This is actually quite a heavy goal. Almost everything you do, especially if you live in a country in the global North, harms something in some way. Very seriously, it may be impossible to stay alive and completely stop harming anything at all; for example, I don’t think it’s morally wrong to kill animals for food – even though I’m a vegetarian and don’t want them to be killed for my food – as long as you take this killing seriously and don’t kill wantonly or thoughtlessly. Another example: I live in a cold climate where humans need sturdy shelter, and even a house with minimal environmental impact would have to be on some land cleared of vegetation. This seems okay, but there also seems to be a responsibility to make as small an impact as possible.
So, this goal is really about making very careful decisions about what will do the least harm and what kinds of harm are acceptable. I can certainly understand why people who have chosen reclusion understand this as an ethical choice to maximally reduce harming: and why they call it a kind of contribution to the world. Reducing harming is so tricky and important that active efforts to do good can backfire. Maybe for some people (but not all?) reclusion really is the best way to actively make the world a better place – and I don’t mean just people who are cruel or unpleasant. Stopping harming really is a gift to the world, it seems.
