violence or non-killing is taken from Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist views. Ahisma (Sanskrit) means that all Jains and almost all Buddhists are strict vegetarians. The second concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn as non-human animals, and vice versa. Followers of those religions do not believe in a god as a creator. Buddha taught that it is a sin to kill any living being (Kyokai, 1966) saying that the key to civilization is the spirit of Maitri, friendliness toward all living things (Ryder, 1989). Eastern philosophies emphasize that man is equal to others, for example: “Combine the internal and the external into one and regard things and self as equal.” Ch’eng brothers and Chu Hsi (1976) suggest that Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahisma as Jainism or Buddhism. It allows animal sacrifice to a limited extent in religious ceremonies. Proper treatment of animals is considered as the Hindu passes toward salvation. However, for Hindus, there is much emphasis on conduct and the doctrine is a general guide (Broom, 2003). Nowadays Hindus are still taught that the human soul can be reborn into other forms such as insects or mammals. The belief that all life should be respected, because the body is an outer shell for the spirit within, forms the basis of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is the oldest of all Eastern religions. The Vedas, India’s ancient scriptures in which Hinduism has its roots, set out the principle of nonviolence, called Ahimsa. Ahimsa, “non-injury” or the absence of the desire to harm is regarded by Indian thinkers as one of the keystones of their ethics. Hindus generally accept the doctrine of transmigration and rebirth and the complementary belief in karma, or previous acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. The whole process of rebirths is called samsara. This concept allows for the souls of people to be reborn perhaps as animals and vice versa. In karma, the previous life acts as the factor that determines the condition into which a being, after a stay in heaven or hell, is reborn in one form or another. Causing unnecessary pain and death produces bad karma with ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others. The Vedas set out the code of sarva-bhuta-hita (devotion to the good of all creatures), which says that people should see the same life in all creatures regardless of their outer dress or bodies. In fact the Vedas go so far as to say that those who cannot understand the principle of life in lesser beings are missing the meaning of life altogether and risk losing their sense of humanity. Killing of an animal is seen as a violation of ahimsa and causes bad karma so vegetarianism is widespread among Hindus. Hinduism is not as strict concerning ahimsa as Jainism or Buddhism as Hindus at many times in history have eaten meat. Hinduism allows animal sacrifice to a limited extend in religious ceremonies. Dada J P Vaswani, Spiritual Head of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission said (Vaswani, 2003): • “It is the duty of man to protect his younger brothers and sisters in the one family of creation. And I believe animals should be given their rights. Today wherever I go, they talk of animal welfare. Animal welfare is not the answer - animal rights are needed. Every animal has certain fundamental rights and the first right of every animal is the right to live; for you must not take away what you cannot give. And since you cannot give life to a dead creature, you have no right to take away the life of a living one. The 18th century gave rights to man, the 19th century gave rights to slaves, and the 20th century gave rights to women. The 21st century, I verily believe, will give rights to animals, and that will be a glorious day in the history of humanity. I believe there will be no peace on Earth unless we stop all killing.” According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. It is eternal but not unchangeable, because it passes through an endless series of cycles. Jains believe that reality is made up of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of an infinite number of identical spiritual units; ajiva (that is, non-jiva) is matter in all its forms and the conditions under which matter exists: time, space, and movement. The whole world is made up of jivas trapped in ajiva; there are jivas in rocks, plants, insects, animals, human beings, spirits, etc. Karma and transmigration keep the jiva trapped in ajiva. The consequence of evil actions is a heavy karma, which weighs the jiva down, forcing it to enter its new life at a lower level in the scale of existence. The consequence of good deeds, on the other hand, is a light karma, which allows the jiva to rise in its next life to a higher level in the scale of existence, where there is less suffering to be endured. The Jain ethic is a direct consequence of the philosophy of soul and karma. Jains are animists, for them, everything natural is living, and all life is sacred. Any kind of harm to any form of life is to be avoided or minimized. Of course, the sustenance of one form of life depends upon the death of another, yet the followers of Jainism are required to limit the taking of life even for survival. Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah. Consequently, it is wrong to hunt merely for pleasure, to use its skin, to cause animals to fight each other, to incite them to act unnaturally, or to molest them unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad taught that animals should be killed only out of necessity and that doing otherwise is a sin. In the Qu’ran the creation of certain elements of the animal kingdom is described with the purpose of making humans reflect upon the divine Beneficence they receive. It is quoted to provide an example of the way in which the Qur’an (1997) describes the adaptation of creation to man’s needs (Sura 16, verses 5 to 8): “(Allah) created cattle for you and (you find) in them warmth, useful services and food, sense of beauty when you bring them home when you take them to pasture. They bear your heavy loads to lands you could not reach except with great personal effort. Verily, your Lord is Compassionate and Merciful; (He created) horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and ornament. And He created what you do not know.” The Qur’an (1997) underlines that the world has been created for the benefit of man (Sura 2, verse 29): “(Allah) is the One Who created for you all that is on the earth.” Islam apparently does not have any doctrine about what happens to animals after their death. The Qur’an (1997) highlights animals’ submission to Allah’s Power (Sura 16, verse 79): “Do they not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky? None can hold them up (in His Power) except Allah.” Philosophies concerning animals Ancient history Additionally to the influence of religions on human and animal relationships, the ancient societies of Greece and Rome also played an important role in the formation of attitudes towards animals (Staller, 1995; Broom, 2003). The societies seemed to differ in their views on humans and animals. There were four schools of thought in ancient Greece on human-animal relationships: animism, mechanism, vitalism, and anthropocentrism. Animism’s central personality was Pythagoras (569 to 475 BC) the mathematician stating that animals and people have souls similar in kind. He professed that the souls are indestructible and composed of fire or air, and move from human to animal or human in succeeding incarnations. Vitalism recognized the difference between organic and inorganic entities. Vitalists such as Aristotle (382 to 322 BC) emphasized the interdependence of soul and body (Ryder, 1989). A scale or ladder of nature has been recognized in which higher forms of life shared simple functions with lower forms resulting in complex behaviour. This scheme of continuity could have been combined with the theory of evolution. The view of mechanism professes that humans and animals are mere machines and such as they are essentially the same without soul differentiating them from inanimate matter. Anthropocentrism regarded humankind being in the centre of the world, and existence, welfare, and well-being as the ultimate aim of the universe. Everything in the universe was interpreted in term of humans and their values. Renaissance and enlightenment The father of modern philosophy René Descartes (1596–1650) reinforced the separation between humans and animals with the assertion that the body is a machine, and what sets humans apart from the animal machines would be the lack of true speech, reason and feeling pain (Descartes, 1649). In fact, the modern philosophy has been started with the period of enlightenment and renaissance. Friend (1990) reported that Descartes’ followers were known to kick their dogs just to hear the machine creak. At that time vivisection was a common practice when studying how animal organisms work. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment as notable figures of that time such as Voltaire (1694 to 1778), Hume (1711 to 1776), and Rousseau (1712 to 1778) questioned the popular idea that animals feel no pain and that they are ours to do with as we please (Singer, 1975). The enlightenment, however, did not affect all thinkers equally in the matter. Kant (1724 to 1804), in his lectures on ethics, still stated that: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” What is Kant saying here? Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking: “… so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” So, for instance in vivisectionists’ view “Who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” In the modern period the utilitarianists’ views are discussed at length by Broom (2003). Bentham (1789) in a definitive answer to Kant stated that: “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” He was perhaps the first Christian philosopher to denounce “men’s dominion” as tyranny rather than legitimate government. The sentence cited is widely quoted by those concerns about animals. Thus, the concept of utilitarianism was first explicitly articulated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and further developed by John Stuart Mill (1806 to 1873). In deciding whether an action is morally right, the total amount of good the action will bring about is weighed against the total amount of harm that will be caused (Mill, 1863). Singer’s book (1975) on Animal Liberation led to many philosophical conversions. Although a lot of people may think that Singer supports a rights-based view, he bases vegetarian lifestyle on an animal welfarist and a hedonistic utilitarian position rather than on any claim about of killing animals being wrong. He justifies his position with what he calls the replaceability argument stating: “Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would have not existed if the first animal had been killed.” This view mirrors a utilitarian philosophy that if an animal has no sense of the future and lives a relatively contented life, the animal’s premature but humane death is acceptable if it improves the welfare of others and if the animal is replaced. Simply defined the concept of speciesism (Ryder, 1989), discussed in general terms by (Singer, 1975), is a prejudice or attitude bias in favour of the interest of members of one’s own species and against those of members of another one. In the authors’ view, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. CONCLUSIONS Duties, obligations, rights and welfare Those advocating rights have as one aim to prevent human beings as well as other animals from unnecessary suffering. They want to protect the weak from the strong and the few from the many. Some of those advocating animal rights think that using animals for food production, clothing, research, entertainment, recreation or any other human benefit is unacceptable. Problems associated with claiming human or animal rights and the advantages of referring instead to the obligations of each of us are discussed by Broom (2003). Deontological positions involve each individual considering their duties when deciding what action to take. Most people who are asked “what was the right course of action in relation to animal treatment” will say that some actions should never occur but other decisions should be taken according to the balance of costs and benefits. The first part of this view uses a deontological argument whilst the second part is consequentialist or utilitarian. Wholly deontological and wholly utilitarian positions lead to some untenable situations. Advocacy for good welfare in animals may arise from deontological or utilitarian arguments, or from combinations of the two. The deontological position often includes the idea that animals have a quality or telos that is of value and means that they should be treated with compassion and dignity (Naconecy, 2006). Once the view that animal welfare, a characteristic of an individual which ranges from very positive to very negative, is important. Its precise definition and measurement becomes necessary (Dawkins, 1980; Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1986; 1991). The concept includes the adaptive responses, feelings and health of the individual and its history is described by Broom (2011). The concept of human dominion over animals has two interpretations such as (a) humans treat animals however they wish or (b) responsible and compassionate use of animals for the betterment of society is acceptable. Regan (1983) believes in the inherent value of individuals and that the interests of all animals should be weighed equally whatever their form. Sociological and philosophical educational efforts can be seen in the work of Rollin (1990) who points out that science is driven and guided by social values. Hence husbandry can be considered historically as at the root of animal production and animal science. Some philosophers take no notice of the writings of scientists and those who analyze social attitudes but others advocate contact with current thinking, for example Rohr’s (1989) opinion “the best way to become informed is to analyze the positions of those who are regarded as experts and well-studied on issues. It is important to consider every variety of opinion in an attempt to determine the truth”. We should bear in mind the average view of the public and take account of influential thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi’s thought: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, many ethical dilemmas still remain. For example, Pascalev (2004) asked: “What are the main ethical challenges that animal agriculture faces today? Is it moral to genetically engineer farm animals and can the need for greater productivity justify the genetic modification of such animals? Should we change the natural capacities of animals e.g. to reduce their ability to feel pain and increase their resistance to disease? What is the moral status of animals with human genes or genes from other animal species? What is involved in respecting animals?” In conclusion the analysis of the study implications reveal that from prehistoric time until the modern era human-animal relationships have been a focus of interest of society and an ethical issue. As this paper explains the roles of animals in cultures, traditions and religions, it has implications for all people. Ways of thinking, ideas and behaviour of human beings may be changed by having an awareness of this subject. The similarities in attitudes to animal welfare can be used as an argument for harmony in human societies in the subject matter. Pascalev AK. We and They: Animal Welfare in the Era of Advanced Agricultural Biotechnology; Conference at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production; Bled, Slovenia. 2004. p. 5. [Google Scholar]	Jains are strict vegetarians and practice ahimsa very strictly, they literally will not harm a fly. Some Jains will sweep the path before them and wear gauze masks over their mouths to make sure they will not harm small insects by unintentionally treading them or breathing them in. Jains build refuges and rest houses for old and diseased animals, where they are kept and fed until they die a natural death. The welfare of animals and the continued survival of individuals are considered to be of great value. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama, who lived in the 6th century BC. Buddha Gautama taught the four noble truths: that there is suffering, that suffering has a cause, that suffering has an end and that there is a path which leads to the end of suffering. In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skilful or unskilful. So Buddhist law says that those who cause violence and suffering to living things will experience that same pain at some time in the future. The Buddhist view on animals is illustrated in the Jakata stories (Buddhist lessons). Buddha is born as different animals in previous births, so killing animals is equated with killing humans. Most Buddhists do not eat farm animals, hence they place high value on a better life and hence to good welfare in animals, including good health. Buddhists should get no companionship from animals, there should be no hunting of animals and many Buddhists buy and release wildlife as a way to reduce suffering. The Islamic religion The Islamic religion teaches that Allah has given people power over animals. Therefore to treat animals in a bad manner is to disobey Allah’s will. They believe that the world belongs to Allah and people are responsible to Him for their behaviour towards animals. As in Christianity and Judaism, it is taught that whatever an individual does will be known to God/Allah.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/the-five-precepts/	The Five Precepts – Insight Meditation Center	The Five Precepts First Precept: Abstaining from the Taking of Life Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges This precept applies to the taking of our own life as well as to taking the lives of others. It means honoring and embracing all life forms including those of insects and other creatures we may consider threatening, bothersome, or insignificant. On a more subtle level, we need to recognize that we press a lack of reverence toward others when we communicate using harsh words, or by displaying offensive gestures and facial expressions. Whenever we make judgments about people labeling them selfish, ignorant, arrogant, and so forth – we relate to those people as if they were fixed objects and “kill off” our connection to their individuality and inherently divine nature. Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings. “Abstaining from taking life” has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A “sentient being” is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being. The “taking of life” that is to be avoided is intentional killing, the deliberate destruction of life of a being endowed with consciousness. The principle is grounded in the consideration that all beings love life and fear death, that all seek happiness and are averse to pain. The essential determinant of transgression is the volition to kill, issuing in an action that deprives a being of life. Suicide is also generally regarded as a violation, but not accidental killing as the intention to destroy life is absent. The abstinence may be taken to apply to two kinds of action, the primary and the secondary. The primary is the actual destruction of life; the secondary is deliberately harming or torturing another being without killing it. While the Buddha’s statement on non-injury is quite simple and straightforward, later commentaries give a detailed analysis of the principle. A treatise from Thailand, written by an erudite Thai patriarch, collates a mass of earlier material into an especially thorough treatment, which we shall briefly summarize here. The treatise points out that the taking of life may have varying degrees of moral weight entailing different consequences. The three primary variables governing moral weight are the object, the motive, and the effort. With regard to the object there is a difference in seriousness between killing a human being and killing an animal, the former being kammically heavier since man has a more highly developed moral sense and greater spiritual potential than animals. Among human beings, the degree of kammic weight depends on the qualities of the person killed and his relation to the killer; thus killing a person of superior spiritual qualities or a personal benefactor, such as a parent or a teacher, is an especially grave act. The motive for killing also influences moral weight. Acts of killing can be driven by greed, hatred, or delusion. Of the three, killing motivated by hatred is the most serious, and the weight increases to the degree that the killing is premeditated. The force of effort involved also contributes, the unwholesome kamma being proportional to the force and the strength of the defilements. The positive counterpart to abstaining from taking life, as the Buddha indicates, is the development of kindness and compassion for other beings. The disciple not only avoids destroying life; he dwells with a heart full of sympathy, desiring the welfare of all beings. The commitment to non-injury and concern for the welfare of others represent the practical application of the second path factor, right intention, in the form of good will and harmlessness. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The inclination to harm or hurt other living beings generally arises out of hatred or fear. When we purposely kill living beings, even small creatures like insects, we diminish our respect for all life – and thus for our selves. Mindfulness helps us to recognize our own aversions and to take responsibility for them. As we examine our mental states, we see that hatred and fear lead to a cycle of cruelty and violence, actions that damage others and destroy our own peace of mind. Abstaining from killing makes the mind peaceful and free from hatred. This clarity helps us to refrain from destructive actions and to embrace actions motivated by generosity and compassion. One of my students told me that she used to feel fear and revulsion toward certain small creatures, like mice, fleas, and ticks. Because of these feelings, she was willing to kill them. As her mindfulness practice helped her to become more gentle, she resolved not to kill these creatures. As a result, her feelings of fear and revulsion diminished. Not long ago she even managed to scoop up a large cockroach in her bare hands and carry it outdoors to safety. When we abstain from killing, our respect for life grows, and we begin to act with compassion toward all living beings. This same student told me of visiting a friend who lived at a certain meditation center. When she arrived, she noticed an insect trap hung up on the porch of the center’s staff housing. Dozens of yellow jackets were in the trap, drawn by the sweet smell of apple juice. Once they entered the small opening in the trap, they could not get out. When they became exhausted by flying in the small space, they fell into the apple juice at the bottom of the trap and slowly drowned. The visiting student asked her friend about the trap. He agreed that such a device was a shameful thing to have at a meditation center, but he said that the higher-ups had put the trap there and that there was nothing he could do about it. Though she tried to ignore the buzzing coming from the trap, the woman could not get the suffering of the yellow jackets out of her mind. Soon she felt she had to do something to give a few of them a chance to escape. She took a knife, poked a tiny hole at the top of the trap, and inserted the knife to hold it open. A few yellow jackets crawled up the knife blade and escaped to safety. Then she enlarged the hole a bit more, and a few more got out. Finally, she realized that she could not bear to leave even one to die in the trap. Though she was nervous about interfering, she took the trap to a nearby field and cut it completely open, releasing all the yellow jackets that remained alive. As she did so, she made the wish, “May I be released from my negative attitudes and behaviors even as these insects are released from the trap.” The student told me that since that time, she has had no fear of yellow jackets. Last spring, a nest of yellow jackets appeared under the main doorway of the Bhavana Society. People using that doorway got stung, and the area was roped off. However, this one woman continued to use that doorway, stepping over the nest without harm until it was removed. “I’ll be very surprised if I’m ever stung by yellow jackets again,” she said. “But if I do get stung, I’d be more worried about the poor yellow jacket who gets upset and may get injured by stinging me.” As you can see from this student’s experience, refraining from killing creates the right atmosphere for compassionate action to grow in our lives. This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue. The counterpoint to stealing is generosity. Most people, if asked, would say that they consider themselves generous. In reality, however, most of us have a difficult time “letting go”. The generosity we do express may often be limited to the members of our immediate family. When we forgo an opportunity to express generosity, it is generally because we are attached to our possessions or resources. Since we believe ourselves to be generous, we tend to justify our selfish actions. We may say that we do not have enough even for ourselves, that we may need in the future what we are thinking of giving away, that the recipient would not appreciate the value of our gift, and so forth. To cultivate a generous heart we must begin by recognizing the depth of our attachments and by realizing what makes us resistant to opening our hearts in this way. The following exercise will help to uncover any personal barriers to expressing generosity: Make a determination to give away one of your most cherished possessions. It could be a painting or sculpture that you created, a valuable coin that you purchased, or a book that cannot easily be replaced. It is important to be sure that you will no longer have access to the object once it is given away. After you make the decision about what to give away and whom to give it to, watch for signs of resistance. Listen for subtle justifications for not completing the exercise. Finally, carefully observe any grief that may arise as a consequence of no longer having the possession to which you were attached. The experience of resistance, justification, and grief are the mind states that need to be countered in order to increase our capacity to express generosity. The starting point is to become mindfully aware of these mental states whenever they arise. For some individuals, giving of their time is more difficult than giving away material goods. To spend time with someone who is ill, in pain, or who frequently complains can be very trying. However, this form of generosity is closely associated with compassion and is extremely worthwhile to cultivate. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids taking what is not given and abstains from it; what another person possesses of goods and chattel in the village or in the wood, that he does not take away with thievish intent. “Taking what is not given” means appropriating the rightful belongings of others with thievish intent. If one takes something that has no owner, such as unclaimed stones, wood, or even gems extracted from the earth, the act does not count as a violation even though these objects have not been given. But also implied as a transgression, though not expressly stated, is withholding from others what should rightfully be given to them. Commentaries mention a number of ways in which “taking what is not given” can be committed. Some of the most common may be enumerated: stealing: taking the belongings of others secretly, as in housebreaking, pick pocketing, etc. robbery: taking what belongs to others openly by force or threats snatching: suddenly pulling away another’s possession before he has time to resist fraudulence: gaining possession of another’s belongings by falsely claiming them as one’s own deceitfulness: using false weights and measures to cheat customers. The degree of moral weight that attaches to the action is determined by three factors: the value of the object taken; the qualities of the victim of the theft; and the subjective state of the thief. Regarding the first, moral weight is directly proportional to the value of the object. Regarding the second, the weight varies according to the moral qualities of the deprived individual. Regarding the third, acts of theft may be motivated either by greed or hatred. While greed is the most common cause, hatred may also be responsible as when one person deprives another of his belongings not so much because he wants them for himself as because he wants to harm the latter. Between the two, acts motivated by hatred are kammically heavier than acts motivated by sheer greed. The positive counterpart to abstaining from stealing is honesty, which implies respect for the belongings of others and for their right to use their belongings as they wish. Another related virtue is contentment, being satisfied with what one has without being inclined to increase one’s wealth by unscrupulous means. The most eminent opposite virtue is generosity, giving away one’s own wealth and possessions in order to benefit others. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness Stealing is an expression of our greed or envy. Taking what does not belong to us is a bad habit that is hard to break. Some people are so undisciplined in this area that even when they attend a meditation training course to try to gain some peace and happiness, they continue their stealing habit. At the Bhavana Society, we know of incidents of people stealing meditation cushions. I doubt anyone has ever attained enlightenment by practicing meditation on a stolen meditation cushion! Our library has a similar problem. Because the Bhavana Society is located in a forest without quick access to any major collection of Buddhist books, we maintain our own collection. Over time, some books have disappeared. Isn’t it ironic that people who come to the center to meditate and study the Buddha’s teachings can’t see that taking things that do not belong to them can never help them toward an untroubled mind? Practicing the Skillful Action of not stealing means making an effort to be honest and to respect the property of others. It means pointing out the error to a clerk in a store who has forgotten to charge you for something that you have bought or who has given you too much change. It means going out of your way to return what is not yours, with no expectation of being rewarded for your actions. It’s easy to see that taking someone’s property or money is stealing, but we are often confronted with more subtle occasions to steal. Taking credit for someone else’s ideas is also stealing. So is lifting small items from the office, such as pens, notebooks, or computer disks, and taking them home for your personal use. Often we justify such actions by telling ourselves, “I could have thought of that idea myself,” or “The company owes me this stuff. I’ve been underpaid for years.” Cheating on your income taxes, writing bad checks, taking bribes, and engaging in fraudulent business practices are also stealing. Even shoplifting groceries when you are hungry constitutes theft. Remember, it is never good to feed the body at the expense of the mind. Our purpose in practicing the moral guidelines of Skillful Action is to make our lives happy. If we break them, misery is sure to follow, in this life or in the future. Happiness requires peace of mind and a clear conscience. Do not think that you are refraining from stealing to please the world. You are doing so for your own contentment, now and in the future. As we go beyond the coarse level of struggling against any form of stealing, we begin to refine our consideration for others’ needs and become less self-centered in the way we regard material things. Using the rule against stealing as a guide, we become less envious of other people’s possessions or good fortune. Instead we discover appreciative joy and rejoice in other peoples’ happiness. Third Precept: Abstaining From Sexual Misconduct Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid sexual misconduct and be considerate in intimate relationships. Sexual misconduct includes rape, adultery, and other obviously inappropriate sexual encounters. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid any activities in which we relate to others as objects of sexual desire– such as watching pornography, talking about our physical attraction to others, and making sexual innuendoes through our words or actions. Consideration in regard to our intimate relationships pertains to less obvious forms of sexual misbehavior. For example, if one person in a relationship is not inclined toward sexual intimacy, his or her partner needs to respect those wishes and act accordingly. Attempts to persuade one’s partner to be intimate or to use sexual intimacy as a bargaining chip in the relationship demonstrates a lack of consideration and is regarded as a breach of this precept. Bhikkhu Bodhi He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls. The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements. (Note: an “illicit partner” is someone married or in a committed relationship with someone else, a partner prohibited by convention, such as close relatives, monks and nuns under a vow of celibacy.) Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit. The essential purpose is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The Buddha’s words usually translated as abstaining from “sexual misconduct” actually apply to more than just sexual behavior. The words that he used literally mean that one should abstain from “abuse of the senses” – all the senses. Sexual misconduct is one particularly damaging form of sensual abuse. For the purpose of keeping precepts, it is traditionally assumed that by “abuse of the senses” the Buddha specifically meant abstention from sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct includes rape and manipulating someone into having sex against their wishes. The prohibition also refers to having sex with minors, animals, someone else’s spouse or partner, or someone protected by parents or guardians. If one of the partners in a committed unmarried couple betrays the other, that can also be considered sexual misconduct. Having sex with an appropriate and consenting adult partner is not considered misconduct. These definitions aside, people get into lot of trouble because of their sexual desires. The irony is that lust can never be completely satisfied. No matter how many risks people take or how much pain and suffering people go though to try to fulfill their desires, the wish to fulfill desires does not go away. Some people turn to meditation out of the pain and suffering caused by their sexual desires. Unfortunately, all too often, even during their efforts to gain some concentration and peace of mind, lust keeps bothering them. The only solution to this problem is to begin with disciplining your sexual activity. If you are incapable of a bit of self-discipline, the path to happiness will forever remain elusive. Some very sincere meditators have made great strides in cleaning up bad habits such as drinking or lying, yet fail to see why they should rein in their sexual behavior. They say, “I don’t see what’s wrong with having a little fun.” The traditional list of inappropriate partners seems to provide a loophole for them. They notice right away that nothing is said against having relations with many partners so long as they are appropriate and unmarried, or against seeking cheap thrills. But cheap thrills cheapen you and degrade your self-worth. Casual sex hurts you and can injure others. What is the point of this kind of fun? To give you pleasure? To fulfill your desires? Yet, we’ve been saying all along that craving-desire is the very root of our misery. The Buddha’s second truth tells us that all suffering stems from desire. Confused sexual behavior is one of the easiest ways to trap the mind into a cycle of craving and aversion. Sexual pleasures are so alluring, and their downsides – rejection, embarrassment, frustration, jealousy, insecurity, remorse, loneliness, and craving for more – are so unbearable that they keep people running on an endless treadmill. The problem is that lust cannot be eased by fulfilling it physically. Doing so is like scratching a poison ivy rash. Though scratching may bring a brief sense of relief, it spreads the poison and makes the underlying problem worse. Curing your condition requires restraint, holding back from doing things that will intensify your discomfort later. The Buddha used a powerful metaphor to illustrate the common mistakes people make in thinking about sexuality. In his day, lepers could be seen gathered around fires, burning their wounds. Their disease gave them the most unbearable itching. Applying fire to their sores gave them some relief. But the fire did not heal their wounds or cure their disease. Instead, they burned themselves. Once the feeling of temporary ease left them, the sores swelled and festered from the burns. The poor sufferers were left with even more discomfort and itching than before. So, the lepers went back to the fire and burned themselves again. People do the same thing when they seek relief from their lust, the Buddha said. When they go to the fire of sexual indulgence, they get a temporary sense of release from the pain and dissatisfaction of their sexual desire. But there is no healing power in indulgence. They only burn themselves. Then how much more maddening is the craving, the itching? Now imagine, the Buddha continued, that a great physician comes along and brings healing medicine to a leper. The leper applies the medicine and is fully cured. Now what does the leper think of the fire? No power on earth can make him want to burn himself again. His former companions call to him to join them around the fire and to burn himself again. The healed leper remembers what that was like – the insanity of the craving and the short-lived release of the fire. Nothing can make him go back to it. He feels great compassion for his former companions and for his own previous suffering. (M 75) Hearing this, you may wonder, “Must I choose between my partner and the path?” This misunderstanding causes concern for many people. But loving sexual behavior between committed partners is no obstacle to one’s practice. In fact, a supportive relationship can be a great asset to progress through the Buddha’s eight steps to happiness. Moreover, to perfect the step of Skillful Action, the Buddha urged us to stop abusing any of our senses. Aside from sexual misconduct, what does this mean? When one indulges one’s cravings by stimulating any senses to the point of weariness, it is sense abuse. What areas of your behavior have you left unexamined, areas in which you push your mind or body beyond a reasonable point just for pleasure or escape? Ask yourself: “Am I indulging in hours of watching television or doing non-essential paperwork late into the night? Eating more than what is necessary to sustain my life? Going to clubs where the music is so loud that my ears ring when I leave? Using my body for pleasure in ways that make it tired, sore, and unfit for work the next day? Do I make use of the internet in ways that benefit my life and my community or am I simply entertaining myself until my eyes are bleary and my mind is numb?” These kinds of activities are not right for the body and not right for a spiritual path. What would it be like to abandon them? Self-respect can grow in their place. The self-centeredness rooted in these activities can melt away, leaving room for a spirited, generous heart, no longer a slave to craving’s call. Fourth Precept: Abstaining From False Speech Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid lying and relate what is true while remaining sensitive to the potential impact of all communication. Following this precept is of key importance to our spiritual development. To fully keep this precept, we need to recognize the impact our words have on others. We need to avoid expressing what we consider to be “harmless” lies, to make sure that what we say is consistent with what we do, and to immediately communicate changes in circumstances that prevent us from keeping commitments we have previously made. Our lives must be in alignment with truth at every level for spiritual understanding to arise. We also need to investigate how truthful we are when we listen to others. We compromise our integrity when we give the outward appearance of listening, but are actually thinking about something else. Although the individual speaking to us may not be consciously aware of what is occurring, by virtue of this subtle communication disparity, the speaker has an intuitive sense of not having really been heard. We need to train ourselves to remain as present and open as possible while listening to what others are saying. The Buddha speaks of four categories of communication and our responsibility regarding each category: saying something that is untrue and displeasing to hear (such as false accusations) should never be done; voicing something that is untrue but pleasing to hear (such as flattery) should also be withheld; saying something that is true but displeasing to hear (such as constructive criticism) should only be spoken when the person is receptive to what is being said; and finally, communicating something that is true and pleasing to hear (such as positive feedback) should also be withheld until the timing is suitable. The Buddha’s words point out that for communication to have integrity and to be effective, we need to consider both the content and timing of that communication. Fifth Precept: Abstaining from Misusing Intoxicants Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid intoxicants, which confuse the mind and cause heedless behavior, and ingest only those substances that are nourishing and supportive of peaceful abiding. We need to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, which weaken our mental faculties and ultimately lead to unskillful actions. On a more subtle level, we need to avoid exposing our minds to less obvious intoxicants – such as movies, books, and television programs that are filled with images of sexuality, violence, and the search for sensual gratification. Allowing these images to run unimpeded through our minds affects our thinking process and can lead to unwholesome behaviors. Bhante Gunaratana, from Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness The last of the five precepts says to avoid alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants, and the same principle is implied in Skillful Action. In giving this precept, the Buddha used conditional wording. He did not tell lay followers to avoid all intoxicants, but only those that cause “negligence, infatuation, and heedlessness.” In other words, the careful use of painkilling drugs and other narcotics prescribed by a doctor does not violate the prohibition. Nor does occasional, light use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine. We must use common sense. Though light use of alcohol may be allowed, it is inadvisable. One drink tends to lead to another. Some people with sensitivity to alcohol may lose control and drink to excess after just one drink. Thus, the most effective time to exercise control is before that first drink, not after. Others develop an addictive habit more slowly, drinking a little more each time, unaware that their casual use of alcohol is becoming a serious problem. Moreover, the presence of alcohol in the house may tempt people to get drunk impulsively during a time of stress or sorrow. We can live quite healthily without alcohol, and it is better not to give it a chance to ruin our lives. Over the years I have heard many stories of how alcohol leads to unhappiness. For instance, a resident at the Bhavana Society told me that many years ago she was indifferent to alcohol and drank only a little when others insisted. At parties where alcohol was served, she never finished even one beer. She just carried the bottle around all evening to fit in with those who were drinking. After graduating from college, she moved to another community. Her new friends drank frequently, and she developed a casual social drinking habit, which increased slowly. She told me that one night, when she was in a very bad mood, she drank one kind of hard drink and then another. When her friends expressed surprise at her having more than one drink, she swore at them, telling them to mind their own business. Suddenly, a strange feeling went through her body. Later she realized that it must have been a chemical change. From that moment on, she craved alcohol. Within two years she was drinking every day and getting drunk several times a week. Her personality changed in negative ways, and she suffered a great deal of unhappiness. Eventually, she sought help through an alcohol recovery program and now has been sober for many years. People use intoxicants for many reasons. Young people want to feel more grown-up or sophisticated; shy or nervous people want to relax or feel more sociable; troubled people want to forget their problems. All of these motivations arise from dissatisfaction – from wanting to escape the reality of what is happening in the present moment. Yet, when we think about it, running away never solved any problem or relieved any kind of suffering. Addiction to alcohol or drugs only makes your suffering worse. It can cause you to lose your sense of decency, your moral principles, your inhibitions. You may lie, commit sexual misconduct, steal, or worse. You may ruin your health, wealth, marriage, family, job, business. You may lose the respect of others and your respect for yourself. In the end you are left wallowing in misery and wondering why all these bad things happen to you. All in all, the best cure for addiction to intoxicants is not to use them in the first place! For the purpose of the Eightfold Path, we can look beyond the words of the fifth precept to see what higher level of meaning we can find in abstaining from intoxicants. In what other ways do we drug ourselves, and why? Using this aspect of Skillful Action as a general guideline, question your motivations, ask whether you are trying to avoid being mindful. What are your escapes? Reading the newspaper? Engaging in unnecessary chatter? Mindfulness can help you identify the tricks you use to avoid continuous awareness of reality.	This is wonderful and a great aid to progress on the Buddha’s path. But we shouldn’t become militant in our support of non-harming! Skillful Action asks us to make our own decisions about moral behavior, not to insist adamantly that everyone follow our example. Many laypeople ask me how to deal with insect pests in their homes and gardens. They want to be good Buddhists and not kill, but their flowers will wither or their homes deteriorate if they ignore the insects. I tell them that killing insects, even for a good reason, is still killing. However, not all killing has the same kammic (karmic) consequences. Killing an insect generally does not hinder one’s progress as much as killing an animal, such as a dog. Killing a dog causes less impact to the mind than killing a human being. No act of killing causes more harm to oneself than killing one’s parents or killing an enlightened being. This kind of killing would prevent the killer from attaining enlightenment in this life and lead to the worst kind of rebirth. Killing insects is not so grave a matter as this. Understanding that there are differing levels of impact, we make our choices and accept the consequences. Second Precept: Abstaining from Taking What is Not Given Matthew Flickstein, from Swallowing the River Ganges Avoid stealing and cultivate generosity. The precept not to steal requires close examination of all our behaviors so that we can adhere to this principle even in what appear to be trivial circumstances. Consider, for example, how you would respond to the following situations: If change were mistakenly returned after making a call at a pay phone, would you deposit it? If you needed a paper clip or another common office supply, would you take it from a co-workers desk without first asking for permission? If you found money lying in the street and are unsure whether the owner would return searching for it, would you leave the money where you found it? The decisions we face when confronted with these types of circumstances have a significant bearing on the development of our character and the purification of our virtue.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.abc.net.au/religion/buddhism-and-the-moral-status-of-animals/10518728	Buddhism and the moral status of animals - ABC Religion & Ethics	Buddhism has a reputation for being a peaceful religion that emphasises kindness to animals and vegetarianism. But is this reputation warranted? Does it accurately represent the Buddhist position on animal welfare? This can be understood as an empirical question about how Buddhists, in fact, treat animals. The answer to this question is varied because human nature is varied; some people treat animals well, others do not. There are also many ways in which commitments and beliefs can decouple from motivations and actions. In the case of Buddhism, there are various degrees of commitment that are relevant ― that of a nun, monk, lay practitioner, or occasional meditator. There are also differences in context. Buddhism is a global phenomenon that spans various cultures, countries and historical periods. Practices that seem to define Buddhism in some contexts do not in others. But this can also be understood as a normative question about how a Buddhist should treat animals if their motivations and actions are consistent with Buddhist commitments and beliefs. The answer to this question is also complicated. Buddhists disagree about whether one should, for instance, abstain from eating meat or ritually release animals. All Buddhists seek to be consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, however. And most accept the textual authority of his earliest recorded teachings ― the Nikāya (Agama) sūtras. This suggests a Buddhist standard for resolving these disagreements. There is considerable debate, however, about how these texts are to be interpreted, what they entail and what additional texts should be accepted as authoritative. These debates are reflected in distinct Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), distinct philosophical schools (Abhidharma, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka), as well as differences among thinkers within these traditions and schools. These debates are also shaped by the different cultures and intellectual traditions prevalent in the countries into which Buddhism was transmitted. There is thus no easy answer to the question of what Buddhists believe and how they should act if they are to be consistent with those beliefs. Even when views about how one should act converge, the modes of moral reasoning that establish these conclusions often appeal to different justificatory grounds. While there is a growing body of scholarly literature that examines these issues in specific historical and cultural contexts, I will here provide a philosophical overview of some of the central Buddhist positions on the moral status of animals, some of the arguments offered to justify those positions, and an idea of how they are applied in a practical context. My key point of reference is the early Buddhist teachings in classical India, which serve as the philosophical background to all Buddhist intellectual traditions. The Four Noble Truths The Buddha lived and taught somewhere between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. There is considerable scholarly disagreement about how his views are to be interpreted, what they entail and which texts are authoritative. Nevertheless, all Buddhist thinkers agree that the Four Noble Truths, as articulated in the Nikāya sūtras, are central to Buddhist thought. The first "truth" is the truth or fact of suffering. What is meant by suffering? In the early teachings, suffering (duḥkha) is discussed in terms that range from bodily physical pain to complex psychological states associated with attachment and loss (sorrow, lamentation, grief, not obtaining what one wants; Majjhima Nikāya 10) The second truth provides a diagnosis of suffering in terms of two main causes: Suffering is caused by desire or craving (tṛṣṇā); craving for pleasure, craving for continual existence (of oneself and those one loves) and craving for non-being (of that to which one is averse). Craving is thought to condition attachment and thereby suffering in the face of loss. More fundamentally, suffering is caused by ignorance (avidyā). Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the fact that all things depend on causes and conditions for their existence; nothing exists independently of all other things. From this it is thought to follow that all things are impermanent. This extends to oneself and others. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent and continuing self that persists through time; there is just the arising and ceasing of physical and psychological events in causal relation. Gaining a proper understanding of these facts is thought to help remove the grounds for craving and, with that, the roots of suffering. The third truth is the assertion that suffering can end. Nirvāṇa is the term for the resulting state or way of life. The fourth truth outlines an Eightfold Path towards achieving this state or way of life. It is standardly divided into three bundles: wisdom (prajñā), which consists of coming to a right understanding of the nature of reality and adopting the right intention, attitude or orientation towards it; ethical conduct (śīla) which consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood; and, meditation (samādhi) which consists of right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Ahiṃsā and the moral status of animals In his early teachings, the Buddha was called on to specify the nature of ethical conduct (śīla). He responded by providing a set of precepts for his disciples to follow in a monastic setting. The first five of these precepts (the pañca-śīla) are intended to be upheld by all Buddhists and the first precept is that of ahiṃsā or non-violence. Ahiṃsā was a common principle or virtue at the time of the Buddha. It was shared by the Brahmanical traditions and was the centrepiece of Jain thought. In the Buddhist context, it is explicated as the prescription neither to kill nor harm others. What is the scope of "others" to whom this precept applies? Some claim that it extends to all living beings. Others, that it extends to only sentient beings. Both classifications give rise to debate about whether this extension includes plants and what this might imply. In the early Buddhist teachings, plants are not explicitly identified as sentient. Non-human animals were explicitly regarded as sentient ― they are thought to have a range of conscious experiences (along a spectrum), are motivated by a range of psychological states, and are susceptible to suffering. That the Buddha considered animals to have moral significance is evident in his condemnation of occupations that involve slaughtering animals (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19), instruction for monks to avoid wearing animal skins and prohibition of behaviour that intentionally causes animals harm (Majjhima Nikāya 41). The Buddha also encouraged his disciples to help animals where they could, which includes rescuing them and setting them free (Dīgha Nikāya 5). Although animals are morally significant in Buddhism, their moral status in relation to humans is less clear. For instance, Buddhists have historically accepted a cosmology of rebirth that consists of six realms of existence; two deity realms, a realm of humans, a realm of animals, a realm of hungry ghosts and a hell realm. The realm of animals was regarded to be inferior to that of humans (Majjhima Nikāya 12, 57, 97); to be reborn as an animal was a mark of moral deficiency. Historical punishments for harming or killing animals were also less severe than for humans. A monk was expelled from the monastic community for killing a human but merely expiated, by public confession and ensuing shame, if they killed an animal. Punishments for killing animals were also of diminishing degree depending on the size of the animal. Some take these historical inequalities to be evidence of speciesism. If speciesism is the view that only members of the human species have moral significance, however, then it does not follow from the above considerations. Animals are included within the scope of the first precept and so have moral significance in Buddhism. The pertinent question, however, concerns how much significance they should have and what this practically entails. Ahiṃsā and its extension to animal welfare What justifies the acceptance of ahiṃsā within a Buddhist context and its extension to the treatment of animals? The Buddha provides some suggestions but, in his early teachings, does not provide a justificatory argument. Several have been offered by later Buddhist thinkers, however. The most prominent appeal to the fact that killing or harming animals will cause them to suffer. That suffering is morally and practically significant is thought to be justified in relation to the Buddha's teaching of the first noble truth ― the truth of suffering. There are subtly different accounts of this relation, however. Let me try to reconstruct five such arguments from historical and contemporary discussions of classical Indian Buddhism. Intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument The Buddha taught that the First Noble Truth is the truth or fact of suffering. If, by this, he simply meant that suffering sometimes (often, or even pervasively) occurs in sentient lives, this might be true without it being either moral significant (good or bad) or practically significant (to be promoted, prevented, avoided or eliminated). These further attributions seem to be implied, however, by the fact that the following three Truths concern the possibility, nature of, and pathway to, the cessation of suffering. One way to represent the moral significance of suffering is to say that it has intrinsic or non-instrumental normative significance; it is intrinsically or non-instrumentally bad. One might further argue that moral significance implies practical significance; since suffering is intrinsically bad it should be prevented. The following argument can then be made: Since killing and harming animals causes suffering, and since suffering is intrinsically bad and should be prevented, it follows that one should not kill or harm animals. The intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument is susceptible to objection, however. While most Buddhist thinkers assume that suffering is bad and should be prevented, and some infer from this that animals should not be killed or harmed, few go so far as to say that suffering is intrinsically bad. There are reasons for a Buddhist to be uneasy about intrinsicality. The point of dispute between the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions concerns whether existent things have an intrinsic nature or essence. Most Tibetan schools of Buddhist philosophy judge Madhyamaka to represent the pinnacle of Buddhist thought. If intrinsic value is equated with intrinsic nature, then the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument might be unacceptable to a Mādhyamika. Desire-based argument A slightly different argument can be derived from certain remarks made by the Buddha in the Nikāyas. The Buddha taught: Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing or agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another ― of one who wishes to live, who does not want to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering ― that would not be pleasing or agreeable to the other either. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 55.7) These remarks appeal to an apparent equality between oneself and others in not wanting to suffer as reason why one should not take the life of another. While animals are not explicitly identified as the relevant "other," these remarks lend support to the following argument: I do not desire to suffer. If I were killed that would cause me to suffer. Animals are like me in not desiring to suffer. Killing animals causes them to suffer. So, I should not kill animals. The desire-based argument is also susceptible to objection. It appears, for instance, to attribute desire non-derivative moral and practical significance: suffering is bad and to be prevented because it is not desired. However, the Buddha identifies desire or craving as one of the root causes of suffering in his analysis of the Second Noble Truth. He recurrently argues for its "complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing" (Majjhima Nikāya 1). How can this inconsistency be resolved? One possibility is to insist that not all forms of desire are the same. This is a popular solution to the "Paradox of Desire," which some believe undermines Buddhist thought. The apparent paradox is: if one of the chief aims of Buddhism is to eliminate desire, how can this be practically achieved other than by means of actions motivated by desire? Desire appears to be both the problem and the means to its own solution. Several recent scholars attempt to resolve this paradox by distinguishing at least two kinds of desire. The problematic kind, which is at the root of suffering, is lusting or craving (tṛṣṇā). This is a strong motivational state that conditions attachment (upādāna). Eliminating this form of desire is thought to be consistent with accepting other forms of desire. No-self equality argument There are many reasons why a person might be unmotivated by the desire-based argument to refrain from killing or harming animals. They might be irrational and thus unresponsive to rational argument. They might be apathetic about satisfying their own desires and so unmoved by the fact that others have similar desires. They might also be egoistic and motivated to satisfy their own desires but do not believe they have good reason to broaden the scope of their concern to include others. The Buddha and later Buddhist thinkers provide reasons aimed to motivate this third type of person. One family of reasons appeal to the Buddha's teaching of no-self (anātman) that was offered as part of his elaboration on the Second Noble Truth; the causes of suffering. There is much debate about the precise details of this teaching. Most agree, however, that the Buddha denies that there is an essential self that persists through time and that underlies all our changing physical and psychological properties. This idea might lend support to the following argument: Egoistic self-interest presupposes that there is a self whose interests should be privileged over others with respect to moral consideration. This presupposition is mistaken; there is no self that could be privileged in this way. Psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. If suffering should be removed, given some interest, then all sufferings should be removed, given some interest. Killing and harming animals causes them to suffer. Animals have an interest not to suffer. So, we should not kill or harm animals. Versions of the no-self equality argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. A famous version appears in Chapter 8 of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. It is susceptible to objection, however. One might, for instance, challenge the premise that psychological states exist but no selves who own those states. Paul Williams argues that it does not make sense to speak of free-floating concerns, cares and sufferings without a subject undergoing those states. This is a subtle issue. The premise is making a metaphysical claim ― there is no ontological entity, self, that stands in an ownership relation to psychological events. This is different to the phenomenological claim that psychological events, ordinarily and constitutively, involve the subjective experiencing of their own content. Both claims as well as their consistency are accepted by leading proponents of Yogācāra and Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka Buddhism. One might alternatively worry that the overall strategy of the no-self equality argument is too strong for what it seeks to achieve ― that it undermines egoism by denying the existence of an ego. At the same stroke, it might also undermine the prudential reasoning that underlies much ordinary conduct. Denying the existence of an ego or self might also eradicate the distinction between self and other, which may lead to various absurdities. Buddhist thinkers have a strategy to avoid these problems ― namely, a distinction between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Buddhist philosophical traditions understand this distinction in different ways. They nevertheless each affirm the ordinary, conventional status of agency and the distinction between persons. This creates a challenge for the no-self equality argument, however. It seeks to undermine selfishness by undermining the ontological status of the self. Can this be achieved without thereby undermining every other ordinary, conventional notion that depends on the notion of self? Is there a middle-way such that a sufficient notion of self can be retained which accommodates agency and the distinction between self-and-other while at the same time jettisoning the foundation of egoistic self-concern? Virtue-based argument A different line of moral reasoning aims to justify ahiṃsā and its extension to animals by appeal to the virtue of compassion (karuṇā). The argument is simple: It is compassionate not to kill or harm animals. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. Versions of this argument can be found throughout the Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. What reason is there to accept its two premises? The first depends on how one defines compassion. Compassion (karuṇā) is presented by the Buddha as an altruistic attitude that strives for the welfare of others (Majjhima Nikāya 21, 103, 122; Dīgha Nikāya 29) out of empathetic concern that they be delivered from suffering (Majjhima Nikāya 7). It is a practical attitude, which strives to implement its object, and is treated as synonymous with "non-cruelty" or "harmlessness" (avihimsā): "When you develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned" (Majjhima Nikāya 62). The Buddha's teachings sometimes suggest that the scope of compassion is restricted to "the welfare and happiness of devas [celestial beings] and humans" (Dīgha Nikāya 14). However, it is much more frequently extended to “all living beings” (Majjhima Nikāya 27, 41, 107; Dīgha Nikāya 2). Since compassion is a practical attitude of not harming any living being, it is compassionate not to harm animals. Reasons for accepting the second premise depends, in part, on how one defines its target; who is the relevant "one" that should be compassionate? The Buddha taught that every follower of his teachings should be compassionate ― from nun and monk to "householder" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). Since the Buddha's teachings are presented as truth, it follows that all human beings should follow these teachings and thus "abide compassionate to all living beings" (Majjhima Nikāya 41). But what justifies this teaching? Why should everyone be compassionate? There are several possible answers. One might argue that the practical expression of compassion in nonviolent, non-cruel action is instrumental to the elimination of suffering, which has intrinsic disvalue. The virtue-based argument may thus be understood as an extension of the intrinsic disvalue of suffering argument. Alternatively, one might argue that compassion, itself, has intrinsic value and is justified as one of several mutually reinforcing constituents of the awakened way of living circumscribed by the Eightfold Path. When sufficiently cultivated, compassion is robustly dispositional in the sense of reliably manifesting in non-violent, ethical conduct (śīla) which, in turn, reinforces meditative practices (samādhi) which facilitate the cultivation of wisdom (prajñā) and which, in turn, serves to hone and enrich compassion's intentional content. Some Buddhist thinkers seem to advance a modified version of the virtue-based argument: Not killing or harming animals is a way to cultivate compassion. One should be compassionate. So, one should not kill or harm animals. The modified virtue-based argument is susceptible to objection. Some argue that its first premise is fundamentally grounded in self-interest rather than a genuine concern for animals. How should we understand this modified virtue-based argument in relation to the original? One possibility is to appeal to the motivational distinction and argue that the original argument is properly justificatory and the modification offered simply to motivate the self-interested person. The truly compassionate person does not kill or harm animals out of a genuine concern for their welfare, whereas the selfish person does so because they think it would bring some benefit to themselves ― such as helping themselves to attain a good rebirth (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.125, 126). Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha, in fact, prohibited eating meat. There is philosophical disagreement about whether vegetarianism is entailed by the Buddha's teachings. And there are various intellectual, cultural and political influences on the transmission of Buddhism that impact on local practices. For example, the Chinese Buddhist tradition is almost definitively vegetarian and its intellectual history contains substantial reflection on the practice. I will limit myself here to the historical controversy as it arose in the classical Indian context, and the philosophical arguments that have been presented to address it. The Buddha not only prohibited killing or harming animals, he also prohibited engaging in occupations that "trade in meat" (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.176). In the Nikāyas, however, he did not prohibit eating meat or prescribe vegetarianism. There is even evidence that he may, himself, have eaten meat (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.187; Majjhima Nikāya 55). Indeed, a flashpoint of scholarly dispute concerns whether his last meal consisted of pork or mushroom (the Sanskrit term for his meal is sūkara-maddava, which translates as "pig's delight"; Dīgha Nikāya 16). The Buddha was historically criticized for this apparent inconsistency by Jain philosophers, who argued that it was hypocritical for the Buddha to prohibit killing animals and occupations that involve killing animals but not prohibit the very practices that fuel those occupations and require that animals be killed. For the Jains, the principle of ahiṃsā entails vegetarianism (Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.187). Several historical reasons have been given for why the Buddha did not prescribe vegetarianism in the Nikāyas. First, the Buddha's disciples were dependent on alms for their living. Some derive practical reasons from this fact: his disciples were unable to choose what they ate and so to deny them meat would create undue hardship. Others present virtue-based reasons: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would evince ingratitude and a pious attachment to their diet. Yet others provide reasons of karmic retribution: for a disciple to reject meat placed in their begging bowls would deny the one who gave the meat the appropriate karmic merit. Second, some argue that the Buddha constrained rather than prohibited eating meat as a means of avoiding a schism amongst his disciplines. The Buddha's rival, Devadatta, explicitly asked the Buddha to prescribe vegetarianism. It is widely believed that his motivation was to split the Buddha's monastic community. The Buddha responded by restricting his disciples to only eating meat that is clean in "three respects" ― "when it is not seen, heard or suspected [that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu]" (Majjhima Nikāya 55). A monastic cannot eat the flesh of an animal that they in any way have reason to believe was intentionally killed for them. This is less onerous than prohibiting eating meat entirely and arguably embodies a middle-way approach between abstention and profligacy. It also implies a third reason for why the Buddha may not have prescribed vegetarianism ― namely, it might reflect the view that the morality of actions is grounded in the intention rather than the outcome of what is done. Recall the karmic retribution argument and the observation that karma is driven by intentions. If a disciple's act of eating meat does not follow from an act of killing or harming an animal for the specific purpose of being eaten by that disciple, it might seem that the disciple does not accrue karmic retribution for eating that meat. And, since karmic retribution is tied to wrong-doing, it might then follow that they have done nothing wrong. There is doctrinal dispute about whether the Buddha's teachings in the Nikāyas reflects his final position on vegetarianism. Later Mahāyāna Buddhist thinkers argue that it does not. Mahāyāna is a Buddhist tradition that emerged in the early centuries CE. While it accepts the textual authority of the Nikāyas, it distinctively recognises additional texts or sūtras. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the Buddha as explicitly arguing that Buddhists should be vegetarian. How is this apparent inconsistency in the Buddha's teachings reconciled? The Laṅkāvatārasūtra interprets the early permission to eat meat as merely a provisional step towards complete prohibition. In addition to historical and doctrinal issues, there is contemporary philosophical disagreement about whether the Buddha's philosophical teachings entail that a Buddhist should be a vegetarian. The most direct philosophical arguments for this conclusion draw on the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering and desire-based arguments. Eating meat, in a modern society, indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals by sustaining an industry that causes them enormous suffering. Animals are like us in not wanting to suffer and so there is reason to think they would not choose to suffer in this way if they were capable of choice. Whether we treat their interests as non-derivatively morally significant or defer to the intrinsic disvalue of suffering, either way it follows that we should not eat meat. One might also argue that, in a modern, industrial society, it would be rare for meat to be "clean in three respects," given that almost any adult person educated in such a society will know, hear or have reason to suspect that the animal whose flesh is being eaten was intentionally killed to be eaten, was likely killed in an abattoir in a process of mass butchering and thus likely to have suffered in the process. One might object that there is no reason to think it was intentionally killed to be consumed by any particular subject and thus the meat could be clean for them. However, it remains the case that it was intentionally killed for some anonymous consumer to eat and so, insofar as the subject is some anonymous consumer, one might argue that they are co-responsible for its death. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra claims that this objection is based in erroneous philosophical reasoning that is, at bottom, motivated by a desire to eat meat. Several virtue-based arguments are also advanced in favour of vegetarianism. Some argue that it is not compassionate to eat meat. In Laṅkāvatārasūtra, it is reasoned that animals feel fear when threatened by a hunter with death and so, out of compassion for this kind of suffering, one should refrain from eating meat. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also presents a version of the modified virtue-based argument, claiming that eating meat poses an obstacle to the development of loving-kindness (maitri) and compassion (karuṇā). An interesting family of historical Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism appeal to considerations of rebirth. As mentioned earlier, the Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth according to which humans can be reborn as animals and animals as humans. Buddhists also typically assume that this cycle is infinitely long. From this, it is reasoned that at some point in the past all sentient beings must have been one's relative. Thus, to eat meat is to eat the present flesh of one's past mother, or father, or brother, or sister, or son, or daughter. Just as one would not currently eat the flesh of one's mother, so one should not eat the flesh of our past mothers. To do so would be a form of cannibalism. Some go further and infer that it is wrong to eat animals because they, like oneself and all future Buddhas, share the same nature or are elements of the same flesh. Eating meat is thus taken to be a form of autosarcophagy. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra also offers reasons of inconsistency with (a certain understanding of) the Buddhist doctrine of no-self: since you desire to approach all living beings as if they were yourself because of your understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, you should not eat the flesh of a living being that has the same nature as yourself. A related argument appeals to the idea of Buddha-nature. This notion is characterised in several different ways throughout the Buddhist tradition. According to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra, Buddha-nature is the capacity to attain enlightenment and become a Buddha. This capacity is thought to exist in an embryonic state within all sentient beings. Some argue from this that it is wrong to eat meat because it destroys the bodily receptacle of this precious capacity and thus dishonours the potential for awakening. Finally, but not exhaustively, there is a small but growing family of contemporary arguments that appeal to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), ignorance of which was identified by the Buddha as a cause of suffering. There is much historical scholarly debate about what this amounts to ― Buddhist philosophers analyse this notion in substantially different ways. Nevertheless, versions of this idea are increasingly invoked to support new theories of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism. Some argue, for instance, that a version of Buddhist dependent origination might be understood as a precursor to contemporary analyses of ecological relations. In these discussions, dependent origination tends to be understood in one of two ways: either that entities exist in causal relations, or entities exist relationally or interdependently. The latter interpretation is more radical than the former. Causal relations hold between separate and distinct entities but to say that an entity exists relationally or interdependently denies their distinction and may even imply holism. Some suggest that this radical idea can support Buddhist arguments for vegetarianism, but this suggestion has yet to receive argumentative support. How might such an argument go? Here's a possibility. One might argue: Since everything exists as relational constituents of an ecological biosphere, if anything has intrinsic value, the entire system does. The modern, industrialised meat-eating industry causes significant ecological damage. Eating meat sustains such practices. So, one should not eat meat. One might also include a reference to the intrinsic badness of suffering and argue that the ecological damage caused by such practices is bad because it directly and indirectly results in suffering to the biological entities that are relationally constituted by this system. In conclusion, a number of arguments in support of vegetarianism can be derived from the Buddhist precept of ahimsa and its various forms of justificatory reasoning. This is not yet to conclude that we should be vegetarians. For that, we would need to carefully assess the plausibility of these arguments and the reasonableness of their presuppositions and commitments. But that is a task for another article. Bronwyn Finnigan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University.	Karmic retribution arguments Considerations of karma and reincarnation have historically played a central role in Buddhist ethical thought. The Buddha assumed a cosmology of rebirth that is regulated by cosmic laws of karma which are driven, in turn, by moral action. To violate the Buddhist precepts is to act wrongly and thus be subject to karmic retribution in this life or some future life. The precise mechanism of karma is opaque and said to be known only to a Buddha. The Buddha suggests, however, that those who are cruel or violent will suffer similar treatment in a following life. Specifically, he taught that butchers and abattoir workers will, themselves, be slaughtered in their next life in the very same way that they slaughtered animals in this life (Saṃyutta Nikāya 19). Reference to karmic retribution serves a motivational rather than justificatory function in Buddhist thought. An action is wrong not because it produces negative karmic consequences. Rather: If one desires to avoid karmic retribution one should avoid wrong-doing. Since harming and killing animals are forms of wrong-doing, one should avoid harming and killing animals. Interestingly, in the early Buddhist texts, karma is understood to be driven by the intentions that underlie, motivate or are expressed in action. This might imply a different justificatory ground to that assumed by the intrinsic-disvalue of suffering argument but potentially consistent with the virtue-based argument. One might argue that the morality of action is not grounded in the (intrinsically bad) suffering caused by killing or harming animals but, rather, in the intent expressed by that action. Implications for vegetarianism What are the practical implications of these arguments? Should one, for instance, refrain from eating meat? Can one keep pets? Ride horses? Should one refrain from medical experimentation on animals? And, what if those experiments produce results which bring great benefits to humans? I will conclude by considering one of these issues: vegetarianism. This is a controversial issue in the Buddhist context. Many Buddhists are not vegetarian. There is doctrinal disagreement about whether the Buddha,	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/search-for-microbial-martian-life-and-american-buddhist-ethics/1F8F7392EF67B3227619EA5CD8E84A14	The search for microbial Martian life and American Buddhist ethics ...	Abstract Multiple searches hunt for extraterrestrial life, yet the ethics of such searches in terms of fossil and possible extant life on Mars have not been sufficiently delineated. In response, in this essay, I propose a tripartite ethic for searches for microbial Martian life that consists of default non-harm towards potential living beings, default non-harm to the habitats of potential living beings, but also responsible, restrained scientific harvesting of some microbes in limited transgression of these default non-harm modes. Although this multifaceted ethic remains secular and hence adaptable to space research settings, it arises from both a qualitative analysis of authoritative Buddhist scriptural ethics as well as the quantified ethnographic survey voices of contemporary American Buddhists. The resulting tripartite ethic, while developed for Mars, contains ramifications for the study of microbes on Earth and further retains application to other research locations in our Solar system. Introduction Currently, we do not know what ‘life’ is (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) so we seek learning experiences with putatively living extraterrestrial entities. In this light, scientific searches for life beyond Earth manifest in five forms. First is SETI, which uses radio, gravity waves and other sources of data to locate highly intelligent life elsewhere (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Related to but different from SETI, a second search involves locating exoplanets and peering into their atmospheres to find signs of biology as we know it (Shostak, Reference Shostak and Dick2015). Another search involves isolating the origins of life in laboratories (Race, Reference Race and Bertka2009). The first two of these searches, SETI and the hunt for exoplanets, remain subjects for a larger study of mine, so I set them aside in this article. Up front, I also bracket laboratory searches for the origins of life, although, as I briefly will describe in Section 4, my conclusions offer ramifications for these searches. Instead, in this work, I focus on the searches for potential microbial life and specifically on how these searches unfold on Mars. Mars, ‘at the center of astrobiology in many ways’ (Jakosky et al., Reference Jakosky, Westall, Brack, Sullivan and Baross2007), at present provides the clearest and most-studied avenues for microbial research. For example, the Viking missions sought living microbes, whereas many missions since, such as the Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity rovers as well as in large measure the upcoming Mars 2020 and ExoMars rovers, have studied or will study microbial histories. For these reasons, Mars provides an ideal focus for examining the search for microbial life, yet the results of this essay should be widely applicable beyond Mars. These Martian searches for dead or alive microbes raise several important ethical questions that have not been fully resolved in the space ethical literature. Do scientific ethics designed for Earthly life forms apply beyond Earth? Does microbial life beyond Earth enjoy ethical value? How do we develop ethical plans for dealing with the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life? Finally, how may space ethics alter our understanding of Earth-based scientific ethics? Because we need a space ethic for dealing with microbes (Cockell, Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016), in this essay, I implicitly and explicitly explore these questions as I propose a secular, science-ready ethic for the search for ‘dead or alive’ Martian extraterrestrial life. I conclude that both fossil and extant microbial searches on Mars, although in different ways, ethically benefit from following the principles of default non-harm extended to potential forms of life, default non-harm extended to the habitats of life, yet also limited scientific sampling that is as respectful as possible as an exception to these default modes as long as the benefit of humanity orients that research. The first two principles ensure that our scientific approaches to other living beings arise as ethically as possible, while the third principle enables responsible science yet still avoids the ‘wanton destruction’ of microbes described by the space ethicist Milligan (Reference Milligan2015). I submit that anyone potentially can agree to these three scientific ethical principles, regardless of religion or lack thereof, rendering this a secular ethic on which scientists, astronauts and engineers in theory can unite. By ‘secular’ I follow Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) description of a situation in which ‘the norms and principles we follow, the deliberations we engage in, generally don't refer us to God or to any religious beliefs; the considerations we act on are internal to the “rationality” of each sphere.’ Indeed, in spirit, this ethic mirrors Race and Randolph's secular principles for planetary protection (Race and Randolph, Reference Race and Randolph2002). The religious respect for microbes that emerges in this essay also enjoys a secular parallel in Lupisella's (Reference Lupisella and Dick2015) notion of ‘cosmic evolution’, while ecological personhood attitudes that implicitly reside in the Buddhist materials that I utilize here (Capper, Reference Capper2016a) dovetail with Kramer's (Reference Kramer2019) secular ethic of treating Martian microbes as legal persons. Therefore, adopting this secular ethic moves us towards meeting the need to ‘resolve our policies regarding extraterrestrial ethical issues prior to their [microbes’] discovery, before we know whether or not they exist; prior to learning of their possible commercial value and before we can assess their capacity for suffering’ (Kramer, Reference Kramer2011). A capable secular environmental ethic must be built on the back of something that retains solid cultural regard, so although my end result remains a secular ethic, in this essay, I turn to the authority of the 2500-year-old tradition of Buddhism as a foundation. As I will describe more fully, among world religions Buddhism maintains a strong ethic of care and concern for life, for the most part effectively can coexist with space sciences like astrobiology, and offers space sciences some helpful conceptual tools (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). In examining Buddhist ethics, along with a qualitative moment regarding scriptural Buddhist ethics, I add a quantitative ethnographic survey study of contemporary American Buddhists regarding ethical issues in space exploration, enabling the application of Buddhism's traditional care for living things specifically in terms of relevant issues in astrobiology. Put historically, in this essay, I examine many Buddhist voices from the Buddha to the present day in order to propose a secular ethic of default non-harm to potentially living beings, default non-harm to the potential habitats of living beings, yet also purposeful, non-excessive scientific study in exception to the default modes. These secularized principles, manifesting not as religious injunctions but as the desired ‘space humanism’ of the ethicist Arnould (Reference Arnould2011), then can be embraced by any human being who understands their value. It would be both unwise and unfair to expect space scientists and explorers always to adhere to Buddhist principles, yet we can expect space professionals to live by sensible, secular ethical codes, and the provision of such a code constitutes the main aim of this essay. Research context Such a secular path is the only one that I can take as a researcher, for I am a critical scholar at a non-religious public university, not a monk, seminarian or member of any Buddhist group, including of course the groups studied in this essay. Instead, in order to strengthen humanity's secular relationships with the non-human natural world, in my academic research, I have produced a number of works about multireligious environmental ethics in which I specifically highlight problems as well as strengths in many different moral ecologies. For instance, careful readers will note that I build part of the qualitative argument of this essay on some moments in which Buddhists fail to practice what they preach, showing that I do not intend to lead cheers for any religion. I endeavour to contribute improved astrobiological ethics. Our conversation about how to interact with microorganisms on Mars began when Carl Sagan asserted his undeveloped secular ethic, ‘If there is life on Mars…Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes’ (Sagan, Reference Sagan1980). Since Sagan's time, numerous Western philosophical writers have expressed themselves on the issue, as have those from some more or less relevant Jewish (Samuelson, Reference Samuelson and Peters2018), Christian (Randolph, Reference Randolph and Bertka2009) and Muslim (Iqbal, Reference Iqbal and Peters2018) perspectives. However, these religions embrace some biblical environmental ethics and therefore maintain attitudes towards the natural world that do not arise within Buddhist realms. In addition, some Western philosophical ethics formulations such as Kantian thought and utilitarianism involve similar notions of biblical environmental ethics, since these philosophical orientations arise from cultural contexts related to the Abrahamic religions and share some intellectual elements with them (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976). Thus, Buddhists can offer some unique and valuable new elements to our conversation about how to engage microbial Martians. For instance, the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam embrace the environmental doctrine of dominion or stewardship as asserted in Genesis 1:20–31 in the Bible (Foltz, Reference Foltz2006; Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). In Genesis, God, the absentee owner of the natural world, delegates management of non-human nature to human beings, God's empowered stewards or overseers (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). This doctrine of stewardship thereby creates an inherent anthropocentric hierarchy which portrays human superiority to the rest of the natural world (Hobgood-Oster, Reference Hobgood-Oster2008). With the stewardship doctrine, humans enjoy power and discretion while non-human entities obey human wishes. Historically often allied with the versions of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (Lovejoy, Reference Lovejoy1976), this hierarchical biblical attitude typically privileges humans to the detriment of animals, plants and other entities (Capper, Reference Capper2016b). The biblical attitude of stewardship therefore would appear to demand the a priori presumption that humans are the appointed managers of Martian microbes before any ethical deliberation has begun. Unfortunately, this presumption arbitrarily restricts ethical possibilities for microorganisms on Mars before they ever are discovered, should that happen, within Abrahamic religious realms as well as within many Western philosophies. For its part, Buddhism faces its own environmental ethics dilemmas, such as its curtailed protections for stone and water ecologies (Capper, Reference Capper2016b) and recurring divergences between theory and practice (Capper, Reference Capper2015). However, Buddhism is not a Bible-based religion, does not subscribe to the biblical worldview of human stewardship of the natural world and was not developed in the context of biblical religiosity like many Western philosophies were. Unlike biblical religions, Buddhism posits the doctrine of reincarnation, in which beings may be born within realms of existence including hell beings, ghosts, animals, humans and non-creator gods (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). In this light, Buddhist texts teach the superiority of a human rebirth above even that of the gods, so that Buddhism is not lacking some of its own hierarchical attitudes of human supremacy to non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Nonetheless, because humans and animals are reborn as each other, the Buddhist boundary between humans and specifically animals is permeable and relative, not fixed, thus mitigating against outright attitudes of human superiority towards animals (Harris, Reference Harris, Waldau and Patton2006). Humans are superior, but only temporarily. All humans have been animals before and hence should treat animals with kindness. Because of this more peer-like attitude, Buddhism explicitly asks its followers to extend measures of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness to non-human animals much like they do to humans (Cooper and James, Reference Cooper and James2005). As the rest of this article reveals, the presence of these three principles of non-harm, compassion and lovingkindness creates distinctive ethical possibilities for Martian microbes alternative to those of the biblical stewardship model. Hence, by turning to Buddhist environmental ethics, we clarify the moral boundaries of human behaviour on Mars in the novel and advantageous ways. Simultaneously, though, in following this path, we discover limits on Buddhist respect towards possible tiny Martian residents, such as an allowance of killing for science, precisely because, as I mentioned, Buddhism retains its own notions of human superiority to non-human nature (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Therefore, as much as any of the imperfect philosophical or religious traditions that humans have devised, Buddhism delineates useful moral guidelines for how human beings beneficially should interact with living non-humans (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002), and guiding human interactions with living non-humans on Mars is the point of this study. Buddhism thus should be in the conversation that Sagan started regarding how we should treat potential tiny living Martians, as long as we remain critical and ready to wield Occam's razor. In this essay, I simply allow American Buddhists their turn to speak on this theme, so that secular scholars better may pursue the goal of together advancing diverse astrobiological ethics wholesomely, rationally and critically on the basis of the quality of the ethics themselves. In the pages to follow, I first delineate the origins of this ethic in the Buddhist scriptures before describing the results of my ethnographic field work. The resulting Buddhist ethic will be set in context within the literature of space ethics, thus secularizing the Buddhist voice. In the course of the argument, the value of these principles for science will be explored. For instance, as I will explain more fully, American Buddhist support for taking the lives of Martian microbes in the name of science not only clarifies ethical contours of doing science on Mars, it also provides a vital new voice within the unresolved controversy regarding harvesting microbes for science here on Earth, such as potentially within the laboratory search for the origins of life. Methods In this essay, I seek both to tap the authority of the Buddhist tradition and to realize the specificity required by contemporary astrobiology, so I combine both qualitative and quantitative moments in my arguments. The qualitative moments arise first in terms of an examination of scriptural and lived Buddhist environmental ethics principles. Afterwards, quantitative ethnographic data collected among American Buddhists chart updated positions on traditional principles, thereby injecting grounded yet innovative made-for-space ethical positions into the context provided by traditional Buddhist perspectives. I turn first to the Buddha of the scriptures. Four relevant Buddhist precepts Given the long history and wide geographic spread of the Buddhist tradition, there exist many different Buddhist ways of thinking and acting, and I cannot begin to describe them all in one essay. Nonetheless, the following summary is one with which a wide variety of Buddhists essentially can agree. Living in what is now India and Nepal around 500 BCE, the Buddha taught a unique religious code. The Buddha preached non-theism, having no need of the monotheistic God familiar to us from Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Buddha believed in unseen spirits, but not in almighty creators, and in the teaching of the Buddha even invisible spirits remain unenlightened and must pursue spiritual practices. Instead, the Buddha asserted that human problems are just that, human problems, and require human solutions, not the interventions of deities. Since Buddhism lacks a creator God in this way, its universe is eternal, limitless and cyclic (Zajonc, Reference Zajonc2004). According to the Buddha, the central problem human beings face is known in the scriptural Pāli language as dukkha. Difficult to translate, dukkha means something like suffering, imperfection or unsatisfactoriness. Humans wish for lasting happiness, according to the Buddha, but remain stymied by the dukkha caused by inevitable things like sickness, old age and death (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Given the wish for happiness but a material guarantee of suffering, the Buddha taught that we find lasting happiness by fundamentally changing how we mentally regard the universe (Bodhi, Reference Bodhi2000). Rather than identify self-centredly, the Buddha claimed, we should deeply realize our interconnections with the broad cosmos, thus transcending suffering in a powerful religious experience known in the scriptural Pāli language as nibbāna, or, as it has entered the English language from Sanskrit, nirvana. Because of its relative lack of concern with deities as well as its enthusiasm for empirical examinations of reality, Buddhism in many ways remains compatible with contemporary science (Cabezón, Reference Cabezón and Wallace2003). To be sure, this compatibility should not be stretched too far, since for instance Buddhist notions of the origin of consciousness diverge from scientific explanations (Ricard and Thuan, Reference Ricard and Thuan2001) and sometimes Buddhists employ concepts that cannot be validated non-subjectively (Lopez, Reference Lopez2008). Nonetheless, Buddhists such as Tibet's current Lama (Reference Lama2005) encourage the integration of Buddhist and scientific points of view, with this integration's being useful to space science (Traphagan and Traphagan, Reference Traphagan, Traphagan and Dick2015). Buddhist monasticism institutionalizes the quest for the experience of nirvana, and monastic precepts intend ethically to train the mind as a part of that quest. There exist different codes of monastic precepts, known as Vinaya texts, across the three great branches of Buddhism: Theravāda, the ‘Way of the Elders’; Mahāyāna, the ‘Great Vehicle’; and Vajrayāna, the ‘Diamond Vehicle’. In Asia, Theravāda commonly exists in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam; Mahāyāna usually appears in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam; whereas Vajrayāna remains centred in Bhutan, Mongolia and Tibet. Despite minor differences in Vinaya monastic codes between these schools, the monastic precepts that I discuss in this essay appear similarly in every active Vinaya standard from across the three great sects, so that Buddhists from different schools in my field study should be expected to offer similar survey responses. That is what I find in my field data, because there manifest no significant differences between the groups on any question related to this essay, with this significance tested using pairwise two-tailed Fisher's exact statistical tests. Thus, because neither qualitative nor quantitative data in this study vary much by sect, in this essay, I focus my overall analysis on American Buddhism on the whole rather than on its subdivisions. Given this approach, for the sake of economy, I will refer to monastic precepts only as they appear in the Pāli language Theravāda Tipiṭika scriptures. The four precepts that I discuss derive from the Pācitiyya section of the Pāli Vinaya, meaning the monastic rules that require confession if broken as well as forfeiture if the wrongful acquisition occurred. Pācitiyya 61 from the code for monks, or the similar Pācitiyya 142 from the code for nuns, remains one of the most important strictures within Buddhism, since it asserts, ‘Should any bhikkhu [monk] intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). With this precept, Buddhism strongly encourages refraining from killing any animals. This rule of non-harm to animals, or familiarly ahiṃsā from Sanskrit, grounds Buddhism so much that it remains incumbent not just upon monastics but also upon all Buddhists in the form of the first lay ethical precept. Of course, on-the-ground realities, especially within the lives of lay people, constrain the application of this principle of non-harm, and notably so when it comes to microbes. Each day monastics and lay people consume plant- and animal-based foods and thereby at least kill small creatures resident in these foods, other Buddhists take antibiotics that they know will kill microbes (McCormick, Reference McCormick2013), while yet other Buddhists intentionally will eliminate bathroom ‘germs’ in their homes. These microbicidal activities often remain encouraged by some anthropocentric dimensions of Buddhism (Capper, Reference Capper2015), for the extension of human life to seek nirvana (something generally unavailable to animals and microbes) remains more valued than the lives of complex animals as well as microbes themselves (Waldau, Reference Waldau2002). Moreover, at times microbes may not be considered sentient or animals and hence not subject to the precept on non-harm (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018). Thus, through its precept on non-harm, Buddhism stresses the ideal value of not harming living beings, but in practice with microbes as a default, rather than an inviolate, position, especially for lay people. Remembering that space scientists typically are not Buddhist monastics, this lay person ethic of default but not complete non-harm seems appropriate for space science endeavours. Two more monastic precepts of environmental ethical import, nuns' Pācitiyyas 116 and 143 or the similar Pācitiyyas 20 and 62 for monks, contribute to my second space ethical pillar. Pācitiyya 116 for nuns states, ‘Should any bhikkhunī [nun] knowingly pour water containing living beings – or have it poured – on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed,’ while Pācitiyya 143 reads, ‘Should any bhikkhunī knowingly make use of water containing living beings, it is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2007). While microorganisms as we know them today remained unknown in the Buddha's culture, there still existed a sense that water and other places could harbour life forms that appear too small for humans to see, giving rise to these monastic rules against disturbing the habitats of small living beings. Here the Buddha showed his respect for the ecologies upon which tiny life forms depend. Of course, this outlook becomes compromised at times for lay people. Many non-monastic Buddhists daily make use of water ecologies for food and stone ecologies for construction, even though water and stone microecologies could house tiny life. In fact, for both monastics and lay people, the Buddha approved of using stone (Pāli: pāsāṇo) for constructing housing, monastery halls, fencing, footpaths and even in powdered form to keep needles from rusting (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). Therefore, given that we cannot expect scientists to be Buddhist monastics, as followed by lay people, these norms can be understood as providing stress on protecting the habitats of living beings but not rigidly so. That is, this ethic demands default but not absolute non-harm to the ecologies that potential small life forms may inhabit. Pācitiyya 11 (nuns: Pācitiyya 107) from the Pāli Vinaya code for monks provides the foundation for my third ethical principle for the search for microbial life. In response to some monks who had created a commotion by chopping down trees to make a rustic residence, the Buddha of the Pāli scriptures issued the following injunction for monks: ‘The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed’ (Bhikkhu, Reference Bhikkhu2013). In theory, this precept means that monastics will not harvest living plants, and, following this rule, in many places, Buddhist monastics avoid farming. Nonetheless, agriculture as practiced by Buddhist monastics has appeared numerous times in diverse places (Yun, Reference Yun1988). Moreover, lay people can harvest plants and then offer the harvested plants to monastics, and in fact without this mechanism, Buddhist monastics everywhere would have no wooden monasteries in which to live and would starve to death anyway. Hence, on the ground, Pācitiyya 11 results in circumstances in which the harvesting or cutting of living plants can occur as long as pursued as respectfully as possible, generally by lay people, and without excess. Translated into the science on Mars, this ethical principle results in a scientific standard in which microbes may be harvested and perhaps even killed, as long as the harvesting transpires as respectfully as possible, without excess, and for legitimate scientific ends. Because it balances ecological respect and concern for human needs, this secular ethical standard can provide valuable moral guidance in space science settings. A wise anonymous reviewer of this article inspires some comments about this respectful harvesting. From the standpoint of potential Martian microbes, no human culling of Martian life in the name of science is respectful. Indeed, no Martian microorganisms will offer their voluntary consent as research subjects. Thus, the respect that is intended here, arising within the context of the anthropocentric endeavour of benefitting human science, remains limited by human-centred colouring and should be recognized as such. Put differently, we should appreciate that harvesting living Martian microbes for human science never can be pursued perfectly respectfully but can be enacted as respectfully as possible from human points of view. Taken together, these monastic precepts and their contexts appear helpfully to provide a foundation for Buddhist environmental ethical sensibilities in space. Tested over 2500 years, these ethical principles argue for an ethic for the search for microbial life consisting of default non-harm towards possible living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats, yet limited scientific use that is respectful in intent. However, Earth environments alone conditioned the production of these principles, and there exist no direct hints in the Buddhist scriptures regarding their relevance in other worlds. Perhaps these ideas remain hopelessly Earthbound. In order to obtain clarity regarding the use of these principles beyond Earth, I engaged in quantitative ethnographic field work among contemporary American Buddhists so that Buddhists themselves can shape our comprehension. I turn now to this ethnographic dimension. American Buddhists on space ethics Buddhism entered the United States from Asia beginning in the mid-19th century primarily through immigration from Japan and China, and now Buddhist centres exist in every state. While Buddhist centres thrive most in the ‘Buddhist Belts’ of California and New York, they also can be found in the ‘Bible Belt’ of the southeastern United States (the data collection region of this study), where they tend to be fewer in number and smaller in population size (Wilson, Reference Wilson2012). One feature that long has defined American Buddhism is its environmentalist sensibility in comparison to other religions and even some other Buddhist places (Capper, Reference Capper2016a). American Buddhists in word and practice frequently place effort into combining their spirituality with ecological activism (Koizumi, Reference Koizumi and Payne2010), and, because of these environmentalist impulses, the scholar of Buddhism Seager (Reference Seager1999) has called American Buddhism an ‘eco-centric’ religious community. This environmentalist tone sometimes made my field work easier, since some Buddhists appreciated the environmental ethical dimensions of my project and therefore seemed eager to participate. Survey-based ethnographic field work, approved by my university's Institutional Review Board, was conducted between March and June of 2019. In the field, I obtained significant samples from all three Buddhist main branches of Theravāda (N = 44), Mahāyāna (N = 40) and Vajrayāna (N = 37). Taken together, these centres supplied 121 overall Buddhist samples, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Buddhists by sect and denomination Characterizing these centres demographically requires some comment. Since the beginning of the study of American Buddhism in the 1970s, scholars usually have portrayed differences in Buddhism in terms of a ‘two Buddhisms’ model typified by the work of Prebish (Reference Prebish1979) or the ‘three Buddhisms’ model as described by Nattier (Reference Nattier, Prebish and Tanaka1998). Recently, though, these models have fallen under a variety of attacks in terms of their obscuring of the true contours of American Buddhist practices (Han, Reference Han2017) as well as their failing to comprehend diversity (Spencer, Reference Spencer2014). Out of respect for these latter critiques, in this essay, I take a fresh approach to Buddhist demographics. There appears to exist a spectrum of views and practices that American Buddhists adopt or embody. On one end of this spectrum rest conservative positions, which I define here as seeking to reproduce on-the-ground Asian Buddhist realities as faithfully as possible in the United States. In contrast, a liberal American Buddhist position, while still concerned with questions of authenticity, seeks to redefine Buddhism in light of American realities. Of course, this represents a spectrum of myriad positions, and one individual, whether an immigrant or a ‘convert’ (Prebish, Reference Prebish1979), may hold views on divergent subjects that fall at different locations on the spectrum. For instance, it remains not uncommon for one Buddhist to be conservative in choice of practice but somewhat liberal in executing that practice and vice versa (Capper, Reference Capper2014), and there exist many other possible scenarios. Here I intend a true spectrum of personal views and practices, not a set of sociological categories for people. With this spectrum in mind, we can appreciate that every centre will entertain both conservative and liberal perspectives, but centres often focus their existence and methods in terms of a place on the spectrum. Some centres self-consciously purvey predominantly conservative messages and practices, while other centres intentionally embrace significantly liberal approaches to being Buddhist. Such cultivated centre identities positively can aid in the necessary functioning of and recruitment for a religious establishment. In terms of this typology, two of my field sites exist as decidedly mixed centres that cater to both conservative and liberal sensibilities at different moments. The other five centres, while consisting of a variety of views among individuals, in terms of centre identity involve more clearly liberal American Buddhist organizations. In my research, I reached out as well to centres that may be described as conservative without successfully inviting their participation. Sometimes language problems like my inability to translate my survey into Sinhalese or Laotian perhaps understandably negated my outreach. Regardless of orientation, though, commitment to Buddhism in the centres that I studied includes casual interest in Buddhism, serious lay participation and monastic devotion of one's life to the tradition. On this note, six monastics from different sects form a part of my survey cohort. All of these Buddhists are American Buddhists, so that additionally I collected survey samples from a general population control group in order to allow discernment of what is distinctively Buddhist from what is more broadly American in terms of points of view. To create the control set, I surveyed 78 random undergraduate students at a small state university in the southeastern United States, the same region as this study's Buddhist centres. Within this control sample, 82% self-reported as Christian, 9% as having no religion, 2.6% as Hindu and 1.3% each self-reported as Wiccan, Stoic, Ecumenical or Agnostic. Additionally, within this control set, 1.3% were Buddhist, which mirrors the same fraction as within the overall United States population (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2016). Whether a member of the Buddhist group or the control group, all field subjects took the same 16 prompt surveys. Four of these prompts pertain to the subject of this essay. The four prompts are: (1) I think that Buddhist principles should be utilized to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth. (responses on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) (2) If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be? (choices offered but alternative responses welcomed) (3) We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible. (responses on a five-point scale) (4) If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study. (responses on a five-point scale) Now I turn to the quantitative data to see what contemporary Buddhists have to say about the ethical search for microbial life. Results American Buddhists, perhaps unsurprisingly, expressed highly sanguine views about the effectiveness of applying Buddhist ethical principles to issues within the search for microbial life. Almost two-thirds (64%) strongly agreed that Buddhist principles should be used in the search and another 25% of Buddhists agreed with using Buddhist principles, so that in total 89% of Buddhists argued for the deployment of Buddhist principles in the search for extraterrestrial life settings. Of the overwhelmingly Christian (82%) control sample, 36% strongly agreed or agreed that Buddhist norms be in the conversation, thereby exhibiting a measure of Christian tolerance. Nonetheless, without controversy and supported by a Fisher's exact test (p < 0.0001), Buddhists on the whole chose to employ Buddhist values in the search for life much more than did members of the control group. By the way, the presence of zeros in some data preclude the use of χ2 tests for some measures in this article, so I test independence utilizing two-tailed Fisher's exact tests and for uniformity do so across measures. In line with the previous discussion about Pācitiyya 61, which extends ahimsa non-harm to animals, in terms of active norms, 84% of Buddhists either agreed or strongly agreed to extend non-harm as an operant value specifically towards microbes in extraterrestrial settings. Fruitfully, we can compare this result with the about half (59%) of control group subjects who, when faced with an ‘If we do use Buddhist principles’ scenario, chose to identify the value of non-harm in this instance. A Fisher's exact test demonstrated the relative independence of the Buddhist and control samples, with p = 0.0001. Buddhist insistence on non-harm towards microbes in space thus arises clearly against the larger cultural backdrop. I should note that Buddhist ethics are not a zero-sum game, since the Buddha on many occasions counselled simultaneous actions of non-harm, compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā). Because of this potential concurrence of value choices, survey subjects were invited to choose more than one norm if they wished. In this light, Buddhists chose to employ a variety of values as exhibited within Table 2. Table 2. If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be A large 84% of Buddhists underlined the importance of realizing our interconnectedness with all things (Pāli: paṭicca-samuppāda), perhaps instructively indicating that this central Buddhist concept can offer ‘a philosophical basis for a meaningful astroethical paradigm’, like Irudayadason (Reference Irudayadason, Impey, Spitz and Stoeger2013) states. Intriguingly, only 44% felt that reincarnation impacts ethical calculations regarding proper behaviour with microorganisms beyond Earth, possibly intimating that many American Buddhists do not subscribe to the reincarnation of microbes into humans or vice versa. In addition to non-harm towards living beings, as I have discussed, the Pācitiyya 116 and 143 precepts of the Buddhist nuns' code protect the ecologies on which living beings depend, and American Buddhists overwhelmingly chose to protect Martian ecologies. More than three-quarters (75%) strongly agreed that the habitats of living beings must be protected, with another 21% agreeing to this principle, creating a 96% overall approval margin among Buddhists, which Table 3 shows. As a follower of Vietnamese Buddhism stated, ‘We should consider that we may disrupt the evolution of other life forms (even microbial ones) if we interfere with their environments.’ This result contrasts with the members of the control group, among whom 82% at least agreed with habitat protection although only 38% strongly agreed. As a Fisher's exact test result of p < 0.0001 supports, these American Buddhists thus distinguish themselves from the larger public by asserting that the habitats of extraterrestrial living beings should be treated with respect and default non-harm. Table 3. We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Previously, I developed an argument in which the Buddhist monastic standard Pācitiyya 11 serves as a starting point which allows limited utilization of resources, even killing living things, as long as harvesting occurs as respectfully as possible, without excess and for reasons of true scientific merit. From this principle arose what many field subjects described as the toughest prompt on my survey, or, as one field subject said, ‘The most difficult for me to know the answer to’: ‘If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study.’ This prompt relates to contentious arguments in current Buddhist bioethics because of a Buddhist moral dilemma (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018) that relates to compromises concerning the practice of Buddhist non-harm that I mentioned previously. On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’ Conversely, a practitioner of Theravāda insight meditation claimed, ‘I don't feel that microbial life is capable of suffering so I don't feel there is much value in protecting it from harm,' and a Zen practitioner frankly stated, ‘Microbes don't count.’ An important contribution of this study therefore derives from Buddhist opinions about the limits of science as found in the survey prompt under discussion. As one can see in Table 4, among Buddhists 25% strongly agreed that taking the lives of a small number of microbes for science is ethically acceptable, and another 31% agreed with this position, making 56% of Buddhists total in approval. Table 4. If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study The control group generally evidenced slightly less approving attitudes towards the taking of microbial life than did the Buddhists in the survey. Nonetheless, and interestingly, overall little separated Buddhist from non-Buddhist responses to this issue, as Table 4 indicates. A Fisher's exact test failed to indicate independence between the Buddhist and control samples on this point, with p = 0.2835. Perhaps against some expectations, therefore, these Buddhists do not diverge much from the control sample in favour of the responsible and limited intrusive scientific study of Martian microbes. In both Buddhist and control groups, large numbers remain neutral about harvesting microbes for science, thus highlighting the dilemmatic nature of the issue, but only about 20% in each group express disagreement with the practice. Thus, the overall result in this essay in terms of an endorsement, if an ambiguous one, of the scientific harvesting of microbes appears to be a generally American perspective, rather than being specifically American Buddhist. Whether this admittedly ambivalent support for science represents an American or an American Buddhist phenomenon, though, in the end, these Buddhists nonetheless support the extension of all three of this article's proposed ethical standards. These contemporary American Buddhists remain quite willing to apply all three scripturally-derived norms – default non-harm to living beings, default non-harm to their habitats and scientific use that is as respectful as possible – specifically to the protection of extraterrestrial microbes. Thereby, maybe these American Buddhists overall exhibit a measure of what the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has called beneficial and virtuous ‘telorespect’ for microorganisms, which is an attitude that attends to the ‘rudimentary interests’ and non-instrumental value of microbes. Discussion The Pāli Vinaya literature regarding monastic behaviour gave us ethical argumentative tools in terms of the nuns' Pācitiyya 107, 116, 142 and 143 precepts. In order to provide the appropriate secular ethic for space exploration, however, these precepts experienced secularization into an ethic of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults arising from legitimate and respect-oriented scientific study. American Buddhists in this study, through ethnographic voices, then strongly validated these standards for extraterrestrial use regarding default non-harm to living beings (84% approval) as well as default non-harm to the ecosystem abodes of life forms (96%). Approval among these American Buddhists in terms of harvesting microbes for science was less clear (56%) but still supports the scriptural ethical complex regarding the taking of resource lives as respectfully as possible. Thus, in this study, these American Buddhists strongly affirm the theory behind the tripartite secular ethic for searching for extraterrestrial microbial life that this essay develops while they decisively direct the practical application of that theory. Being designed for this purpose, this secular ethic can effectively shape approaches to Martian microbes that we want dead or alive. For instance, the upcoming Mars 2020 rover has a tool for drilling into rocks to obtain possible fossil-bearing samples and find biosignatures, yet it is not well-equipped for examining extant life forms in situ (Williford et al., Reference Williford, Farley, Stack, Allwood, Beaty, Beegle, Bhartia, Brown, Torre Juarez, Hamran, Hecht, Hurowitz, Rodriguez-Manfredi, Maurice, Milkovich, Wiens, Cabrol and Grin2018). Therefore, if potential extant life could exist in a Mars 2020 study area, following this ethic, the rover's handlers should move to another, apparently lifeless candidate spot for its drill to ensure an outcome of default non-harm. When it remains unclear whether a phenomenon should be considered living or dead, default non-harm counsels restraint of intrusiveness, since when in doubt we should presume the ‘highest moral relevance’ (Cockell, Reference Cockell2007). Similar thinking should be applied to the principle of default non-harm towards potential habitat ecologies. To be sure, kind and wise rover handlers may already choose to act in these ways (Vertesi, Reference Vertesi2015), but this ethic codifies such behaviour. However, if some future mission, better oriented towards examining extant life, should encounter something that could be living, all three ethical standards demand application. In the case of possible extant life, default non-harm should be extended to that potential life form, default non-harm should be extended to its environment and, if done as respectfully as possible and without excess, a small number of beings respectfully may be captured for responsible scientific study, even if their apprehension results in a death sentence. Because microbial ethics exist unresolved both on Earth and in space, this acceptance of the scientific harvesting of microbes bears ramifications for both scientific settings, resulting in a side benefit to the erection of this space ethic emerging from this study. As discussed, Earthly Buddhist bioethical attitudes towards microbes remain unclear, and a good deal of the literature on this subject probes Buddhist microbial bioethics by invoking abstract ideals rather than empirical results. However, while abstract ideals play an important part of this article, through its ethnographic data, this study also usefully provides unique quantitative insight into lived Buddhist attitudes about the morals of harvesting tiny beings for science. As we have seen, while not united in opinion, a majority of American Buddhists in this study supported the limited but possibly-lethal scientific study of microbes that leads to human benefit, and this support retains relevance to Earth as well as Mars, such as within laboratory searches for the origins of life. Through this interaction space, ethics assist astrobiology in shaping Earth-based sciences, as the astrobiologist Cockell (Reference Cockell, Schwartz and Milligan2016) has requested, while further, they help to expand our universal notions of value (Lupisella, Reference Lupisella and Bertka2009). By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, this study provides an authoritative basis for a Buddhism-inspired space ethic that yet remains secular in Taylor's (Reference Taylor2007) sense and, therefore, potentially universally attractive. Given that this ethic arises from its internal rationality, remains founded upon principles on which any reasonable person theoretically can agree, and does not appear to retain ethical elements that significantly conflict with those of various religions (Capper, Reference Capper2016b), this ethic can appeal to spacefarers from many different religions or no religion at all. Conclusion Four precepts with environmental ramifications from the Pāli Buddhist monastic code provide the pillars for an appropriate ethic for the search for microbial extraterrestrial life, while the voices of contemporary Buddhists provide crossbeams for the structure by delineating specific relevance to space situations. The resulting ethic, emerging from the voices of Buddhists themselves and hence enjoying the authority of a multimillennial tradition, supplies secular, focused practical direction in space research situations. A tripartite standard of default non-harm towards living beings, default non-harm towards their habitats and exceptions to these defaults for limited, respect-oriented scientific study highlights appropriate standards of scientific behaviour to which any scientist or explorer potentially can agree. Employed together, these principles stimulate ‘responsible exploration for all’, thus meeting a central standard for space ethics as described by Race (Reference Race and Bertka2009). Financial support No competing financial interests exist. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Arnould, J (2011) Icarus’ Second Chance: The Basis and Perspectives of Space Ethics. New York: Springer Wien New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bishop, JL (2018) Remote detection of phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for climate and habitability. In Cabrol, NA and Grin, EA (eds), From Habitability to Life on Mars. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nattier, J (1998) Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In Prebish, CS and Tanaka, KK (eds), The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar Shostak, S (2015) Current approaches to finding life beyond earth, and what happens if we do. In Dick, SJ (ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Spencer, AC (2014) Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: demographic trends and their implications for the future study of U.S. Buddhist Groups. Journal of Global Buddhism15, 35–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.670.7912-1.Google Scholar Zajonc, A (2004) The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar Table 1.Buddhists by sect and denomination Table 2.If we do use Buddhist principles to guide our interactions with microbial life beyond Earth, those principles should be Table 3.We should protect from harm the extraterrestrial habitats of life, the ecologies on which life depends, whenever possible Table 4.If it intends to alleviate human suffering through the advancement of science, it is acceptable to take the lives of a small number of microbes from beyond Earth for the sake of their scientific study	On one hand, Buddhists should not kill, as we have seen, including presumably for scientific research. This non-killing may include microorganisms, since some Buddhists debate the sentience of microbes (Eisen and Konchok, Reference Eisen and Konchok2018), with sentience designating one as a Buddhist moral actor (Keown, Reference Keown2001). At the same time, Buddhism treasures the human species above all others, for only humans can join the monastic community and, aside from apocryphal stories, realize nirvana (Capper, Reference Capper2015). Hence, a common Buddhist opinion holds that killing microbes remains acceptable if it prolongs a human life, and Buddhists act practically on this principle every time they cook food or clean their kitchens. Because of the dilemma between the desire to avoid killing and the demand to kill microorganisms to further humanity, current Buddhist bioethics remain quite vague when it comes to issues like the acceptability of killing microbes. Of course, even non-Buddhist bioethics remain unclear about microbes, given that humans regularly kill them in everyday life despite their potential intrinsic value in terms of biodiversity as well as their utilitarian value to science (McKay, Reference McKay and Peters2018). This ambivalence about microbe lives appears in the survey comments of some Buddhists. In sympathy with tiny beings, one Zen Buddhist subject said, ‘Who are we to assume that our lives are more valuable than the microbe that we do not understand?’ A Vietnamese Buddhist emphasized that ‘only a SMALL number of microbes’ should lose their lives for science, while a Nyingma Vajrayāna Buddhist averred, ‘Bacteria are not sentient so far as we know but they may play a role in the universe that is beneficial and unrecognized.’ More stridently, one Buddhist asserted, ‘I do not support the scientific search for microbial life. This is not a “sanctity of life” response.’	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36666	Buddhist Ethics \| Encyclopedia MDPI	Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism is Śīla or sīla (Pāli). Śīla in Buddhism is one of three sections of the Noble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation being nonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described as virtue, moral discipline and precept. Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint). Sīla is one of the three practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarian Vipassana movement — sīla, samādhi, and paññā as well as the Theravadin foundations of sīla, Dāna, and Bhavana. It is also the second pāramitā. Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects of sīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts of sīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics. 1. Foundations The source for the ethics of Buddhists around the world are the Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Buddha is seen as the discoverer of liberating knowledge and hence the foremost teacher. The Dharma is both the teachings of the Buddha's path and the truths of these teachings. The Sangha is the community of noble ones (ariya), who practice the Dhamma and have attained some knowledge and can thus provide guidance and preserve the teachings. Having proper understanding of the teachings is vital for proper ethical conduct. The Buddha taught that right view was a necessary prerequisite for right conduct, sometimes also referred to as right intention. 1.1. Karma and Rebirth The bhavacakra (wheel of life) shows the realms of karmic rebirth, at its hub are the three poisons of greed, hatred and delusion. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1569336 A central foundation for Buddhist morality is the law of karma and rebirth. The Buddha is recorded to have stated that right view consisted in believing that (among other things): "'there is fruit and ripening of deeds well done or ill done': what one does matters and has an effect on one’s future; 'there is this world, there is a world beyond': this world is not unreal, and one goes on to another world after death" (MN 117, Maha-cattarisaka Sutta). Karma is a word which literally means "action" and is seen as a natural law of the universe which manifests as cause and effect. In the Buddhist conception, Karma is a certain type of moral action which has moral consequences on the actor.[1] The core of karma is the mental intention, and hence the Buddha stated ‘It is intention (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed one acts through body, speech, or mind’ (AN 6.63). Therefore, accidentally hurting someone is not bad Karma, but having hurtful thoughts is. Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit (Phala) of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors).[1] One's past actions are said to mold one's consciousness and to leave seeds (Bīja) which later ripen in the next life. The goal of Buddhist practice is generally to break the cycle, though one can also work for rebirth in a better condition through good deeds. The root of one's intention is what conditions an action to be good or bad. There are three good roots (non-attachment, benevolence, and understanding) and three negative roots (greed, hatred and delusion). Actions which produce good outcomes are termed "merit" (puñña – fruitful, auspicious) and obtaining merit (good karma) is an important goal of lay Buddhist practice. The early Buddhist texts mention three 'bases for effecting karmic fruitfulness’ (puñña-kiriya-vatthus): giving (dana), moral virtue (sila) and meditation (bhāvanā).[2] One's state of mind while performing good actions is seen as more important than the action itself. The Buddhist Sangha is seen as the most meritorious "field of merit". Negative actions accumulate bad karmic results, though one's regret and attempts to make up for it can ameliorate these results. 1.2. The Four Noble Truths The Four Noble Truths are: dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth;[3][4][5] samudaya (origin, cause) of this dukkha is the "craving, desire or attachment";[6][7][8] nirodha (cessation, ending) of this dukkha can be attained by eliminating all "craving, desire, and attachment";[9][10] magga (path, Noble Eightfold Path) is the means to end this dukkha.[11][12][13] The Four Noble Truths express one of the central Buddhist worldview which sees worldly existence as fundamentally unsatisfactory and stressful (dukkha). Dukkha is seen to arise from craving, and putting an end to craving can lead to liberation (Nirvana). The way to put an end to craving is by following the Noble Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha, which includes the ethical elements of right speech, right action and right livelihood. From the point of view of the Four Noble Truths, an action is seen as ethical if it is conductive to the elimination of dukkha. Understanding the truth of dukkha in life allows one to analyze the factors for its arising, that is craving, and allows us to feel compassion and sympathy for others. Comparing oneself with others and then applying the Golden Rule is said to follow from this appreciation of dukkha.[14] From the Buddhist perspective, an act is also moral if it promotes spiritual development by conforming to the Eightfold Path and leading to Nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, an emphasis is made on the liberation of all beings and bodhisattvas are believed to work tirelessly for the liberation of all. 1.3. Precepts In the Zen Buddhist initiation ceremony of Jukai, initiates take up the Bodhisattva Precepts. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1889708 The foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts which are common to all Buddhist schools. The precepts or "five moral virtues" (pañca-silani) are not commands but a set of voluntary commitments or guidelines,[15] to help one live a life in which one is happy, without worries, and able to meditate well. The precepts are supposed to prevent suffering and to weaken the effects of greed, hatred and delusion. They were the basic moral instructions which the Buddha gave to laypeople and monks alike. Breaking one's sīla as pertains to sexual conduct introduces harmfulness towards one's practice or the practice of another person if it involves uncommitted relationship.[16] When one "goes for refuge" to the Buddha's teachings one formally takes the five precepts,[17] which are:[18] I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life; I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given; I undertake the training rule to abstain from sensual misconduct; I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech; I undertake the training rule to abstain from liquors, wines, and other intoxicants, which are the basis for heedlessness. Buddhists often take the precepts in formal ceremonies with members of the monastic Sangha, though they can also be undertaken as private personal commitments.[19] Keeping each precept is said to develop its opposite positive virtue.[20] Abstaining from killing for example develops kindness and compassion,[21] while abstaining from stealing develops non-attachment.[22] The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological[23] and virtue approaches to ethics.[24] They have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature,[25][26] and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights.[27][28] Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa).[29] The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.[30] Compassion[31] and a belief in karmic retribution[32]form the foundation of the precepts. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[33] suicide, abortion[34][35] and euthanasia.[36] The second precept prohibits theft. The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[37] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[22][38] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol,[39] and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts.[40][41] Buddhist attitudes toward smoking differ per time and region, but are generally permissive.[42][43] In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts.[44][45] As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations.[46] There is also a more strict set of precepts called the eight precepts which are taken at specific religious days or religious retreats. The eight precepts encourage further discipline and are modeled on the monastic code. In the eight precepts, the third precept on sexual misconduct is made more strict and becomes a precept of celibacy. The three additional rules of the Eight Precepts are:[18] “I accept the training rule to abstain from food at improper times.” (e.g. no solid foods after noon, and not until dawn the following day) “I accept the training rule (a) to abstain from dancing, singing, instrumental music, and shows, and (b) from the use of jewelry, cosmetics, and beauty lotions.” “I accept the training rule to abstain from the use of high and luxurious beds and seats.” Novice-monks use the ten precepts while fully ordained Buddhist monks also have a larger set of monastic precepts, called the Prātimokṣa (227 rules for monks in the Theravādin recension). Monks are supposed to be celibate and are also traditionally not allowed to touch money. The rules and code of conduct for monks and nuns is outlined in the Vinaya. The precise content of the scriptures on vinaya (vinayapiṭaka) differ slightly according to different schools, and different schools or subschools set different standards for the degree of adherence to the vinaya. In Mahayana Buddhism, another common set of moral guidelines are the Bodhisattva vows and the Bodhisattva Precepts or the "Ten Great Precepts". The Bodhisattva Precepts which is derived from the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra include the Five precepts with some other additions such as the precept against slandering the Buddha's teachings. These exist above and beyond the existing monastic code, or lay follower precepts.[47] The Brahmajala Sutra also includes a list of 48 minor precepts which prohibit the eating of meat, storing of weapons, teaching for the sake of profit, abandoning Mahayana teachings and teaching non Mahayana Dharma. These precepts have no parallel in Theravāda Buddhism. 1.4. Ten Wholesome Actions Another common formulation of Buddhist ethical action in the Early Buddhist Texts is the "path of the ten good actions" or "ten skilled karma paths" (Dasa Kusala Kammapatha) which are "in accordance with Dharma".[48][49][50][51] These are divided into three bodily actions (kaya kamma), four verbal actions (vaci kamma) and three mental actions (mano kamma) all of which are said to cause "unskillful qualities to decline while skillful qualities grow".[52] These ten paths are discussed in suttas such as Majjhima Nikaya MN 41 (Sāleyyaka Sutta), and MN 114:[53][54] Bodily actions: "Someone gives up killing living creatures", they "renounce the rod and the sword", "They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings." "They give up stealing. They don’t, with the intention to commit theft, take the wealth or belongings of others from village or wilderness." "They give up sexual misconduct. They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal." Verbal actions: "A certain person gives up lying. They’re summoned to a council, an assembly, a family meeting, a guild, or to the royal court, and asked to bear witness: ‘Please, mister, say what you know.’ Not knowing, they say ‘I don’t know.’ Knowing, they say ‘I know.’ Not seeing, they say ‘I don’t see.’ And seeing, they say ‘I see.’ So they don't deliberately lie for the sake of themselves or another, or for some trivial worldly reason." "They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony." "They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people." "They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial." Mental actions: "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others: ‘Oh, if only their belongings were mine!’ They have a kind heart and loving intentions: ‘May these sentient beings live free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy!’" "It’s when someone is content, and lives with their heart full of contentment. They are loving, and live with their heart full of love. They’re kind, and live with their heart full of kindness." "It’s when someone has such a view: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’" 1.5. Bases of Meritorious Actions Yet another common ethical list in the Pali tradition is the "ten bases of meritorious action" (Dasa Puñña-kiriya Vatthu).[55][56][57] As noted by Nyanatiloka Thera, some texts (Itivuttaka 60) only mention three of these but later Pali commentaries expanded these to ten, and the list of ten is a popular list in Theravada countries.[57][58] Ittivuttaka #60 says: “Bhikkhus, there are these three grounds for making merit. What three? The ground for making merit consisting in giving, the ground for making merit consisting in virtue, and the ground for making merit consisting in mind-development. These are the three. One should train in deeds of merit, that yield long-lasting happiness: Generosity, a balanced life, developing a loving mind. By cultivating these three things, deeds yielding happiness, the wise person is reborn in bliss, in an untroubled happy world.”[59] According to Nyanatiloka, Digha Nikaya 30 also mentions several related meritorious behaviors.[57] D.N. 30 mentions various exemplary meritorious actions done by the Buddha such as:[60] "...good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors." "giving and helping others, kindly speech, and equal treatment, such action and conduct as brought people together..." The later expanded listing of ten bases is as follows:[55][56][57][58] Giving or charity (dāna), This is widely done by giving “the four requisites” to monks; food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. However giving to the needy is also a part of this. Morality (sīla), Keeping the five precepts, generally non-harming. Mental cultivation (bhāvanā). Paying due respect to those who are worthy of it (apacāyana), showing appropriate deference, particularly to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and to seniors and parents. Usually done by placing the hands together in Añjali Mudrā, and sometimes bowing. Helping others perform good deeds (veyyāvacca), looking after others. Sharing of merit after doing some good deed (anumodana) Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana), this is common in communal activities. Teaching the Dhamma (dhammadesana), the gift of Dhamma is seen as the highest gift. Listening to the Dhamma (dhammassavana) Straightening one's own views (ditthujukamma) 1.6. Key Values and Virtues Giving (Dana) is an important Buddhist virtue. The community of monastics is seen as the most meritorious field of karmic fruitfulness. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1724680 Following the precepts is not the only dimension of Buddhist morality, there are also several important virtues, motivations and habits which are widely promoted by Buddhist texts and traditions. At the core of these virtues are the three roots of non-attachment (araga), benevolence (advesa), and understanding (amoha). The Four divine abidings (Brahmaviharas) are seen as central virtues and intentions in Buddhist ethics, psychology and meditation. The four divine abidings are good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Developing these virtues through meditation and right action promotes happiness, generates good merit and trains the mind for ethical action. An important quality which supports right action is Heedfulness (Appamada), a combination of energy/effort (Viriya) and Mindfulness. Mindfulness is an alert presence of mind which allows one to be more aware of what is happening with one's intentional states. Heedfulness is aided by 'clear comprehension' or 'discrimination' (Sampajañña), which gives rise to moral knowledge of what is to be done. Another important supporting quality of Buddhist morality is Trust or Confidence in the teachings of the Buddha and in one's own ability to put them into practice. Wisdom and Understanding are seen as a prerequisite for acting morally. Having an understanding of the true nature of reality is seen as leading to ethical actions. Understanding the truth of not-self for example, allows one to become detached from selfish motivations and therefore allows one to be more altruistic. Having an understanding of the workings of the mind and of the law of karma also makes one less likely to perform an unethical action. The Buddha promoted ‘self-respect’ (Hri) and Regard for consequences (Apatrapya), as important virtues. Self-respect is what caused a person to avoid actions which were seen to harm one's integrity and Ottappa is an awareness of the effects of one's actions and sense of embarrassment before others. Giving (Dāna) is seen as the beginning of virtue in Theravada Buddhism and as the basis for developing further on the path. In Buddhist countries, this is seen in the giving of alms to Buddhist monastics but also extends to generosity in general (towards family, friends, coworkers, guests, animals).[61] Giving is said to make one happy, generate good merit as well as develop non-attachment, therefore it is not just good because it creates good karmic fruits, but it also develops one's spiritual qualities. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower hells is unlikely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. There is nothing improper or un-Buddhist about limiting one's aims to this level of attainment.[16] An important value in Buddhist ethics is non-harming or non-violence (ahimsa) to all living creatures from the lowest insect to humans which is associated with the first precept of not killing. The Buddhist practice of this does not extend to the extremes exhibited by Jainism (in Buddhism, unintentional killing is not karmically bad), but from both the Buddhist and Jain perspectives, non-violence suggests an intimate involvement with, and relationship to, all living things.[62] The Buddha also emphasized that ‘good friendship (Kalyāṇa-mittatā), good association, good intimacy’ was the whole, not the half of the holy life (SN 45.2). Developing strong friendships with good people on the spiritual path is seen as a key aspect of Buddhism and as a key way to support and grow in one's practice. In Mahayana Buddhism, another important foundation for moral action is the Bodhisattva ideal. Bodhisattvas are beings which have chosen to work towards the salvation of all living beings. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, this path of great compassion is promoted as being superior to that of the Arhat because the Bodhisattva is seen as working for the benefit of all beings.[63] A Bodhisattva is one who arouses a powerful emotion called Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) which is a mind which is oriented towards the awakening of oneself and all beings. 2. Issues 2.1. Killing The first precept is the abstaining from the taking of life, and the Buddha clearly stated that the taking of human or animal life would lead to negative karmic consequences and was non conductive to liberation. Right livelihood includes not trading in weapons or in hunting and butchering animals. Various suttas state that one should always have a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness for all beings, this is to be extended to hurtful, evil people as in the case of Angulimala the murderer and to every kind of animal, even pests and vermin (monks are not allowed to kill any animal, for any reason). Buddhist teachings and institutions therefore tend to promote peace and compassion, acting as safe havens during times of conflict.[64] In spite of this, some Buddhists, including monastics such as Japanese warrior monks have historically performed acts of violence. In China, the Shaolin Monastery developed a martial arts tradition to defend themselves from attack. In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of skillful means (upaya) has in some circumstances been used to excuse the act of killing, if it is being done for compassionate reasons. This form of "compassionate killing" is allowed by the Upaya-kausalya sutra and the Maha-Upaya-kausalya sutra only when it "follows from virtuous thought."[65] Some texts acknowledge the negative karmic consequences of killing, and yet promote it out of compassion. The Bodhisattva-bhumi, a key Mahayana text, states that if a Bodhisattva sees someone about to kill other Bodhisattvas, they may take it upon themselves to kill this murderer with the thought that: "If I take the life of this sentient being, I myself may be reborn as one of the creatures of hell. Better that I be reborn a creature of hell than that this living being, having committed a deed of immediate retribution, should go straight to hell."[66] If then, the intention is purely to protect others from evil, the act of killing is sometimes seen as meritorious. War The Buddhist analysis of conflict begins with the 'Three Poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion. Craving and attachment, the cause of suffering, is also the cause of conflict. Buddhist philosopher Shantideva states in his Siksasamuccaya: "Wherever conflict arises among living creatures, the sense of possession is the cause". Craving for material resources as well as grasping to political or religious views is seen as a major source of war. One's attachment to self-identity, and identification with tribe, nation state or religion is also another root of human conflict according to Buddhism.[67] The Buddha promoted non-violence in various ways, he encouraged his followers not to fight in wars and not to sell or trade weapons. The Buddha stated that in war, both victor and defeated suffer: "The victor begets enmity. The vanquished dwells in sorrow. The tranquil lives happily, abandoning both victory and defeat" (Dhammapada, 201). Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti wrote that soldiery was not a respectable profession: "the sacrifice of life in battle should not be respected, since this is the basis for harmful actions."[68] The Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra states that those who take the Bodhisattva vows should not take any part in war, watch a battle, procure or store weapons, praise or approve of killers and aid the killing of others in any way. In his Abhidharma-kosa, Vasubandhu writes that all soldiers in an army are guilty of the killing of the army, not just those who perform the actual killing.[69] Modern Buddhist peace activists include The 14th Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda and Nichidatsu Fujii. While pacifism is the Buddhist ideal, Buddhist states and kingdoms have waged war throughout history and Buddhists have found ways to justify these conflicts. The 5th Dalai Lama who was installed as the head of Buddhism in Tibet by Gushri Khan after the Oirat invasion of Tibet (1635–1642), praised the acts of the Khan and said that he was an emanation of the great Bodhisattva Vajrapani.[68] Under the fifth Dalai Lama and the powerful Gelug Regent Sonam Chophel (1595–1657), treasurer of the Ganden Palace, the Tibetan kingdom launched invasions of Bhutan (c. 1647, ending in failure) and Ladakh (c. 1679, which regained previously lost Tibetan territory) with Mongol aid.[70] Another example is that of Buddhist warrior monks in feudal Japan who sometimes committed organized acts of war, protecting their territories and attacking rival Buddhist sects. During the late Heian Period, the Tendai school was a particularly powerful sect, whose influential monasteries could wield armies of monks. A key text of this sect was the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which contains passages allowing the use of violence for the defense of the Dharma.[71] The Ashikaga period saw military conflict between the Tendai school, Jōdo Shinshū school and the Nichiren Buddhists. Zen Buddhism was influential among the samurai, and their Bushido code. During World War II almost all Japanese Buddhists temples (except the Soka Gakkai) strongly supported Japanese imperialism and militarization.[72][73][74][75][76][77] The Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected criticism from Chinese Buddhists, stating that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live'" (issatsu tashō) and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. Abortion There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception. Further, some Buddhist views can be interpreted as holding that life exists before conception because of the never ending cycle of life.[78] The traditional Buddhist view of rebirth sees consciousness as present in the embryo at conception, not as developing over time. In the Vinaya (Theravada and Sarvastivada) then, the causing of an abortion is seen as an act of killing punishable by expulsion from the monastic Sangha.[79] The Abhidharma-kosa states that 'life is there from the moment of conception and should not be disturbed for it has the right to live'.[80] One of the reasons this is seen as an evil act is because a human rebirth is seen as a precious and unique opportunity to do good deeds and attain liberation. The Jataka stories contain tales of women who perform abortions being reborn in a hell. In the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, many traditional Buddhists agree that abortion is permissible. This is the only legally permissible reason for abortion in Sri Lanka, and is also a view accepted in the Tibetan tradition, as argued by Ganden Tri Rinpoche.[81] In the case of rape, however, most Buddhists argue that following an act of violence by allowing 'another kind of violence towards another individual' would not be ethical. Aborting a fetus that is malformed is also seen as immoral by most Buddhists.[82] Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of abortion than those who live elsewhere.[83] In Japan, women sometimes participate in Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. Newborn Baby Memorial Service) after an induced abortion or an abortion as the result of a miscarriage; a similar Taiwanese ritual is called yingling gongyang. In China abortion is also widely practiced, but in Tibet it is very rare. Thus while most Buddhists would agree that abortion is wrong, they are less likely to push for laws banning the practice. The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."[84] While abortion is problematic in Buddhism, contraception is generally a non-issue. Suicide and euthanasia Buddhism understands life as being pervaded by Dukkha, as unsatisfactory and stressful. Ending one's life to escape present suffering is seen as futile because one will just be reborn again, and again. One of the three forms of craving is craving for annihilation (vibhava tanha), and this form of craving is the root of future suffering. Dying with an unwholesome and agitated state of mind is seen as leading to a bad rebirth, so suicide is seen as creating negative karma.[85] Ending one's life is also seen as throwing away the precious opportunity to generate positive karma. While suicide does not seem to be interpreted as a breaking of the first precept (not killing other beings) it is still seen as a grave and unwholesome action.[86] In Theravada Buddhism, for a monk to praise the advantages of death, including simply telling a person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to death, is explicitly stated as a breach in one of highest vinaya codes regarding the prohibition of harming life, hence it will result in automatic expulsion from Sangha.[87] Buddhism sees the experience of dying as a very sensitive moment in one's spiritual life, because the quality of one's mind at the time of death is believed to condition one's future rebirth.[86] The Buddhist ideal is to die in a calm but conscious state, while learning to let go. Dying consciously, without negative thoughts but rather joyously with good thoughts in mind is seen as a good transition into the next life. Chanting and reciting Buddhist texts is a common practice; in Tibet the Bardo Thodol is used to guide the dying to a good rebirth.[86] Traditional Buddhism would hold Euthanasia, where one brings about the death of a suffering patient (whether or not they desire this) so as to prevent further pain, as a breach of the first precept.[88] The argument that such a killing is an act of compassion because it prevents suffering is unacceptable to traditional Buddhist theology because it is seen to be deeply rooted in delusion. This is because the suffering being who was euthanized would just end up being reborn and having to suffer due to their karma (even though not all suffering is due to karma), and hence killing them does not help them escape suffering.[89] The Abhidharma-kosa clearly states that the killing of one's sick and aged parents is an act of delusion. The act of killing someone in the process of death also ruins their chance to mindfully experience pain and learn to let go of the body, hence desire for euthanasia would be a form of aversion to physical pain and a craving for non-becoming. According to Kalu Rinpoche however, choosing to be removed from life support is karmically neutral.[90] The choice not to receive medical treatment when one is terminally ill is then not seen as morally reprehensible, as long as it does not arise from a feeling of aversion to life. This would also apply to not resuscitating a terminal patient. However, there are exceptions to the injunction against suicide. Several Pali suttas contain stories where self-euthanizing is not seen as unethical by the Buddha, showing that the issue is more complex. These exceptions, such as the story of the monk Channa and that of the monk Vakkali, typically deal with advanced Buddhist practitioners. In these exceptional cases, both Channa and Vakkali are both said to be enlightened arhats and euthanized themselves in a calm and detached state of mind.[91] In East-Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of Self-immolation developed. In China, the first recorded self-immolation was by the monk Fayu (d. 396).[92] According to James A. Benn, this tended to be much more common during times of social and political turmoil and Buddhist persecution.[93] It was often interpreted in Buddhist terms as a practice of heroic renunciation.[94] This practice was widely publicized during the Vietnam war and have also continued as a form of protest by Tibetans against the Chinese government. Capital punishment Buddhism places great emphasis on the sanctity of life and hence in theory forbids the death penalty. However, capital punishment has been used in most historically Buddhist states. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states: "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill". Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill". These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism has been the official religion (which have included most of the Far East and Indochina) have practiced the death penalty. One exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions conducted as a form of retaliation continued to be performed. 2.2. Animals and the Environment The Buddha, represented by the Bodhi tree, attended by animals, Sanchi vihara. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1368124 Buddhism does not see humans as being in a special moral category over animals or as having any kind of God given dominion over them as Christianity does.[95] Humans are seen as being more able to make moral choices, and this means that they should protect and be kind to animals who are also suffering beings who are living in samsara. Buddhism also sees humans as part of nature, not as separate from it. Thich Naht Hanh summarizes the Buddhist view of harmony with nature thus: We classify other animals and living beings as nature, acting as if we ourselves are not part of it. Then we pose the question ‘How should we deal with Nature?’ We should deal with nature the way we should deal with ourselves! We should not harm ourselves; we should not harm nature...Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.[99] Many Buddhists, especially in East Asia, believe that Buddhism advocates or promotes vegetarianism. While Buddhist theory tends to equate killing animals with killing people (and avoids the conclusion that killing can sometimes be ethical, e.g. defense of others), outside of the Chinese and Vietnamese monastic tradition, most Buddhists do eat meat in practice.[100] There is some controversy surrounding whether or not the Buddha himself died from eating rancid pork.[101] While most Chinese and Vietnamese monastics are vegetarian,[100] vegetarian Tibetans are rare, due to the harsh Himalayan climate.[100] Japanese lay people tend to eat meat, but monasteries tend to be vegetarian.[100] The Dalai Lama, after contracting Hepatitis B, was advised by doctors to switch to a high animal-protein diet.[102] The Dalai Lama eats vegetarian every second day, so he effectively eats a vegetarian diet for 6 months of the year.[103] In the West, vegetarianism among Buddhists is also common. In the Pali version of the Tripitaka, there are number of occasions in which the Buddha ate meat as well as recommending certain types of meat as a cure for medical conditions. On one occasion, a general sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. The Buddha declared that: Meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); these, Jivaka, are the three circumstances in which meat should not be eaten, Jivaka! I declare there are three circumstances in which meat can be eaten: when it is not seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater); Jivaka, I say these are the three circumstances in which meat can be eaten. —Jivaka Sutta The Buddha held that because the food is given by a donor with good intentions, a monk should accept this as long as it is pure in these three respects. To refuse the offering would deprive the donor of the positive karma that giving provides. Moreover, it would create a certain conceit in the monks who would now pick and choose what food to eat. The Buddha did state however that the donor does generate bad karma for himself by killing an animal. In Theravada Buddhist countries, most people do eat meat, however. While there is no mention of Buddha endorsing or repudiating vegetarianism in surviving portions of Pali Tripitaka and no Mahayana sutras explicitly declare that meat eating violates the first precept, certain Mahayana sutras vigorously and unreservedly denounce the eating of meat, mainly on the ground that such an act violates the bodhisattva's compassion. The sutras which inveigh against meat-eating include the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Brahmajala Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Mahamegha Sutra, and the Lankavatara Sutra, as well as the Buddha's comments on the negative karmic effects of meat consumption in the Karma Sutra. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents itself as the final elucidatory and definitive Mahayana teachings of the Buddha on the very eve of his death, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of Great Kindness", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals found already dead) is prohibited by him. He specifically rejects the idea that monks who go out begging and receive meat from a donor should eat it: ". . . it should be rejected . . . I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitutes an infraction . . . I teach the harm arising from meat-eating." The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and lyingly claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact he says he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha speaking out very forcefully against meat consumption and unequivocally in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion that a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. In several other Mahayana scriptures, too (e.g., the Mahayana jatakas), the Buddha is seen clearly to indicate that meat-eating is undesirable and karmically unwholesome. Environment Forests and jungles represented the ideal dwelling place for early Buddhists, and many texts praise the forest life as being helpful to meditation. Monks are not allowed to cut down trees as per the Vinaya, and the planting of trees and plants is seen as karmically fruitful. Because of this, Buddhist monasteries are often small nature preserves within the modernizing states in East Asia. The species ficus religiosa is seen as auspicious, because it is the same kind of tree that the Buddha gained enlightenment under. In Mahayana Buddhism, some teachings hold that trees and plants have Buddha nature. Kukai held that plants and trees, along with rocks and everything else, were manifestations of the 'One Mind' of Vairocana and Dogen held that plant life was Buddha nature. In pre-modern times, environmental issues were not widely discussed, though Ashoka banned the burning of forests and promoted the planting of trees in his edicts. Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Theravada monk, has been outspoken about the issue of environmental crisis. Bodhi holds that the root of the current ecological crisis is the belief that increased production and consumption to satisfy our material and sensual desires leads to well being. The subjugation of nature is directly opposed to the Buddhist view of non-harming and dwelling in nature. Buddhist activists such as Ajahn Pongsak in Thailand and the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement have worked for reforestation and environmental protection. The Dalai Lama also professes the close relationship of human beings and nature, saying that since humans come from nature, there is no point in going against it. He advocates that a clean environment should be considered a basic human right and that it is our responsibility as humans to ensure that we do all we can to pass on a healthy world to those who come after us.[104] 2.3. Gender Issues In pre-Buddhist Indian religion, women were seen as inferior and subservient to men. Buddha's teachings tended to promote gender equality as the Buddha held that women had the same spiritual capacities as men did. According to Isaline Blew Horner, women in Buddhist India: "commanded more respect and ranked as individuals. They enjoyed more independence, and a wider liberty to guide and follow their own lives."[105] Buddha gave the same teachings to both sexes, praised various female lay disciples for their wisdom and allowed women to become monastics (Bhikkhunis) at a time when this was seen as scandalous in India, where men dominated the spiritual professions. The two chief female disciples of the Buddha were Khema and Uppalavanna. The Buddha taught that women had the same soteriological potential as men, and that gender had no influence on one's ability to advance spiritually to nirvana. In the early Buddhist texts, female enlightened Arhats are common. Buddhist nuns are however bound by an extra 8 precepts not applicable to Buddhist monks called The Eight Garudhammas. The authenticity of these rules is highly contested; they were supposedly added to the (bhikkhunis) Vinaya "to allow more acceptance" of a monastic Order for women, during the Buddha's time but can be interpreted as a form of gender discrimination.[106][107] Alan Sponberg argues that the early Buddhist sangha sought social acceptance through 'institutional androcentrism' as it was dependent on material support from lay society. Because of this Sponberg concludes: "For all its commitment to inclusiveness at the doctrinal level, institutional Buddhism was not able to (or saw no reason to) challenge prevailing attitudes about gender roles in society."[108] The pre-Mahayana texts also state that while women can become Arhats, they cannot become a Samyaksambuddha (a Buddha who discovers the path by himself), Chakravartins (Wheel turning king), a Ruler of heaven, a Mara devil or a Brahama god.[109] The Therigatha is a collection of poems from elder Buddhist nuns, and one of the earliest texts of women's literature. Another important text is the Therī-Apadāna, which collects the biographies of eminent nuns. One such verses are those of the nun Soma, who was tempted by Mara when traveling in the woods. Mara states that women are not intelligent enough to attain enlightenment, Soma replies with a verse which indicates the insignificance of gender to spirituality: The Guan Yin of the South Sea of Sanya is the largest statue of a woman in the world. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1837348 In Mahayana Buddhism, Bodhisattvas such as Tara and Guanyin are very popular female deities. Some Buddhist Tantric texts include female consorts for each heavenly Buddha or Bodhisattva. In these Tantric couples, the female symbolizes wisdom (prajna) and the male symbolizes skillful means (upaya).[111] The union of these two qualities is often depicted as sexual union, known as yab-yum (father-mother). In East Asia, the idea of Buddha nature being inherent in all beings is taken to mean that, spiritually at least, the sexes are equal, and this is expressed by the Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra. Based on this ideal of Buddha nature, the Chinese Chan (Zen) school emphasized the equality of the sexes. Dahui Zonggao (1089–1163) of the Chinese Linji school said of women in Buddhism: "For mastering the truth, it does not matter whether one is male or female, noble or base." [112] The Japanese founder of Soto Zen, Dogen wrote: "If you wish to hear the Dharma and put an end to pain and turmoil, forget about such things as male and female. As long as delusions have not yet been eliminated, neither men nor women have eliminated them; when they are all eliminated and true reality is experienced, there is no distinction of male and female."[113] The attitude of Buddhists towards gender has been varied throughout history as it has been influenced by each particular culture and belief system such as Confucianism (which sees women as subservient) and Hinduism. The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa (5th century CE) for example, seems to have been influenced by his Brahmin background in stating that rebirth as a male is higher than rebirth as a female.[114] Some Mahayana sutras such as the ‘Sutra on Changing the Female Sex’ and the ‘Questions of the Daughter Pure Faith’ also echo this idea. For various historical and cultural reasons such as wars and invasions, the orders of ordained Buddhist nuns disappeared or was never introduced in Southeast Asia and Tibet, though they slowly started being reintroduced by nuns such as Ayya Khema, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron. Until very recently, China, Taiwan and Korea were the only places where fully ordained bhiksuni lineages still existed. An international conference of Buddhist nuns was held on February 1987 at Bodh Gaya and saw the formation of 'Sakyadhita' (Daughters of the Buddha) the International Association of Buddhist Women which focuses on helping Buddhist nuns throughout the world.[115] 2.4. Relationships The Buddha placed much importance on the cultivation of good will and compassion towards one's parents, spouse, friends and all other beings. Buddhism strongly values harmony in the family and community. Keeping the five precepts and having a generous attitude (Dana) is seen as the foundation for this harmony. An important text, seen as the lay people's Vinaya (code of conduct) is the Sigalovada Sutta which outlines wrong action and warns against the squandering of wealth. The Sigalovada Sutta outlines how a virtuous person "worships the six directions" which are parents (East), teachers (South), wife (West), and friends and colleagues (North), and the two vertical directions as: ascetics and Brahmins (Up) and the Servants (Down). The text elaborates on how to respect and support them, and how in turn the Six will return the kindness and support. The relationships are based on reciprocation, and it is understood one has no right to expect behavior from others unless one also performs good acts in their favor. Parents for example, are to be respected and supported with the understanding that they are to have provided care and affection to oneself. In marriage, the sutta states that a householder should treat their wife by "being courteous to her, by not despising her, by being faithful to her, by handing over authority to her, by providing her with adornments." while in return the wife "performs her duties well, she is hospitable to relations and attendants, she is faithful, she protects what he brings, she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties."[116] The Buddha also stated that a wife and husband are to be each other's best friend (parama sakha). While monogamy is the predominant model for marriage, Buddhist societies have also practiced and accepted polygamy and polyandry.[117] Buddhism sees marriage not as sacred but as a secular partnership and hence has no issue with divorce. 2.5. Sexuality The Third (or sometimes Fourth) of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from "sexual misconduct", which has various interpretations, but generally entails any sexual conduct which is harmful to others, such as rape, molestation and often adultery, although this depends on the local marriage and relationship customs. Buddhist monks and nuns of most traditions are not only expected to refrain from all sexual activity but also take vows of celibacy. Sexual orientation Among the Buddhist traditions there is a vast diversity of opinion about homosexuality, and in interpreting the precedents which define "sexual misconduct" generally. Though there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in Buddhist sutras, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Mantrayana, societal and community attitudes and the historical view of practitioners have established precedents. Some sangha equate homosexuality with scriptural sexual misconduct prohibited by the Five Precepts. Other sangha hold that if sexuality is compassionate and/or consensual and does not contravene vows, then there is no karmic infraction, irrespective of whether it is same-sex or not. Buddhist communities in Western states as well as in Japan generally tend to be accepting of homosexuality. In Japan, homosexual relations among Buddhist samurai and clergy were actually quite common. Male homosexuality between clergy was especially common in the Tantric Shingon school.[118] According to the Pāli Canon & Āgama (the Early Buddhist scriptures), there is no saying that same or opposite gender relations have anything to do with sexual misconduct,[119][120] and some Theravada monks express that same-gender relations do not violate the rule to avoid sexual misconduct, which means not having sex with someone underage (thus protected by their parents or guardians), someone betrothed or married and who have taken vows of religious celibacy.[121] Some later traditions, like Shantideva and Gampopa, feature restrictions on non-vaginal sex (including homosexuality). A medieval commentary of the Digha Nikaya mentions examples of immorality in society, and one of the examples is homosexuality, whereas this has no basis in the Sutta.[122] Other Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-kosa and the Jataka tales make no mention of homosexuality in this regard. According to Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhist cultures' attitudes towards homosexuality have generally been neutral.[123] While both men and women can be ordained, hermaphrodites are not allowed by the Vinaya. According to the ancient texts this is because of the possibility that they will seduce monks or nuns.[124] The Vinaya also prevents pandakas from becoming monastics, which have been defined as "without testicles" and generally referred to those who lacked the normal (usually physical) characteristics of maleness (in some cases it refers to women who lack the normal characteristics of femaleness). This rule was established by the Buddha after a pandaka monk broke the Vinaya precepts by having relations with others. Therefore, it seems that pandakas were initially allowed into the Sangha. Later Buddhist texts like the Milinda Panha and the Abhidharma-kosa see pandakas as being spiritually hindered by their sexuality and mental defilements. 2.6. Economic Ethics Bhutan's government promotes the concept of 'Gross National Happiness' (GNH), based on Buddhist spiritual values. https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?curid=1760493 Buddha's teachings to laypeople included advice on how to make their living and how to use their wealth. The Buddha considered the creation of wealth to be praiseworthy, so long as it was done morally,[125] in accordance with right livelihood, one of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, and which refers to making one's living without killing, being complicit in the suffering of other beings (by selling weapons, poison, alcohol or flesh) or through lying, stealing or deceit.[126] The Sigalovada Sutta states that a master should look after servants and employees by: "(1) by assigning them work according to their ability, (2) by supplying them with food and with wages, (3) by tending them in sickness, (4) by sharing with them any delicacies, (5) by granting them leave at times" (Digha Nikaya 31). Early Buddhist texts see success in work as aided by one's spiritual and moral qualities. In the Adiya Sutta the Buddha also outlined several ways in which people could put their 'righteously gained' wealth to use:[127] The Buddha placed much emphasis on the virtue of giving and sharing, and hence the practice of donating and charity are central to Buddhist economic ethics. Even the poor are encouraged to share, because this brings about greater spiritual wealth: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift."[128] The modern growth of Engaged Buddhism has seen an emphasis on social work and charity. Buddhist aid and activist organizations include Buddhist Global Relief, Lotus Outreach, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Piyarra Kutta, International Network of Engaged Buddhists, The Tzu Chi Foundation, Nonviolent Peaceforce, and Zen Peacemakers. Buddhist texts promote the building of public works which benefit the community and stories of Buddhist Kings like Ashoka are used as an example of lay people who promoted the public welfare by building hospitals and parks for the people. The Buddha's chief lay disciple, the rich merchant Anathapindika (‘Feeder of the Poor’) is also another example of a virtuous layperson who donated much of his wealth for the benefit of others and was thus known as the "foremost disciple in generosity". Early Buddhist texts do not disparage merchants and trade, but instead promote enterprise as long as it is done ethically and leads to the well being of the community. The gold standard for rulers in Buddhism is the ideal wheel turning king, the Chakravartin. A Chakravartin is said to rule justly, giving to the needy and combating poverty so as to prevent social unrest. A Chakravartin does not fight wars for gain but only in defense of the kingdom, he accepts immigrants and refugees, and builds hospitals, parks, hostels, wells, canals and rest houses for the people and animals.[129] Mahayana Buddhism maintains that lay Bodhisattvas should engage in social welfare activities for the good and safety of others.[130] In the lands of Southern Buddhism, Buddhist monasteries often became places were the poor, destitute, orphaned, elderly can take shelter. Monasteries often provided education and took care of the sick, and therefore are also centers of social welfare for the poor. Robert Thurman, in his discussion of Nagarjuna's Precious Garland Ratnavali sees the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as politically supporting ‘a welfare state ...a rule of compassionate socialism’.[131] Prominent Buddhist socialists include the 14th Dalai Lama, Buddhadasa, B. R. Ambedkar, U Nu, Girō Seno’o and Lin Qiuwu.[132] Others such as Neville Karunatilake, E. F. Schumacher, Padmasiri De Silva, Prayudh Payutto and Sulak Sivaraksa have promoted a Buddhist economics that does not necessarily define itself as socialist but still offers a critique of modern consumer capitalism. E. F. Schumacher in his "Buddhist economics" (1973) wrote: "Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of human wants but in the purification of human character." While modern economics seeks to satisfy human desires, Buddhism seeks to reduce our desires and hence Buddhist economics would tend to promote a sense of anti-consumerism and simple living. In his Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place, Prayudh Payutto writes that consumption is only a means to an end which is 'development of human potential' and 'well being within the individual, within society and within the environment'. From a Buddhist perspective then, 'Right consumption' is based on well being while 'wrong consumption' is the need to 'satisfy the desire for pleasing sensations or ego-gratification'.[133] Similarly, Sulak Sivaraksa argues that "the religion of consumerism emphasizes greed, hatred and delusion" which causes anxiety and that this must be countered with an ethic of satisfaction[134] Modern attempts to practice Buddhist economics can be seen in the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement and in the Gross National Happiness economics of Bhutan. While Buddhism encourages wealth gained ethically,[125] it sees greed and craving for riches as negative, and praises contentment as 'the greatest wealth'. Poverty and debt are seen as causes of suffering, immorality, and social unrest if they prevent one from having basic necessities and peace of mind. For laypeople, Buddhism promotes the middle way between a life of poverty and a materialistic or consumerist life in which one is always seeking to enrich oneself and to buy more things.[135] For Buddhist laypersons then, to be Buddhist does not mean to reject all material things, but, according to Sizemore and Swearer: "it specifies an attitude to be cultivated and expressed in whatever material condition one finds oneself. To be non-attached is to possess and use material things but not to be possessed or used by them. Therefore, the idea of non-attachment applies all across Buddhist society, to laymen and monk alike." [136] References Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is suffering. Birth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and grief, physical and mental suffering, and disturbance are suffering. [...] In short, all life is suffering, according to the Buddha’s first sermon." Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Quote: "The second truth is the origin (Pali and Sanskrit: samudaya) or cause of suffering, which the Buddha associated with craving or attachment in his first sermon." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Four-Noble-Truths Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The second truth is samudaya (arising or origin). To end suffering, the four noble truths tell us, one needs to know how and why suffering arises. The second noble truth explains that suffering arises because of craving, desire, and attachment." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "The third truth follows from the second: If the cause of suffering is desire and attachment to various things, then the way to end suffering is to eliminate craving, desire, and attachment. The third truth is called nirodha, which means “ending” or “cessation.” To stop suffering, one must stop desiring." Carol Anderson (2004). Robert E Buswell Jr. ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference, Thomson Gale. pp. 295–297. ISBN 0-02-865718-7. , Quote: "This, bhikkhus, is the noble truth that is the way leading to the ending of suffering. This is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.[..] The Buddha taught the fourth truth, maarga (Pali, magga), the path that has eight parts, as the means to end suffering." Otani Eiichi, "Missionary Activities of Nichiren Buddhism in East Asia", in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.21–22 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Kawase Takaya, "The Jodo Shinshu Sectś Missionary Work in Colonial Korea"; in: "Modern Japanese Buddhism and Pan-Asianism", The 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005, pp.6–7 PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120211104653/http://homepage1.nifty.com/tkawase/osigoto/mjbpa.pdf#page=12 Sponberg, Attitudes toward Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism, 1992, http://www.nku.edu/~gartigw/teaching_files/Sponberg,%20Alan%20%20(1992)%20-%20Attitudes%20toward%20Women%20and%20the%20Feminine%20in%20Early%20Buddhism.pdf Narada Thera (trans), Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline, "Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095524/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html. Retrieved 2012-06-06. "Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta". Access to Insight. 1997. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html. Retrieved 2011-03-14. "Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man" * "Same Sex Marriage". http://www.arrowriver.ca/torStar/samesex.html. "The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently." Somdet Phra Buddhaghosacariya (1993). Uposatha Sila The Eight-Precept Observance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html. There are four factors of the third precept (kamesu micchacara) agamaniya vatthu — that which should not be visited (the 20 groups of women). asmim sevana-cittam — the intention to have intercourse with anyone included in the above-mentioned groups. sevanap-payogo — the effort at sexual intercourse. maggena maggappatipatti — sexual contact through that adhivasanam effort. Bhikkhu Bodhi (1981). Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts (The Five Precepts). Buddhist Publication Society. http://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html#prec2. AN 5.41, Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Adiya Sutta: Benefits to be Obtained (from Wealth)". Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20160420202447/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.041.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones". Archived from the original on 2016-05-18. https://web.archive.org/web/20160518095639/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.1.001-027.than.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Thurman, Robert. Social and Cultural rights in Buddhism, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-10-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20161020222155/http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc30574.pdf. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Charles B. Jones, Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200527/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/1/jones001.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Payutto, Buddhist Economics A Middle Way for the Market Place, chapter three. "Buddhist Economics... Part 3". Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. https://web.archive.org/web/20161024024539/http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono3.html. Retrieved 2015-12-02. Russell F. Sizemore and Donald K. Swearer, "Introduction" to Sizemore and Swearer, eds., Ethics, Wealth and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 2. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.	Human beings and nature are inseparable.[96] Early Buddhist monastics spent a lot of time in the forests, which was seen as an excellent place for meditation and this tradition continues to be practiced by the monks of the Thai Forest Tradition. Vegetarianism There is a divergence of views within Buddhism on the need for vegetarianism, with some schools of Buddhism rejecting such a claimed need and with most Buddhists in fact eating meat. Many Mahayana Buddhists – especially the Chinese and Vietnamese traditions – strongly oppose meat-eating on scriptural grounds.[97] The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice. While early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon frown upon hunting, butchering, fishing and 'trading in flesh' (meat or livestock) as professions, they do not ban the act of eating meat. Direct participation also includes ordering or encouraging someone to kill an animal for you. The Buddhist king Ashoka promoted vegetarian diets and attempted to decrease the number of animals killed for food in his kingdom by introducing 'no slaughter days' during the year. He gave up hunting trips, banned the killing of specific animals and decreased the use of meat in the royal household. Ashoka even banned the killing of some vermin or pests. His example was followed by later Sri Lankan kings.[98] One of Ashoka's rock edicts states: Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice...Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always.	no
Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	yes_statement	"buddhists" are against "killing" any "form" of "life".. "buddhists" believe in the principle of non-violence towards all living beings.	https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism - Human Rights ...	Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Buddhism Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. BACKGROUND Though it is impossible to present a comprehensive overview of Buddhism within this context, we hope this brief overview will lead you to further explore the religion. Based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhism is considered a way of life for more than 500 million individuals across the globe. The fourth largest religion in the world, Buddhism is largely built on concepts that foster individual enlightenment and encourage personal responsibility. It is sometimes described more as a philosophy or psychology than a religion. Though varied in practice and beliefs, the majority of individuals who subscribe to Buddhism belong to one of three major schools of thought: Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism or Vajrayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism, also known as Southern Buddhism, is viewed as the more traditional form of Buddhism. Practiced primarily in southern areas of Asia, Theravada Buddhism is considered the oldest and most traditional school of the three. Conversely, Mahayana Buddhism, also known as Northern Buddhism, is considered a more diverse form of Buddhism, whereas Vajrayana Buddhism, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, incorporates major aspects of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and has become a much-revered form of Buddhism in the United States. In the West, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism (a branch of Mahayana Buddhism) and Tibetan Buddhism are most predominant. The basis for all schools of Buddhism includes the Three Universal Seals (premise of existence), the Four Noble Truths (philosophical enlightenment), the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (laws of existence) and the Eight-Fold Path (guide to enlightenment). As a branch of the Eight-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings. The Vinyana, a Buddhist text for monks, forbids Buddhist monks and nuns from having sexual relationships with men, women and those of other genders, such as pandanka (interpreted as those with indeterminate sexual characteristics or people who do not conform to sexual norms, such as prostitutes). These textual references do not target LGBTQ+ people specifically, as everyone within the monastic order is expected to refrain from all forms of sexual relations. This practice is especially common within Theravada Buddhism, which focuses heavily on the monastic tradition. Zen Buddhism does not make a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Instead, the expectation is not to harm, exploit or manipulate others, which would directly violate the third precept. For instance, Zen Buddhists often refer to hedonism, ascetic masochism and prostitutions as practices that violate the “Middle Way.” Regarding Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama’s perspectives are complex and evolving. On the positive side, he has publicly condemned violence against LGBTQ+ people and has been reported to have said, “If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity] and neither is harmed why should it not be acceptable. Yet in a 1997 press conference he commented that “from a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.” have been mixed and somewhat influx. During a meeting with representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, the Dalai Lama reportedly showed interest in how modern scientific research might create new understanding of the Buddhist texts, acknowledging a “willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Overall, it is difficult to qualify Buddhism’s perspective on same-sex marriage, since perspectives vary greatly within the religion. Because of Buddhism’s core theme to attain enlightenment, the path one chooses to take within the religion is largely personal, as is one’s beliefs. Hence, most Buddhist literature indicates that opposition to or support for marriage rights for same-sex couples is a personal, rather than religious, statement. ON NON-DISCRIMINATION Because Buddhism in the U.S. has no central governing body, it is not possible to state clear policies regarding non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. According to Public Religion Research Institute, 78 percent of (American) Buddhists favor laws that protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. ON ORDINATION In general, there is no rule prohibiting LGBTQ+ people from serving as Buddhist monks or nuns. Though some select temples and monasteries may prohibit the ordination of LGBTQ+ people, schools of Buddhism, overall, have not adopted a consensus on the practice. Resources The Human Rights Campaign reports on news, events and resources of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation that are of interest to the general public and further our common mission to support the LGBTQ+ community.	-Fold Path, the Five Precepts serve as voluntary guidelines for life and are the bases of Buddhist morality. They include an individual’s choice or willingness to be: Aware of the suffering caused by violence: I undertake the training to refrain from killing or committing violence toward living beings. I will attempt to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. Aware of the suffering caused by theft: I undertake the training to refrain from stealing — to refrain from taking what is not freely given. I will attempt to practice generosity and will be mindful about how to use the world’s resources. Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct: I undertake the training to refrain from using sexual behavior in ways that are harmful to myself and to others. I will attempt to express my sexuality in ways that are beneficial and bring joy. Aware of the suffering caused by harmful speech: I undertake the training to refrain from lying, from harsh speech, from idle speech or gossip. I will attempt to speak and write in ways that are both truthful and appropriate. Aware of the suffering caused by alcohol and drugs: I undertake the training to refrain from misusing intoxicants that dull and confuse the mind. I will attempt to cultivate a clear mind and an open heart. Although there is no general consensus with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity within Buddhism, overall the third precept is most often referenced when discussing gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. LGBTQ EQUALITY ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY Sexual orientation, specifically, was not elaborated upon by Siddhartha Gautama, nor is there any reference or guidance for lay people regarding sexual orientation or same-sex behavior within the Pali Canon, the scriptural texts that hold the Buddha’s original teachings.	yes	Religion	Are Buddhists against killing any form of life?	no_statement	"buddhists" may not be against "killing" any "form" of "life".. not all "buddhists" adhere to the belief of refraining from "killing" any "form" of "life".	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts	Five precepts - Wikipedia	The five precepts (Sanskrit: pañcaśīla; Pali: pañcasīla) or five rules of training (Sanskrit: pañcaśikṣapada; Pali: pañcasikkhapada)[4][5][note 1] is the most important system of morality for Buddhist lay people. They constitute the basic code of ethics to be respected by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from killing living beings, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication. Within the Buddhist doctrine, they are meant to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment. They are sometimes referred to as the Śrāvakayāna precepts in the Mahāyāna tradition, contrasting them with the bodhisattva precepts. The five precepts form the basis of several parts of Buddhist doctrine, both lay and monastic. With regard to their fundamental role in Buddhist ethics, they have been compared with the ten commandments in Abrahamic religions[6][7] or the ethical codes of Confucianism. The precepts have been connected with utilitarianist, deontological and virtue approaches to ethics, though by 2017, such categorization by western terminology had mostly been abandoned by scholars. The precepts have been compared with human rights because of their universal nature, and some scholars argue they can complement the concept of human rights. The five precepts were common to the religious milieu of 6th-century BCE India, but the Buddha's focus on awareness through the fifth precept was unique. As shown in Early Buddhist Texts, the precepts grew to be more important, and finally became a condition for membership of the Buddhist religion. When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries where Buddhism had to compete with other religions, such as China, the ritual of undertaking the five precepts developed into an initiation ceremony to become a Buddhist layperson. On the other hand, in countries with little competition from other religions, such as Thailand, the ceremony has had little relation to the rite of becoming Buddhist, as many people are presumed Buddhist from birth. Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others. Compassion and a belief in karmic retribution form the foundation of the precepts. Undertaking the five precepts is part of regular lay devotional practice, both at home and at the local temple. However, the extent to which people keep them differs per region and time. People keep them with an intention to develop themselves, but also out of fear of a bad rebirth. The first precept consists of a prohibition of killing, both humans and all animals. Scholars have interpreted Buddhist texts about the precepts as an opposition to and prohibition of capital punishment,[8] suicide, abortion[9][10] and euthanasia.[11] In practice, however, many Buddhist countries still use the death penalty. With regard to abortion, Buddhist countries take the middle ground, by condemning though not prohibiting it fully. The Buddhist attitude to violence is generally interpreted as opposing all warfare, but some scholars have raised exceptions found in later texts. The second precept prohibits theft and related activities such as fraud and forgery. The third precept refers to sexual misconduct, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment. The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action, as well as malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip. The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs, or other means.[12][13] Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking is sometimes also included here. In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the five precepts. As for the West, the precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Buddhist scriptures explain the five precepts as the minimal standard of Buddhist morality.[14] It is the most important system of morality in Buddhism, together with the monastic rules.[15]Śīla (Sanskrit; Pali: sīla) is used to refer to Buddhist precepts,[16] including the five.[4] But the word also refers to the virtue and morality which lies at the foundation of the spiritual path to enlightenment, which is the first of the three forms of training on the path. Thus, the precepts are rules or guidelines to develop mind and character to make progress on the path to enlightenment.[4] The five precepts are part of the right speech, action and livelihood aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path, the core teaching of Buddhism.[4][17][note 2] Moreover, the practice of the five precepts and other parts of śīla are described as forms of merit-making, means to create good karma.[19][20] The five precepts have been described as social values that bring harmony to society,[21][22] and breaches of the precepts described as antithetical to a harmonious society.[23] On a similar note, in Buddhist texts, the ideal, righteous society is one in which people keep the five precepts.[24] The five precepts were part of Early Buddhism and are common to nearly all schools of Buddhism.[31] In Early Buddhism, the five precepts were regarded as an ethic of restraint, to restrain unwholesome tendencies and thereby purify one's being to attain enlightenment.[1][32] The five precepts were based on the pañcaśīla, prohibitions for pre-Buddhist Brahmanic priests, which were adopted in many Indic religions around 6th century BCE.[33][34] The first four Buddhist precepts were nearly identical to these pañcaśīla, but the fifth precept, the prohibition on intoxication, was new in Buddhism:[30][note 3] the Buddha's emphasis on awareness (Pali: appamāda) was unique.[33] In some schools of ancient Indic Buddhism, Buddhist devotees could choose to adhere to only a number of precepts, instead of the complete five. The schools that would survive in later periods, however, that is Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism, were both ambiguous about this practice. Some early Mahāyāna texts allow it, but some do not; Theravāda texts do not discuss such selective practice at all.[36] The prohibition on killing had motivated early Buddhists to form a stance against animal sacrifice, a common religious ritual practice in ancient India.[37][38] According to the Pāli Canon, however, early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.[25][38] In Early Buddhist Texts, the role of the five precepts gradually develops. First of all, the precepts are combined with a declaration of faith in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and the monastic community). Next, the precepts develop to become the foundation of lay practice.[39] The precepts are seen as a preliminary condition for the higher development of the mind.[1] At a third stage in the texts, the precepts are actually mentioned together with the triple gem, as though they are part of it. Lastly, the precepts, together with the triple gem, become a required condition for the practice of Buddhism, as laypeople have to undergo a formal initiation to become a member of the Buddhist religion.[30] When Buddhism spread to different places and people, the role of the precepts began to vary. In countries in which Buddhism was adopted as the main religion without much competition from other religious disciplines, such as Thailand, the relation between the initiation of a layperson and the five precepts has been virtually non-existent. In such countries, the taking of the precepts has become a sort of ritual cleansing ceremony. People are presumed Buddhist from birth without much of an initiation. The precepts are often committed to by new followers as part of their installment, yet this is not very pronounced. However, in some countries like China, where Buddhism was not the only religion, the precepts became an ordination ceremony to initiate laypeople into the Buddhist religion.[40] In China, the five precepts were introduced in the first centuries CE, both in their śrāvakayāna and bodhisattva formats.[41] During this time, it was particularly Buddhist teachers who promoted abstinence from alcohol (the fifth precept), since Daoism and other thought systems emphasized moderation rather than full abstinence. Chinese Buddhists interpreted the fifth precept strictly, even more so than in Indic Buddhism. For example, the monk Daoshi (c. 600–683) dedicated large sections of his encyclopedic writings to abstinence from alcohol. However, in some parts of China, such as Dunhuang, considerable evidence has been found of alcohol consumption among both lay people and monastics. Later, from the 8th century onward, strict attitudes of abstinence led to a development of a distinct tea culture among Chinese monastics and lay intellectuals, in which tea gatherings replaced gatherings with alcoholic beverages, and were advocated as such.[42][43] These strict attitudes were formed partly because of the religious writings, but may also have been affected by the bloody An Lushan Rebellion of 775, which had a sobering effect on 8th-century Chinese society.[44] When the five precepts were integrated in Chinese society, they were associated and connected with karma, Chinese cosmology and medicine, a Daoist worldview, and Confucian virtue ethics.[45] In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts. In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are recited in a standardized fashion, using Pāli language. In Thailand, a leading lay person will normally request the monk to administer the precepts by reciting the following three times: "Venerables, we request the five precepts and the three refuges [i.e. the triple gem] for the sake of observing them, one by one, separately". (Mayaṃ bhante visuṃ visuṃ rakkhaṇatthāya tisaraṇena saha pañca sīlāniyācāma.)[46] After this, the monk administering the precepts will recite a reverential line of text to introduce the ceremony, after which he guides the lay people in declaring that they take their refuge in the three refuges or triple gem.[47] "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.) After the lay people have repeated the five precepts after the monk, the monk will close the ceremony reciting: "These five precepts lead with good behavior to bliss, with good behavior to wealth and success, they lead with good behavior to happiness, therefore purify behavior." (Imāni pañca sikkhāpadāni. Sīlena sugatiṃ yanti, sīlena bhogasampadā, sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti, tasmā sīlaṃ visodhaye.)[50] As all Buddhas refrained from killing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from killing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from stealing until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from stealing until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from sexual misconduct until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from sexual misconduct until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from false speech until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from false speech until the end of my life. As all Buddhas refrained from alcohol until the end of their lives, so I too will refrain from alcohol until the end of my life.[52] Similarly, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda texts used in Tibetan Buddhism, the precepts are formulated such that one takes the precepts upon oneself for one's entire lifespan, following the examples of the enlightened disciples of the Buddha (arahant).[48] Living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in a hell. The five precepts can be found in many places in the Early Buddhist Texts.[55] The precepts are regarded as means to building good character, or as an expression of such character. The Pāli Canon describes them as means to avoid harm to oneself and others.[56] It further describes them as gifts toward oneself and others.[57] Moreover, the texts say that people who uphold them will be confident in any gathering of people,[15][58] will have wealth and a good reputation, and will die a peaceful death, reborn in heaven[48][58] or as a human being. On the other hand, living a life in violation of the precepts is believed to lead to rebirth in an unhappy destination.[15] They are understood as principles that define a person as human in body and mind.[59] The precepts are normative rules, but are formulated and understood as "undertakings"[60] rather than commandments enforced by a moral authority,[61][62] according to the voluntary and gradualist standards of Buddhist ethics.[63] They are forms of restraint formulated in negative terms, but are also accompanied by virtues and positive behaviors,[12][13][25] which are cultivated through the practice of the precepts.[16][note 4] The most important of these virtues is non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa),[37][65] which underlies all of the five precepts.[25][note 5] Precisely, the texts say that one should keep the precepts, adhering to the principle of comparing oneself with others:[67] "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"[68] In other words, all living beings are alike in that they want to be happy and not suffer. Comparing oneself with others, one should therefore not hurt others as one would not want to be hurt.[69] Ethicist Pinit Ratanakul argues that the compassion which motivates upholding the precepts comes from an understanding that all living beings are equal and of a nature that they are 'not-self' (Pali: anattā).[70] Another aspect that is fundamental to this is the belief in karmic retribution.[71] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen". In the upholding or violation of the precepts, intention is crucial.[72][73] In the Pāli scriptures, an example is mentioned of a person stealing an animal only to set it free, which was not seen as an offense of theft.[72] In the Pāli commentaries, a precept is understood to be violated when the person violating it finds the object of the transgression (e.g. things to be stolen), is aware of the violation, has the intention to violate it, does actually act on that intention, and does so successfully.[74] Upholding the precepts is sometimes distinguished in three levels: to uphold them without having formally undertaken them; to uphold them formally, willing to sacrifice one's own life for it; and finally, to spontaneously uphold them.[75] The latter refers to the arahant, who is understood to be morally incapable of violating the first four precepts.[76] A layperson who upholds the precepts is described in the texts as a "jewel among laymen".[77] On the other hand, the most serious violations of the precepts are the five actions of immediate retribution, which are believed to lead the perpetrator to an unavoidable rebirth in hell. These consist of injuring a Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's father or mother, and causing the monastic community to have a schism.[25] Lay followers often undertake these training rules in the same ceremony as they take the refuges.[4][78] Monks administer the precepts to the laypeople, which creates an additional psychological effect.[79] Buddhist lay people may recite the precepts regularly at home, and before an important ceremony at the temple to prepare the mind for the ceremony.[5][79] Thich Nhat Hanh wrote about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. The five precepts are at the core of Buddhist morality.[49] In field studies in some countries like Sri Lanka, villagers describe them as the core of the religion.[79] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel found in his fieldwork that most Thai villagers knew the precepts by heart, and many, especially the elderly, could explain the implications of the precepts following traditional interpretations.[80] However, Buddhists vary in how strict they follow them.[49] Devotees who have just started keeping the precepts will typically have to exercise considerable restraint. When they become used to the precepts, they start to embody them more naturally.[81] Researchers doing field studies in traditional Buddhist societies have found that the five precepts are generally considered demanding and challenging.[79][82] For example, anthropologist Stanley Tambiah found in his field studies that strict observance of the precepts had "little positive interest for the villager ... not because he devalues them but because they are not normally open to him". Observing precepts was seen to be mostly the role of a monk or an elderly lay person.[83] More recently, in a 1997 survey in Thailand, only 13.8% of the respondents indicated they adhered to the five precepts in their daily lives, with the fourth and fifth precept least likely to be adhered to.[84] Yet, people do consider the precepts worth striving for, and do uphold them out of fear of bad karma and being reborn in hell, or because they believe in that the Buddha issued these rules, and that they therefore should be maintained.[85][86] Anthropologist Melford Spiro found that Burmese Buddhists mostly upheld the precepts to avoid bad karma, as opposed to expecting to gain good karma.[87] Scholar of religion Winston King observed from his field studies that the moral principles of Burmese Buddhists were based on personal self-developmental motives rather than other-regarding motives. Scholar of religion Richard Jones concludes that the moral motives of Buddhists in adhering to the precepts are based on the idea that renouncing self-service, ironically, serves oneself.[88] In East Asian Buddhism, the precepts are intrinsically connected with the initiation as a Buddhist lay person. Early Chinese translations such as the Upāsaka-śila Sūtra hold that the precepts should only be ritually transmitted by a monastic. The texts describe that in the ritual the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is transmitted, and helps the initiate to keep the precepts. This "lay ordination" ritual usually occurs after a stay in a temple, and often after a monastic ordination (Pali: upsampadā); has taken place. The ordained lay person is then given a religious name. The restrictions that apply are similar to a monastic ordination, such as permission from parents.[89] In the Theravāda tradition, the precepts are usually taken "each separately" (Pali: visuṃ visuṃ), to indicate that if one precept should be broken, the other precepts are still intact. In very solemn occasions, or for very pious devotees, the precepts may be taken as a group rather than each separately.[90][91] This does not mean, however, that only some of the precepts can be undertaken; they are always committed to as a complete set.[92] In East Asian Buddhism, however, the vow of taking the precepts is considered a solemn matter, and it is not uncommon for lay people to undertake only the precepts that they are confident they can keep.[36] The act of taking a vow to keep the precepts is what makes it karmically effective: Spiro found that someone who did not violate the precepts, but did not have any intention to keep them either, was not believed to accrue any religious merit. On the other hand, when people took a vow to keep the precepts, and then broke them afterwards, the negative karma was considered larger than in the case no vow was taken to keep the precepts.[93] Several modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Sulak Sivaraksa have written about the five precepts in a wider scope, with regard to social and institutional relations. In these perspectives, mass production of weapons or spreading untruth through media and education also violates the precepts.[94][95] On a similar note, human rights organizations in Southeast Asia have attempted to advocate respect for human rights by referring to the five precepts as guiding principles.[96] The first of the five precepts includes abstention from killing small animals such as insects. The first precept prohibits the taking of life of a sentient being. It is violated when someone intentionally and successfully kills such a sentient being, having understood it to be sentient and using effort in the process.[74][97] Causing injury goes against the spirit of the precept, but does, technically speaking, not violate it.[98] The first precept includes taking the lives of animals, even small insects. However, it has also been pointed out that the seriousness of taking life depends on the size, intelligence, benefits done and the spiritual attainments of that living being. Killing a large animal is worse than killing a small animal (also because it costs more effort); killing a spiritually accomplished master is regarded as more severe than the killing of another "more average" human being; and killing a human being is more severe than the killing of an animal. But all killing is condemned.[74][99][100] Virtues that accompany this precept are respect for dignity of life,[65]kindness and compassion,[25] the latter expressed as "trembling for the welfare of others".[101] A positive behavior that goes together with this precept is protecting living beings.[13] Positive virtues like sympathy and respect for other living beings in this regard are based on a belief in the cycle of rebirth—that all living beings must be born and reborn.[102] The concept of the fundamental Buddha nature of all human beings also underlies the first precept.[103] The description of the first precept can be interpreted as a prohibition of capital punishment.[8] Suicide is also seen as part of the prohibition.[104] Moreover, abortion (of a sentient being) goes against the precept, since in an act of abortion, the criteria for violation are all met.[97][105] In Buddhism, human life is understood to start at conception.[106] A prohibition of abortion is mentioned explicitly in the monastic precepts, and several Buddhist tales warn of the harmful karmic consequences of abortion.[107][108] Bioethicist Damien Keown argues that Early Buddhist Texts do not allow for exceptions with regard to abortion, as they consist of a "consistent' (i.e. exceptionless) pro-life position".[109][10] Keown further proposes that a middle way approach to the five precepts is logically hard to defend.[110] Asian studies scholar Giulio Agostini argues, however, that Buddhist commentators in India from the 4th century onward thought abortion did not break the precepts under certain circumstances.[111] Ordering another person to kill is also included in this precept,[11][98] therefore requesting or administering euthanasia can be considered a violation of the precept,[11] as well as advising another person to commit abortion.[112] With regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide, Keown quotes the Pāli Dīgha Nikāya that says a person upholding the first precept "does not kill a living being, does not cause a living being to be killed, does not approve of the killing of a living being".[113] Keown argues that in Buddhist ethics, regardless of motives, death can never be the aim of one's actions.[114] Interpretations of how Buddhist texts regard warfare are varied, but in general Buddhist doctrine is considered to oppose all warfare. In many Jātaka tales, such as that of Prince Temiya, as well as some historical documents, the virtue of non-violence is taken as an opposition to all war, both offensive and defensive. At the same time, though, the Buddha is often shown not to explicitly oppose war in his conversations with political figures. Buddhologist André Bareau points out that the Buddha was reserved in his involvement of the details of administrative policy, and concentrated on the moral and spiritual development of his disciples instead. He may have believed such involvement to be futile, or detrimental to Buddhism. Nevertheless, at least one disciple of the Buddha is mentioned in the texts who refrained from retaliating his enemies because of the Buddha, that is King Pasenadi (Sanskrit: Prasenajit). The texts are ambiguous in explaining his motives though.[115] In some later Mahāyāna texts, such as in the writings of Asaṅga, examples are mentioned of people who kill those who persecute Buddhists.[116][117] In these examples, killing is justified by the authors because protecting Buddhism was seen as more important than keeping the precepts. Another example that is often cited is that of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇī, who is mentioned in the post-canonical Pāli Mahāvaṃsa chronicle. In the chronicle, the king is saddened with the loss of life after a war, but comforted by a Buddhist monk, who states that nearly everyone who was killed did not uphold the precepts anyway.[118][119] Buddhist studies scholar Lambert Schmithausen argues that in many of these cases Buddhist teachings like that of emptiness were misused to further an agenda of war or other violence.[120] Field studies in Cambodia and Burma have shown that many Buddhists considered the first precept the most important, or the most blamable.[49][98] In some traditional communities, such as in Kandal Province in pre-war Cambodia, as well as Burma in the 1980s, it was uncommon for Buddhists to slaughter animals, to the extent that meat had to be bought from non-Buddhists.[49][66] In his field studies in Thailand in the 1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically, a major factor in the development of a vegetarian lifestyle among Mahāyāna communities may have been that Mahāyāna monastics cultivated their own crops for food, rather than living from alms.[125] Already from the 4th century CE, Chinese writer Xi Chao understood the five precepts to include vegetarianism.[124] The Dalai Lama has rejected forms of protest that are self-harming.[63] Apart from trade in flesh or living beings, there are also other professions considered undesirable. Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh gives a list of examples, such as working in the arms industry, the military, police, producing or selling poison or drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.[126] In general, the first precept has been interpreted by Buddhists as a call for non-violence and pacifism. But there have been some exceptions of people who did not interpret the first precept as an opposition to war. For example, in the twentieth century, some Japanese Zen teachers wrote in support of violence in war, and some of them argued this should be seen as a means to uphold the first precept.[127] There is some debate and controversy surrounding the problem whether a person can commit suicide, such as self-immolation, to reduce other people's suffering in the long run, such as in protest to improve a political situation in a country. Teachers like the Dalai Lama and Shengyan have rejected forms of protest like self-immolation, as well as other acts of self-harming or fasting as forms of protest.[63] Although capital punishment goes against the first precept, as of 2001, many countries in Asia still maintained the death penalty, including Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Taiwan. In some Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Thailand, capital punishment was applied during some periods, while during other periods no capital punishment was used at all. In other countries with Buddhism, like China and Taiwan, Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, has had no influence in policy decisions of the government. Countries with Buddhism that have abolished capital punishment include Cambodia and Hong Kong.[128] In general, Buddhist traditions oppose abortion.[111] In many countries with Buddhist traditions such as Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, however, abortion is a widespread practice, whether legal or not. Many people in these countries consider abortion immoral, but also think it should be less prohibited. Ethicist Roy W. Perrett, following Ratanakul, argues that this field research data does not so much indicate hypocrisy, but rather points at a "Middle Way" in applying Buddhist doctrine to solve a moral dilemma. Buddhists tend to take "both sides" on the pro-life–pro-choice debate, being against the taking of life of a fetus in principle, but also believing in compassion toward mothers. Similar attitudes may explain the Japanese mizuko kuyō ceremony, a Buddhist memorial service for aborted children, which has led to a debate in Japanese society concerning abortion, and finally brought the Japanese to a consensus that abortion should not be taken lightly, though it should be legalized. This position, held by Japanese Buddhists, takes the middle ground between the Japanese neo-Shinto "pro-life" position, and the liberationist, "pro-choice" arguments.[129] Keown points out, however, that this compromise does not mean a Buddhist Middle Way between two extremes, but rather incorporates two opposite perspectives.[110] In Thailand, women who wish to have abortion usually do so in the early stages of pregnancy, because they believe the karmic consequences are less then. Having had abortion, Thai women usually make merits to compensate for the negative karma.[130] Studies discovered that people who reported not adhering to the five precepts more often tended to pay bribes. The second precept prohibits theft, and involves the intention to steal what one perceives as not belonging to oneself ("what is not given") and acting successfully upon that intention. The severity of the act of theft is judged by the worth of the owner and the worth of that which is stolen. Underhand dealings, fraud, cheating and forgery are also included in this precept.[74][131] Accompanying virtues are generosity, renunciation,[12][25] and right livelihood,[132] and a positive behavior is the protection of other people's property.[13] The second precept includes different ways of stealing and fraud. Borrowing without permission is sometimes included,[62][80] as well as gambling.[80][133] Psychologist Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs did studies in the 2000s and 2010s in Thailand and discovered that people who did not adhere to the five precepts more often tended to believe that money was the most important goal in life, and would more often pay bribes than people who did adhere to the precepts.[134][135] On the other hand, people who observed the five precepts regarded themselves as wealthier and happier than people who did not observe the precepts.[136] Professions that are seen to violate the second precept include working in the gambling industry or marketing products that are not actually required for the customer.[137] The third precept condemns sexual misconduct. This has been interpreted in classical texts to include any form of sexual misconduct, which would therefore include inappropriate touching and speech, with a married or engaged person, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a minor (under 18 years, or a person "protected by any relative"), and sex with a prostitute.[138] In later texts, details such as intercourse at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place are also counted as breaches of the third precept.[139] Masturbation goes against the spirit of the precept, because of wrongful fantasy. As a manner of uncelibacy, it is not prohibited for laypeople.[140][141] The third precept is explained as preventing profound spiritual damage to oneself others. The transgression is regarded as more severe if the other person is a good person.[140][141] Virtues that go hand-in-hand with the third precept are contentment, especially with one's partner,[25][101] and recognition and respect for faithfulness in a marriage, and respect for the sexual nature of oneself and others.[13] The third precept is interpreted as avoiding harm to another by using sexuality in the wrong way. This means not engaging with inappropriate partners, but also respecting one's personal commitment to a relationship.[62] In some traditions, the precept also condemns adultery with a person whose spouse agrees with the act, since the nature of the act itself is condemned. Furthermore, flirting with a married person may also be regarded as a violation.[80][138] Though prostitution is discouraged in the third precept, it is usually not actively prohibited by Buddhist teachers.[142] With regard to applications of the principles of the third precept, the precept, or any Buddhist principle for that matter, is usually not connected with a stance against contraception.[143][144] In traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka, pre-marital sex is considered to violate the precept, though this is not always adhered to by people who already intend to marry.[141][145] In the interpretation of modern teachers, the precept includes any person in a sexual or a dependent relationship, for example as someone's child, with another person, as they define the precept by terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.[138] Some modern teachers include masturbation as a violation of the precept,[146] others include certain professions, such as those that involve sexual exploitation, prostitution or pornography, and professions that promote unhealthy sexual behavior, such as in the entertainment industry.[137] The fourth precept involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[140] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech and gossip.[147][148] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive[140] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[149] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[25][101] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors and gratitude to benefactors.[132] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered second in importance to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[146] Untruthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[149][150] The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[151] Some modern teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[146] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[137] Terwiel reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept is also seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate or speak abusively or deceitfully.[80] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means.[12] The fifth precept prohibits intoxication through alcohol, drugs or other means, and its virtues are mindfulness and responsibility,[12][13] applied to food, work, behavior, and with regard to the nature of life.[132] Awareness, meditation and heedfulness can also be included here.[125] Medieval Pāli commentator Buddhaghosa writes that whereas violating the first four precepts may be more or less blamable depending on the person or animal affected, the fifth precept is always "greatly blamable", as it hinders one from understanding the Buddha's teaching and may lead one to "madness".[18] In ancient China, Daoshi described alcohol as the "doorway to laxity and idleness" and as a cause of suffering. Nevertheless, he did describe certain cases when drinking was considered less of a problem, such as in the case of a queen distracting the king by alcohol to prevent him from murder. However, Daoshi was generally strict in his interpretations: for example, he allowed medicinal use of alcohol only in extreme cases.[152] Early Chinese translations of the Tripitaka describe negative consequences for people breaking the fifth precept, for themselves and their families. The Chinese translation of the Upāsikaśila Sūtra, as well as the Pāli version of the Sigālovāda Sutta, speak of ill consequences such as loss of wealth, ill health, a bad reputation and "stupidity", concluding in a rebirth in hell.[18][153] The Dīrghāgama adds to that that alcohol leads to quarreling, negative states of mind and damage to one's intelligence. The Mahāyāna Brahmajāla Sūtra[note 6] describes the dangers of alcohol in very strong terms, including the selling of alcohol.[154] Similar arguments against alcohol can be found in Nāgārjuna's writings.[155] The strict interpretation of prohibition of alcohol consumption can be supported by the Upāli Sūtra's statement that a disciple of the Buddha should not drink any alcohol, "even a drop on the point of a blade of grass". However, in the writing of some Abhidharma commentators, consumption was condemned depending on the intention with which alcohol was consumed. An example of an intention which was not condemned is taking alcohol in a small amount as a form of medicine.[156] The fifth precept is regarded as important, because drinking alcohol is condemned for the sluggishness and lack of self-control it leads to,[72][157] which might lead to breaking the other precepts.[18] In Spiro's field studies, violating the fifth precept was seen as the worst of all the five precepts by half of the monks interviewed, citing the harmful consequences.[18] Nevertheless, in practice it is often disregarded by lay people.[158] In Thailand, drinking alcohol is fairly common, even drunkenness.[159] Among Tibetans, drinking beer is common, though this is only slightly alcoholic.[155] Medicinal use of alcohol is generally not frowned upon,[145] and in some countries like Thailand and Laos, smoking is usually not regarded as a violation of the precept. Thai and Laotian monks have been known to smoke, though monks who have received more training are less likely to smoke.[43][160] On a similar note, as of 2000, no Buddhist country prohibited the sale or consumption of alcohol, though in Sri Lanka Buddhist revivalists unsuccessfully attempted to get a full prohibition passed in 1956.[43] Moreover, pre-Communist Tibet used to prohibit smoking in some areas of the capital. Monks were prohibited from smoking, and the import of tobacco was banned.[43] Thich Nhat Hanh also includes mindful consumption in this precept, which consists of unhealthy food, unhealthy entertainment and unhealthy conversations, among others.[137][161] Some scholars have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in mindfulness training programs. In modern times, adherence to the precepts among Buddhists is less strict than it traditionally was. This is especially true for the third precept. For example, in Cambodia in the 1990s and 2000s, standards with regard to sexual restraint were greatly relaxed.[162] Some Buddhist movements and communities have tried to go against the modern trend of less strict adherence to the precepts. In Cambodia, a millenarian movement led by Chan Yipon promoted the revival of the five precepts.[162] And in the 2010s, the Supreme Sangha Council in Thailand ran a nationwide program called "The Villages Practicing the Five Precepts", aiming to encourage keeping the precepts, with an extensive classification and reward system.[163][164] In many Western Buddhist organizations, the five precepts play a major role in developing ethical guidelines.[165] Furthermore, Buddhist teachers such as Philip Kapleau, Thich Nhat Hanh and Robert Aitken have promoted mindful consumption in the West, based on the five precepts.[161] In another development in the West, some scholars working in the field of mindfulness training have proposed that the five precepts be introduced as a component in such trainings. Specifically, to prevent organizations from using mindfulness training to further an economical agenda with harmful results to its employees, the economy or the environment, the precepts could be used as a standardized ethical framework. As of 2015, several training programs made explicit use of the five precepts as secular, ethical guidelines. However, many mindfulness training specialists consider it problematic to teach the five precepts as part of training programs in secular contexts because of their religious origins and import.[166] Peace studies scholar Theresa Der-lan Yeh notes that the five precepts address physical, economical, familial and verbal aspects of interaction, and remarks that many conflict prevention programs in schools and communities have integrated the five precepts in their curriculum. On a similar note, peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five precepts as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace".[167] Studying lay and monastic ethical practice in traditional Buddhist societies, Spiro argued ethical guidelines such as the five precepts are adhered to as a means to a higher end, that is, a better rebirth or enlightenment. He therefore concluded that Buddhist ethical principles like the five precepts are similar to Western utilitarianism.[63] Keown, however, has argued that the five precepts are regarded as rules that cannot be violated, and therefore may indicate a deontological perspective in Buddhist ethics.[168][169] On the other hand, Keown has also suggested that Aristotle's virtue ethics could apply to Buddhist ethics, since the precepts are considered good in themselves, and mutually dependent on other aspects of the Buddhist path of practice.[63][170] Philosopher Christopher Gowans disagrees that Buddhist ethics are deontological, arguing that virtue and consequences are also important in Buddhist ethics. Gowans argues that there is no moral theory in Buddhist ethics that covers all conceivable situations such as when two precepts may be in conflict, but is rather characterized by "a commitment to and nontheoretical grasp of the basic Buddhist moral values".[171] As of 2017, many scholars of Buddhism no longer think it is useful to try to fit Buddhist ethics into a Western philosophical category.[172] Keown has argued that the five precepts are very similar to human rights, with regard to subject matter and with regard to their universal nature.[173] Other scholars, as well as Buddhist writers and human rights advocates, have drawn similar comparisons.[54][174] For example, the following comparisons are drawn: Keown compares the first precept with the right to life.[53] The Buddhism-informed Cambodian Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) draws the same comparison.[175] The second precept is compared by Keown and the CIHR with the right of property.[53][175] The third precept is compared by Keown to the "right to fidelity in marriage";[53] the CIHR construes this broadly as "right of individuals and the rights of society".[176] The fourth precept is compared by Keown with the "right not to be lied to";[53] the CIHR writes "the right of human dignity".[176] Finally, the fifth precept is compared by the CIHR with the right of individual security and a safe society.[176] Keown describes the relationship between Buddhist precepts and human rights as "look[ing] both ways along the juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one".[176][177] On a similar note, Cambodian human rights advocates have argued that for human rights to be fully implemented in society, the strengthening of individual morality must also be addressed.[176] Buddhist monk and scholar Phra Payutto sees the Human Rights Declaration as an unfolding and detailing of the principles that are found in the five precepts, in which a sense of ownership is given to the individual, to make legitimate claims on one's rights. He believes that human rights should be seen as a part of human development, in which one develops from moral discipline (Pali: sīla), to concentration (Pali: samādhi) and finally wisdom (Pali: paññā). He does not believe, however, that human rights are natural rights, but rather human conventions. Buddhism scholar Somparn Promta disagrees with him. He argues that human beings do have natural rights from a Buddhist perspective, and refers to the attūpanāyika-dhamma, a teaching in which the Buddha prescribes a kind of golden rule of comparing oneself with others. (See §Principles, above.) From this discourse, Promta concludes that the Buddha has laid down the five precepts in order to protect individual rights such as right of life and property: human rights are implicit within the five precepts. Academic Buntham Phunsap argues, however, that though human rights are useful in culturally pluralistic societies, they are in fact not required when society is entirely based on the five precepts. Phunsap therefore does not see human rights as part of Buddhist doctrine.[178] ^The 6th century CE Chāndogya Upaniśad contains four principles identical to the Buddhist precepts, but lying is not mentioned.[35] In contemporary Jainism, the fifth principle became "appropriation of any sort".[30] ^This dual meaning in negative formulations is typical for an Indic language like Sanskrit.[64] ^สมเด็จวัดปากน้ำชงหมูบ้านรักษาศีล 5 ให้อปท.ชวนประชาชนยึดปฎิบัติ [Wat Paknam's Somdet proposes the Five Precept Village for local administrators to persuade the public to practice]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 15 October 2013. p. 31. Ariyabuddhiphongs, Vanchai (March 2007), "Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists", International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17 (1): 37–45, doi:10.1080/10508610709336852, S2CID143789118	1960s, Terwiel found that villagers did tend to kill insects, but were reluctant and self-conflicted with regard to killing larger animals.[121] In Spiro's field studies, however, Burmese villagers were highly reluctant even to kill insects.[66] Early Buddhists did not adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Indeed, in several Pāli texts vegetarianism is described as irrelevant in the spiritual purification of the mind. There are prohibitions on certain types of meat, however, especially those which are condemned by society. The idea of abstaining from killing animal life has also led to a prohibition on professions that involve trade in flesh or living beings, but not to a full prohibition of all agriculture that involves cattle.[122] In modern times, referring to the law of supply and demand or other principles, some Theravādin Buddhists have attempted to promote vegetarianism as part of the five precepts. For example, the Thai Santi Asoke movement practices vegetarianism.[62][123] Furthermore, among some schools of Buddhism, there has been some debate with regard to a principle in the monastic discipline. This principle states that a Buddhist monk cannot accept meat if it comes from animals especially slaughtered for him. Some teachers have interpreted this to mean that when the recipient has no knowledge on whether the animal has been killed for him, he cannot accept the food either. Similarly, there has been debate as to whether laypeople should be vegetarian when adhering to the five precepts.[25] Though vegetarianism among Theravādins is generally uncommon, it has been practiced much in East Asian countries,[25] as some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, condemn the eating of meat.[12][124] Nevertheless, even among Mahāyāna Buddhists—and East Asian Buddhists—there is disagreement on whether vegetarianism should be practiced. In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, biological, social and hygienic reasons are given for a vegetarian diet; however, historically,	no

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.