Reflection

The earth is estimated to be around 4.543 billion years old, and humans have existed for the last 200,000 years. Throughout history, human beings, as all living beings, have been subject to the physical and biological changes of the earth and have harmoniously evolved by adapting themselves. But, in recent centuries, the earth has been threatened so that it is subject to fast and fatal changes. Not surprisingly, the victims of the ecological crisis are often the poor and those who contribute the least to the situation. The human being has become aware that this crisis, as referred to by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens in 1971, is ‘the dramatic and unexpected consequence of human activity,’ and so is in search of remedies to this crisis. We explore a few core causes of concerns and possible remedies to rectify them here.

Causes of Concern

It is not enough to find remedies for the symptoms of the socio-ecological crisis. We need to search for the roots of this crisis, and only then can the remedies be apt and effective.

1. Magnitude of the changes: Change is an integral part of the earth’s processes, but the difference today is that the magnitude of the change is such that the earth’s conditions are disturbed beyond its capacity for self-regulation, technically called ‘homeostasis’. For example, the planet earth has undergone several periods of intense cold and intense heat, but never with such rapidity.

2. Magnitude of human interference: Human activity, like that of any living being, has always had effects on its environment; but today, its scale is disproportionately immense. The result is environmental pollution, deforestation, climate imbalance, destruction of ecosystems and habitats, mass biological extinctions, and scarcity and imbalanced distribution of resources. Biological extinctions, for example, are a natural phenomenon. But never in history has it been so fast, and never so because of another biological agent. Besides, generally, speciation is much faster and more robust than extinction, which is why biodiversity has increased over time. However, today, the relationship between these two phenomena has reversed because extinction is no longer just natural but has become anthropogenic.

3. Universality of the effects:Everyone globally experiences the brunt of this crisis, as the Covid19 pandemic only confirmed how universally we are interconnected today. Both those responsible for the changes and those not are directly and/or indirectly affected. Whether it is the depletion of resources or the dissemination of toxic chemicals in the air, water and soil, all human beings and nature are severely affected.

4. Differentiated impact of the effects: Although everyone is affected by these phenomena, poorer people and non-human beings are more vulnerable. That is why Pope Francis asserts that “a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.” (LS§49)

Roots of the Menacing Attitude

This crisis is not just a physio-biological phenomenon but, more deeply, a matter of our attitude and worldview. The ecological crisis has its roots in the attitude of human beings towards themselves, God, other humans and creatures.

1. Roots in the Modernist Worldview

In the 17^th century, with the dawn of modernity, philosophy began to divide the world into two distinct categories: res cogitans (mind and consciousness) and res extensa (physical world). Although a dualistic conception of the world existed earlier, modern philosophy introduced the change that the universe is now considered a vast machine and no longer a complex system composed of living and non-living things. Then, trying to free itself from the influence of the theology and religion of the time, philosophy began to put itself at the service of science and technology. On the one hand, philosophy adapted itself to scientific progress, and on the other hand, physical science felt supported by philosophy. The result was a strong dualism that nurtured an idea of​​the domination of res extensaby res cogitans. To be the centre of the universe has always been a strong temptation for humanity (Gn. 8). René Descartes (2006:51) announced that the goal of the natural sciences was to help the human being be “master and possessor of nature”. But how to do it? This new dualistic perspective would be through science and technology, for, as Francis Bacon (1884: 71) celebrated, “Knowledge is power”.

This gap was further widened with ethics by Immanuel Kant. Indeed, Kant valued the human person positively by considering every person as an end-in-himself/herself and never as a means. But his overemphasis on the superiority of rationality resulted in three pitfalls. First, as J Baird Callicott (1999:252)caricatures, “Kant’s ethic would therefore seem to countenance painful medical experiments on prerational human infants, hunting nonrational human imbeciles for sport, and making dog food out of post-rational elderly human beings….”Second, since only rational beings can self-evaluate, all other beings – living and non-living – have only instrumental value, not intrinsic value. Third, according to the criterion of reciprocity, only moral agents are considered moral patients. Therefore, moral considerations take into account only human beings, and any interference with the non-human world is acceptable as long as it serves human interests.

2. Postmodern Pragmatic Relativism

With the death of modernism, we entered another complex era called postmodernism. With postmodern deconstruction, which resists all grand narratives, relativism was born. The result was no longer doctrinal relativism but pragmatic relativism. Pope Francis points out that, in pragmatic relativism, there are no longer “objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs”; similarly, “the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.” (LS§123)

A human puts himself/herself at the centre of the world by giving absolute priority to his interests so that everything else becomes relative. This pragmatic relativism is even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism. By thus claiming to be the master of the world, for whom nothing that does not concern him matters. The human being places himself/herself at the summit of creation and evolution. The result is a ‘distorted’, ‘excessive’ and ‘misguided’ anthropocentrism that elicits human domination over all non-human beings – and often even defenceless human beings – by viewing them only for their instrumental value. (LS§§69, 115-122)

3. Socio-cultural roots

Careful observation reveals that the ecological crisis results from the consumerist culture, often in the urban areas, and its consequent changes in the structures of lifestyles. In the words of Pope Paul VI, it is a culture born of “the most extraordinary scientific advances, the most amazing technical abilities, the most astonishing economic growth” but not accompanied by “authentic social and moral progress” (LS§4). Admittedly, the ecological crisis is amplified or slowed down by individual choices; but it is thus much more due to the structures/societies in which people live. On the one hand, people in urban areas feel that they are, in some sense, beneficiaries of this urban culture, but ironically their freedom to make choices is itself restricted. They live in a setting where the conditions of choice are predetermined by the political, economic and market structures.

On the other hand, people in rural and environmentally precarious areas, though neither living nor enjoying the benefits of urban life, must work for the subsistence of this consumerist culture. Its adverse effects are felt back in their rural/precarious area – a process called ‘telecoupling’, which refers to interactions of social, economic, and ecological systems over distances. Those who suffer its effects are not necessarily responsible for it, and the latter often remain unaffected directly. As a result, either on a personal level or on an economic and political level, those responsible ignore the consequences of their actions and see no reason to change policies or lifestyles. Subsequently, even being aware of the crisis in which we live, we remain indifferent to calls for an ecological conversion.

In Search of Remedies

As Adolphe Gesché (1994: 85)postulates, for a human project – like the safeguard and integrity of creation here – to have every chance of success, it is not enough that it be driven by political, ecological, economic or even moral will. It must be founded upstream on a philosophical and metaphysical level and, for the believers, also on the theological level. So, the remedies we search for today need to have both attitudinal and structural revolutions, which in turn must govern lifestyle and all scientific ventures.

1. Change in the Worldview/Attitude

Firstly, we see here the attitudinal revolution that we need today.

a. From deviated anthropocentrism to balanced ecocentrism:

Human behaviour, as Callicott (1999: 89)observes, is always influenced by beliefs about what facts are. So, a rectification in our judgments about the facts can result in rectification in our behaviour. In this context, a balanced ecocentric worldview is a crucial solution. The thesis of ecocentrism is that all beings have intrinsic value. The modernist idea of​​the human being as the pinnacle of creation/evolution led him to think that he has a special place in this cosmos and has the right to exploit all other beings without giving them the place they deserve. But one must realise that the cosmos existed even before the advent of the human being, who is only one among the billions of species, and, therefore, is only one among other members of the biotic community, or more broadly, of the ecological community. So, every being – humans, animals, plants and material things – has its intrinsic value, and there is a human-nature unity and totality.

b. Ecological community – Naturalisation of human beings

In the 19th century, Darwin made evolutionary discoveries which dethroned the human being from his/her role as “master of the world”, an idea which had developed from the anthropocentric interpretation of the subject-object dichotomy. In Aldo Leopold’s terms, humans realise that they are “only fellow voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution. This new knowledge should have given us, by this time, a sense of kinship with fellow creatures….” (1968:105). It is this knowledge and feeling that St Bonaventure notes in Saint Francis of Assisi: “from a reflection on the primary source of all things, filled with even more abundant piety, he would call creatures, no matter how small, by the name of ‘brother’ or ‘sister’” (LS § 11).

Jürgen Moltmann,(1988: 73)using Günter Altner’s expression, calls this the “naturalisation of the human being”. Moltmann explains that the human being is not opposed to nature but a product of nature. Nature is a great subject that produces new forms and structures of life and, ultimately, the human being. The human being is, therefore, the object, namely a product of productive nature. In the modernist model, the human being ‘has’ nature; in this ecocentric model, the human being ‘is’ nature, and the body he has objectified as his property, is himself in his corporeal existence.

2. The Transformation of Societal Structures

Political and economic systems form societal structures. Therefore, for ecological conversion to occur effectively, political and economic systems must be transformed by the worldview, as mentioned above or attitude, at both local and global levels.

a. Holistic ethics and economic-political commitment

First, as discussed earlier, the current crisis results from excessive human interference. So, environmental ethics must be applied, not only at the personal level but also at the societal and global level, since the latter is a holistic ethic. Secondly, the current ecological crisis is also a result of the consumerist culture created through political and economic systems. So, as Callicott (1999: 285) puts it, realising the environmental dimension of well-being will require collective effort and political will. We must demand that our local, regional and federal governments put ecological issues at the top of their political agenda. Governments must realise that the common good is their raison d'être, and work towards it with genuine global urgency.

b. Informed politico-economic system

Increasingly, the global economy and productive and commercial activities are based on immediacy. It favours a kind of technological advancement of automatism, intending to simplify procedures and reduce costs with fewer workers replaced by machines. However, “the cost of the damage caused by such selfish lack of concern is much greater than the economic benefits to be obtained.” (LS§36). Therefore, there is a need for the conscientisation of everyone, particularly of political and economic actors, and sometimes also for political coercion, so that political will can bring about healthy structural changes at political and economic levels.

c. Universal solidarity, leadership and participatory governance

The laws and policies enacted must consider both the needs of human beings and the earth. So, political and economic debates, both international and local, must take into account: on the one hand, the common good of all humans, especially the poor and the vulnerable, considered pure collateral damage; and on the other hand, an environmental impact assessment, done in an interdisciplinary and transparent manner, independent of any economic or political pressure. For this, there is a need for universal solidarity, especially among politico-economic communities, and strong leadership that comprehensively understands societal and environmental issues. They must support consideration of all the ethical aspects concerned by creating spaces for discussion and scientific and social dialogue “in which all those directly or indirectly affected (farmers, consumers, civil authorities, scientists, seed producers, people living near fumigated fields, and others) can make known their problems and concerns, and have access to adequate and reliable information in order to make decisions for the common good, present and future.” (LS§135)

Conclusion

Cultural, scientific and economic development are part of the evolution process of human society. However, we must remember that a “technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress.” (LS§194). As Lynn White (1967:1203-1207)points out, what people do about ecology depends on how they feel about themselves concerning the things around them – in short, it is an attitude. So, with a balanced ecocentric attitude, accepting that all creatures have value and that humans are part of nature, and coupled with a proactive socio-personal and politico-economic will to remedy this crisis, it is possible for humans not only to remediate the current ecological crisis but also to enter into respectful “relationships, going out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others and with all creatures.” (LS§240)

References:

Bacon, Francis. (1884). The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, Basil Montagu. New York: R Worthington

Callicott, Baird. (1999). Beyond the Land Ethic. New York: State University of New York

Descartes, Réné. (2006). A Discourse on the Method.Ed. by I. Maclean.London: Oxford University Press

Gesché, Adolphe. (1994). Dieu pour penser. T. 4.Le Cosmos. Paris : Cerf

Leopold, Aldo and Charles Walsh Schwartz. (1969). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There.New York: Oxford University Press

Moltmann, Jürgen. (1988). Dieu dans la création. Traité écologique de la création, trad. M. Kleiber, Paris : Cerf, p.73

Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (LS), Vatican

White, Lynn. (1967). “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”in Science 155

Original in English