The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. Life gradually becomes a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In the concrete situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety, a loss of the purpose of life and of community living.
Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution, environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational program, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic.
To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.
Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or indeed when the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it.
An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity. This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer. But humanity has changed profoundly. A constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony.
Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this , and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution.
Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the limits it imposes. An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.
Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities — to offer just a few examples — it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations.
If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension of openness to others.
Our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence creates difficulties.
A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly.
It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary obstacles to be avoided. Any approach to an integral ecology needs to take account of the value of labour.
According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the garden he had created cf. Developing the created world in a prudent way is the best way of caring for it. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding of work; the question arises as to the meaning and purpose of all human activity.
This has to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity involving a modification of existing reality. Underlying every form of work is a concept of the relationship which we can have with what is other than ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation of creation which we find in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also developed a rich understanding of the meaning of work. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism. Saint Benedict of Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and spiritual reading with manual labour ora et labora.
Seeing manual labour as spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification came to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of the environment. Once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood.
We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress replace human work. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity.
Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses.
Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall context and ethical limits of this human activity, which is a form of power involving considerable risks.
This, then, is the correct framework for any reflection concerning human intervention on plants and animals, which at present includes genetic manipulation by biotechnology for the sake of exploiting the potential present in material reality. The respect owed by faith to reason calls for close attention to what the biological sciences, through research uninfluenced by economic interests, can teach us about biological structures , their possibilities and their mutations.
It is difficult to make a general judgement about genetic modification GM , whether vegetable or animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used, but rather to their improper or excessive application. Genetic mutations, in fact, have often been, and continue to be, caused by nature itself.
The domestication of animals, the crossbreeding of species and other older and universally accepted practices can be mentioned as examples. We need but recall that scientific developments in GM cereals began with the observation of natural bacteria which spontaneously modified plant genomes. In nature, however, this process is slow and cannot be compared to the fast pace induced by contemporary technological advances. Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about economic growth, there remain a number of difficulties.
The expansion of these crops has the effect of destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future. In various countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products needed for their cultivation.
This dependency would be aggravated were the production of infertile seeds to be considered; the effect would be to force farmers to purchase them from larger producers. Certainly, these issues require constant attention and a concern for their ethical implications. A broad, responsible scientific and social debate needs to take place.
It sometimes happens that complete information is not put on the table. This makes it difficult to reach a balanced and prudent judgement on different questions, one which takes into account all the pertinent variables. Discussions are needed 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.
This is a complex environmental issue; it calls for a comprehensive approach which would require, at the very least, greater efforts to finance various lines of independent, interdisciplinary research capable of shedding new light on the problem. On the other hand, there is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos.
We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice as licit. Technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power. Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop.
This necessarily entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption. It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of one another. Just as the different aspects of the planet — physical, chemical and biological — are interrelated, so too living species are part of a network which we will never fully explore and understand. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings.
Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature , included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it grasps reality. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems.
We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature. Due to the number and variety of factors to be taken into account when determining the environmental impact of a concrete undertaking, it is essential to give researchers their due role, to facilitate their interaction, and to ensure broad academic freedom.
We take these systems into account not only to determine how best to use them, but also because they have an intrinsic value independent of their usefulness. Each organism, as a creature of God, is good and admirable in itself; the same is true of the harmonious ensemble of organisms existing in a defined space and functioning as a system.
Although we are often not aware of it, we depend on these larger systems for our own existence. We need only recall how ecosystems interact in dispersing carbon dioxide, purifying water, controlling illnesses and epidemics, forming soil, breaking down waste, and in many other ways which we overlook or simply do not know about. Economic growth, for its part, tends to produce predictable reactions and a certain standardization with the aim of simplifying procedures and reducing costs. Today, the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts, nor from how individuals relate to themselves, which leads in turn to how they relate to others and to the environment.
Within each social stratum, and between them, institutions develop to regulate human relationships. Anything which weakens those institutions has negative consequences, such as injustice, violence and loss of freedom. A number of countries have a relatively low level of institutional effectiveness, which results in greater problems for their people while benefiting those who profit from this situation. Whether in the administration of the state, the various levels of civil society, or relationships between individuals themselves , lack of respect for the law is becoming more common.
Can we hope, then, that legislation dealing with the environment will really prove effective? We know, for example, that countries which have clear legislation about the protection of forests continue to keep silent as they watch laws repeatedly being broken. Moreover, what takes place in any one area can have a direct or indirect influence on others. For example, drug use in affluent societies creates a continual demand for products imported from poorer regions, where behaviour is corrupted, lives destroyed, and the environment deteriorates.
Together with the patrimony of nature, there is also an historic, artistic and cultural patrimony which is likewise under threat. There is a need to incorporate the history, culture and architecture of each place, thus preserving its original identity. Ecology, then, also involves protecting the cultural treasures of humanity in the broadest sense. More specifically, it calls for greater attention to local cultures when studying environmental problems, favouring a dialogue between scientific-technical language and the language of the people.
Culture is a living, dynamic and participatory reality, which cannot be excluded as we rethink the relationship between humans and the environment. Attempts to resolve all problems through uniform regulations or technical interventions can lead to overlooking the complexities of local problems which demand the active participation of all members of the community.rtc.stagcms.com/getting-started-in-forensic-psychology-practice-how.php
Pope, ending conference, calls for 'all-out battle' against abuse of minors
Merely technical solutions run the risk of addressing symptoms and not the more serious underlying problems. There is a need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures , and to appreciate that the development of a social group presupposes an historical process which takes place within a cultural context with active involvement of local people from within their proper culture. Nor can the notion of the quality of life be imposed, for quality of life must be understood within the world of symbols and customs proper to each human group.
Many intensive forms of environmental exploitation and degradation not only exhaust the resources which provide local communities with their livelihood, but also undo the social structures which shaped cultural identity. The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious as the disappearance of a species of plant or animal. The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems.
In this sense, it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others, but should be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed. For them, land is not a commodity but a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values. When they remain on their land, they themselves care for it best.
Nevertheless, in various parts of the world, pressure is being put on them to abandon their homelands to make room for agricultural or mining projects without regard for the degradation of nature and culture. Authentic development includes efforts to bring about an improvement in the quality of human life, and this entails considering the setting in which people live their lives.
In our rooms, our homes, our workplaces and neighbourhoods, we use our environment as a way of expressing our identity. We make every effort to adapt to our environment, but when it is disorderly, chaotic or saturated with noise and ugliness, it is difficult to find ourselves integrated and happy. An admirable creativity and generosity is shown by persons and groups who respond to environmental limitations by alleviating the adverse effects of their surroundings amid disorder and uncertainty.
A commendable human ecology is practised by the poor despite hardships. The feeling of asphyxiation brought on by densely populated areas is countered if warm relationships develop, if the limitations of the environment are compensated for in the interior of each person who feels held within a network of belonging.
In this way, any place can turn from being a hell into the setting for a dignified life. The extreme poverty experienced in areas lacking harmony, open spaces or potential for integration, can lead to incidents of brutality and to exploitation by criminal organizations. Nonetheless, I wish to insist that love always proves more powerful. Many people in these conditions are able to weave bonds of belonging and togetherness which convert overcrowding into an experience of community in which the walls of the ego are torn down and the barriers of selfishness overcome.
It is not enough to seek the beauty of design.
Here too, we see how important it is that urban planning always take into consideration the views of those who will live in these areas. It is important that the different parts of a city be well integrated. Interventions which affect the urban or rural landscape should take into account how various elements combine to form a whole which is perceived by its inhabitants as a coherent framework for their lives. For this same reason, in both urban and rural settings, it is helpful to set aside some places which can be preserved from constant changes.
Lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world , both in rural areas and in large cities, since state budgets usually cover only a small portion of the demand. Not only the poor, but many other members of society as well, find it difficult to own a home. Having a home has much to do with a sense of personal dignity and the growth of families. Where shanty towns have sprung up, this will mean developing those rather than razing them. The quality of life in cities has much to do with systems of transport.
Many cars circulate in cities causing traffic congestion, pollution, and consuming enormous quantities of non-renewable energy. This makes it necessary to build more roads and parking areas which spoil the urban landscape. Many specialists agree on the need to give priority to public transportation. Yet some measures needed will not prove easily acceptable to society unless substantial improvements are made in the systems themselves, which in many cities force people to put up with undignified conditions due to crowding, infrequent service and lack of safety.
Respect for our dignity as human beings often jars with the chaotic realities that people have to endure in city life. Yet this should not make us overlook the abandonment and neglect also experienced by some rural populations which lack access to essential services and where some workers are reduced to conditions of servitude, without rights or even the hope of a more dignified life. Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings.
In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. An integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics. Underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person as such, endowed with basic and inalienable rights ordered to his or her integral development.
It has also to do with the overall welfare of society and the development of a variety of intermediate groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. Outstanding among those groups is the family, as the basic cell of society. Finally, the common good calls for social peace, the stability and security provided by a certain order which cannot be achieved without particular concern for distributive justice ; whenever this is violated, violence always ensues.
Society as a whole, and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good. In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights, the principle of the common good immediately becomes a summons to solidarity for the poorest of our brothers and sisters The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity. Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently.
Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us. What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up? What is the purpose of our life in this world? Why are we here? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts? What need does the earth have of us? It is no longer enough, then, simply to state that we should be concerned for future generations.
We need to see that what is at stake is our own dignity. Leaving an inhabitable planet to future generations is, first and foremost, up to us. The issue is one which dramatically affects us, for it has to do with the ultimate meaning of our earthly sojourn. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences.
Our difficulty in taking up this challenge seriously has much to do with an ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment. We see this in the crisis of family and social ties and the difficulties of recognizing the other. Parents can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family.
Furthermore, our inability to think seriously about future generations is linked to our inability to broaden the scope of our present interests and to give consideration to those who remain excluded from development. Now we shall try to outline the major paths of dialogue which can help us escape the spiral of self-destruction which currently engulfs us. Beginning in the middle of the last century, there has been a growing conviction that our planet our common home.
An interdependent world not only makes us more conscious of the negative effects of certain lifestyles and models of production and consumption which affect us all; more importantly, it motivates us to ensure that solutions are proposed from a global perspective , and not simply to defend the interests of a few countries.
Yet the same ingenuity which has brought about enormous technological progress has so far proved incapable of finding effective ways of dealing with grave environmental and social problems worldwide. A global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems, which cannot be resolved by unilateral actions on the part of individual countries.
Such a consensus could lead, for example, to planning a sustainable and diversified agriculture, developing renewable and less polluting forms of energy, encouraging a more efficient use of energy, promoting a better management of marine and forest resources, and ensuring universal access to drinking water. We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay.
Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the less harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions. But the international community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility for paying the costs of this energy transition. In recent decades, environmental issues have given rise to considerable public debate and have elicited a variety of committed and generous civic responses. Politics and business have been slow to react in a way commensurate with the urgency of the challenges facing our world.
Although the post-industrial period may well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history, nonetheless there is reason to hope that humanity at the dawn of the twenty-first century will be remembered for having generously shouldered its grave responsibilities. Worldwide, the ecological movement has made significant advances, thanks also to the efforts of many organizations.
Thanks to their efforts, environmental questions have increasingly found a place on public agendas and encouraged more far-sighted approaches. Recent World Summits on the environment have not lived up to expectations because, due to lack of political will, they were unable to reach truly meaningful and effective global agreements. It set the goal of limiting greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, in an effort to reverse the trend of global warming.
It also drew up an agenda with an action plan and a convention on biodiversity, and stated principles regarding forests. Although the summit was a real step forward, its accords have been poorly implemented, due to the lack of suitable mechanisms for oversight, periodic review and penaltiesfor non-compliance. The principles which it proclaimed still await practical implementation.
Among positive examples, the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes, with its system of reporting, standards and controls. There is also the binding Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which includes on-site visits for verifying effective compliance. As far as the protection of biodiversity and issues related to desertification are concerned, progress has been far less significant. With regard to climate change, the advances have been few.
Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the mos t. International negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good. Those who will have to suffer the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility.
We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays. Some strategies for lowering pollutant gas emissions call for the internationalization of environmental costs, imposing on countries with fewer resources commitments to reducing emissions comparable to those of the more industrialized countries.
Imposing such measures penalizes those countries most in need of development. Furthermore, since the effects of climate change will be felt for a long time to come, even if stringent measures are taken now, some countries with scarce resources will require assistance in adapting to the effects already being produced, which affect their economies.
In this context, there is a need for common and differentiated responsibilities. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may be a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors. For poor countries, the priorities must be to eliminate extreme poverty and to promote the social development of their people. At the same time, they need to acknowledge the scandalous level of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population and to combat corruption more effectively.
They are likewise bound to develop less polluting forms of energy production, but to do so they require the help of countries which have experienced great growth at the cost of the ongoing pollution of the planet. In any event, these are primarily ethical decisions, rooted in solidarity between all peoples.
Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention. Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions, for example, when powerful companies or countries dump contaminated waste or offshore polluting industries in other countries. Let us also mention the system of governance of the oceans. International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts.
The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges. A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions. The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political.
Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. Diplomacy also takes on new importance in the work of developing international strategies which can anticipate serious problems affecting us all. There are not just winners and losers among countries, but within poorer countries themselves.
Questions related to the environment and economic development can no longer be approached only from the standpoint of differences between countries; they also call for greater attention to policies on the national and local levels. There is a growing jurisprudence dealing with the reduction of pollution by business activities.
Pope Francis: Care For The Earth — Earth Stewardship East
But political and institutional frameworks do not exist simply to avoid bad practice, but also to promote best practice , to stimulate creativity in seeking new solutions and to encourage individual or group initiatives. A politics concerned with immediate results, supported by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term growth. In response to electoral interests , governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment.
The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda. Thus we forget that we are always more effective when we generate processes rather than holding on to positions of power. True statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good.
Cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. While the existing world o rd er proves powerless to assume its responsibilities , local individuals and groups can make a real difference. They are able to instil a greater sense of responsibility, a strong sense of community, a readiness to protect others, a spirit of creativity and a deep love for the land.
Because the enforcement of laws is at times inadequate due to corruption, public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power — national, regional and municipal — it will not be possible to control damage to the environment.
Local legislation can be more effective, too, if agreements exist between neighbouring communities to support the same environmental policies. There are no uniform recipes, because each country or region has its own problems and limitations. It is also true that political realism may call for transitional measures and technologies , so long as these are accompanied by the gradual framing and acceptance of binding commitments.
At the same time, on the national and local levels, much still needs to be done, such as promoting ways of conserving energy. These would include favouring forms of industrial production with maximum energy efficiency and diminished use of raw materials, removing from the market products which are less energy efficient or more polluting, improving transport systems, and encouraging the construction and repair of buildings aimed at reducing their energy consumption and levels of pollution.
Political activity on the local level could also be directed to modifying consumption, developing an economy of waste disposal and recycling, protecting certain species and planning a diversified agriculture and the rotation of crops. Agriculture in poorer regions can be improved through investment in rural infrastructures, a better organization of local or national markets, systems of irrigation, and the development of techniques of sustainable agriculture.
New forms of cooperation and community organization can be encouraged in order to defend the interests of small producers and preserve local ecosystems from destruction. Truly, much can be done! Here, continuity is essential, because policies related to climate change and environmental protection cannot be altered with every change of government. That is why, in the absence of pressure from the public and from civic institutions, political authorities will always be reluctant to intervene. To take up these responsibilities and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mindset of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics.
But if they are courageous, they will attest to their God-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. A healthy politics is sorely needed, capable of reforming and coordinating institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure and bureaucratic inertia. It should be added, though, that even the best mechanisms can break down when there are no worthy goals and values, or a genuine and profound humanism to serve as the basis of a noble and generous society.
An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demands transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate. Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy.
It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure. A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest.
Honesty is needed in scientific and political discussions; these should not be limited to the issue of whether or not a particular project is permitted by law. Some projects, if insufficiently studied, can profoundly affect the quality of life of an area due to very different factors such as unforeseen noise pollution, the shrinking of visual horizons, the loss of cultural values, or the effects of nuclear energy use. The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal information.
In any discussion about a proposed venture, a number of questions need to be asked in order to discern whether or not it will contribute to genuine integral development. What will it accomplish? For whom? What are the risks? What are the costs? Who will pay those costs and how? In this discernment, some questions must have higher priority. For example, we know that water is a scarce and indispensable resource and a fundamental right which conditions the exercise of other human rights. This indisputable fact overrides any other assessment of environmental impact on a region.
This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed , since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.
This does not mean being opposed to any technological innovations which can bring about an improvement in the quality of life. But it does mean that profit cannot be the sole criterion to be taken into account, and that, when significant new information comes to light, a reassessment should be made, with the involvement of all interested parties.
The outcome may be a decision not to proceed with a given project, to modify it or to consider alternative proposals. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery.
The financial crisis of provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational, and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily correspond to their real worth.
This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities, with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies. The problem of the real economy is not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses to develop and create employment. Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention.
Moreover, biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor. We need to grow in the conviction that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form of progress and development.
Efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in the medium term. If we look at the larger picture, we can see that more diversified and innovative forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable.
Gandhi: Surprising Facts on His Life and How His Legacy Lives on Today
It is a matter of openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels. For example, a path of productive development, which is more creative and better directed, could correct the present disparity between excessive technological investment in consumption and insufficient investment in resolving urgent problems facing the human family.
It could generate intelligent and profitable ways of reusing, revamping and recycling, and it could also improve the energy efficiency of cities. Productive diversification offers the fullest possibilities to human ingenuity to create and innovate, while at the same time protecting the environment and creating more sources of employment In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth, then in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits.
We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress In this context, talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention and offering excuses.
- The war against Pope Francis | News | The Guardian.
- The United Kingdom and U.S.-UK Relations.
- Related Content.
- The Firefly!
- Loss of Biodiversity.
It absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures. In a word , businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are allocated by the market or by state central planning.
What happens with politics? Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity, which grants freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power. Today, it is the case that some economic sectors exercise more power than states themselves The mindset which leaves no room for sincere concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most vulnerable members of society.
What is needed is a politics which is capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis. Often, politics itself is responsible for the disrepute in which it is held, on account of corruption and the failure to enact sound public policies If politics shows itself incapable of breaking such a perverse logic, and remains caught up in inconsequential discussions, we will continue to avoid facing the major problems of humanity.
A strategy for real change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present-day culture. A healthy politics needs to be able to take up this challenge. Politics and the economy tend to blame each other when it comes to poverty and environmental degradation.
It is to be hoped that they can acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of interaction directed to the common good. Any technical solution which science claims to offer will be powerless to solve the serious problems of our world if humanity loses its compass, if we lose sight of the great motivations which make it possible for us to live in harmony, to make sacrifices and to treat others well.
Believers themselves must constantly feel challenged to live in a way consonant with their faith and not to contradict it by their actions. The majority of people living on our planet profess to be believers. This should spur religions to dialogue among themselves for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity. Dialogue among the various sciences is likewise needed, since each can tend to become enclosed in its own language, while specialization leads to a certain isolation and the absolutization of its own field of knowledge.
This prevents us from confronting environmental problems effectively. An open and respectful dialogue is also needed between the various ecological movements , among which ideological conflicts are not infrequently encountered. We human beings above all need to change. We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging, and of a future to be shared with everyone.
This basic awareness would enable the development of new convictions, attitudes and forms of life. Compulsive consumerism is one example of how the techno-economic paradigm affects individuals. This paradigm leads people to believe that they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume.
But those really free are the minority who wield economic and financial power. In this horizon, a genuine sense of the common good also disappears. As these attitudes become more widespread, social norms are respected only to the extent that they do not clash with personal needs. So our concern cannot be limited merely to the threat of extreme weather events, but must also extend to the catastrophic consequences of social unrest. Obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction.
Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new paths to authentic freedom.
No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us. A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products.
They prove successful in changing the way businesses operate, forcing them to consider their environmental footprint and their patterns of production. When social pressure affects their earnings, businesses clearly have to find ways to produce differently.
This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. Disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment. These attitudes also attune us to the moral imperative of assessing the impact of our every action and personal decision on the world around us. If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.
Many people know that our current progress and the mere amassing of things and pleasures are not enough to give meaning and joy to the human heart, yet they feel unable to give up what the market sets before them.
- Exploring the Truth: 10 Facts on the Real Marco Polo.
- Gangbang at the Biker Bar (Adventures of a Sex Addict Book 2).
- 'Buona sera!'.
- Herbal Medicine: Chaos in the Marketplace.
- 10 Revealing Facts From ‘Pope Francis: A Man of His Word’;
- On Heaven and Earth by Pope Francis | Leaflet Missal;
- Pope Francis will be last Pontiff Irish saint predicted | devyzuzyvoby.tk;
- Editors Choice?
- Can Pope Francis clean up God’s bank??
- The war against Pope Francis.
- Electrified Rome welcomes Pope ‘from end of the Earth’ - devyzuzyvoby.tk!
- RELATED VIDEO?
- Dinosaurs! (Pictureback(R))!
In those countries which should be making the greatest changes in consumer habits, young people have a new ecological sensitivity and a generous spirit, and some of them are making admirable efforts to protect the environment. At the same time, they have grown up in a milieu of extreme consumerism and affluence which makes it difficult to develop other habits. We are faced with an educational challenge. Environmental education has broadened its goals. It seeks also to restore the various levels of ecological equilibrium, establishing harmony within ourselves, with others, with nature and other living creatures, and with God.
Environmental education should facilitate making the leap towards the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning. It needs educators capable of developing an ethics of ecology, and helping people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility and compassionate care. The existence of laws and regulations is insufficient in the long run to curb bad conduct. If the laws are to bring about significant, long-lasting effects, the majority of the members of society must be adequately motivated to accept them, and personally transformed to respond.
Toggle navigation. International Irish more successful than ever before: celebrate with IrishCentral. Seaweed super food - a healthy new industry in Ireland.
How this Irish immigrant went from being a night janitor to a multi-millionaire. Former Irish leader is in intensive care in Dublin hospital. Funeral lays 21 Irish Famine victims to rest in Canada. Extraordinary story of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. We need your help! Stunning images reveal "the dark underbelly of rural Irish life". Two previously unheard U2 songs unearthed by fans. Riverdance star developing new famine musical to showcase in Mayo, New York. Visit Ireland in October Your ultimate guide. Five things to do in the West of Ireland when the sun is shining.
Irish passport ranked amongst the most powerful in the world again. Aug 19, The prophecies of the Irish Saint Malachy , the 12th-century bishop of Armagh, have thrilled and dismayed readers for centuries. He has stated there would be only one more pope after Benedict, and during his reign comes the end of the world. So Francis could be the last. Most Shared Most Recent.
History Top gods and goddesses from Celtic mythology. History Stunning images reveal "the dark underbelly of rural Irish life". Community Irish soldiers mutiny that rocked the British Empire. News Former Irish leader is in intensive care in Dublin hospital. News Funeral lays 21 Irish Famine victims to rest in Canada. Other Writers Step aside Woodlawn!
Related Pope Francis: The Pope From the End of the Earth
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved