THE KYOTO HORIZONThe Problem of Environment

Joan CarreraJosé I. González Faus

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EARTH (Joan Carrera) .................................................1. Introduction ........................................................................................................2. Are we worried about environmental issues? ..................................................3. Why aren't we that worried about the environment? ......................................4. Why are environmental movements important? ........................................5. What are the main characteristics of environmentalism? .........................6. Environmentalism and the need for global ethics ......................................7. The dilemma: should we change the paradigm or do nothing? .....................

“MY WORLD, YOU ARE BEING CHANGED” (José I. González Faus) .................1. Biblical information ...........................................................................................2. Issues of systematic theology ............................................................................3. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................

33569

10151618192331

122

Translation: Gerarda Walsh • Printed on ecological paper and recycled cardboard •Editors: CRISTIANISME I JUSTÍCIA • R. de Llúria 13 - 08010 Barcelona (Spain) • Tel. 93317 23 38 Fax: 93 317 10 94 • info@fespinal.com • www.fespinal.com • Printed by: EstiloEstugraf Impresores, S.L. • ISBN: 84-9730-131-5 • Legal Deposit: M-11086-06 • March2006

"We are reaching the point of no return. The current rate of fuel consumption in Europe and the USA is unsustainable.

And this will only get worse if China and India grow by 9% each year.

I live in Kenya. I witness unimaginable poverty every day. I am not talkingabout defending the environment for our wildlife, which is also incredibly impor-

tant, but rather because protecting it is economically profitable for poorercountries."

Klaus Toepfer, UN Secretary for the Environment.(El País, 24th April 2005, p. 38)

Joan Carrera s.j., is qualified as a doctor, and is also a Doctor in MoralTheology. He is Professor of ESADE and of the Theology Faculty ofCatalonia, and a member of the governing council of the Centre d’EstudisCristianisme i Justícia.

José Ignacio González Faus s.j., is in charge of the TheologicalDepartment of Cristianisme i Justícia.

To begin with, I would like to avoidthe tendency that others who are alsoconcerned about the environment oftenlean towards. We usually begin by lis-ting out a series of facts and statisticsthat describe the current health of ourplanet. This is also what a reader nor-mally expects to see when he is reading

some article on the environment: detai-ling how much the hole in the ozone la-yer has widened, or how much the glo-bal temperature has risen...

In spite of my initial good intentionshowever, I fear that it will be necessaryto offer some relevant information,mainly because many of us are not suf-

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EARTH

My reflection on the problem of the environment is above all directed atthose people who are interested in the theme but who believe that thingsaren't as bad as they seem. Also for those people who voluntarily try andchange something in their immediate environment, by recycling theirdomestic waste for example, but who don't consider more significant chan-ges. In short, this is for people who use their cars without thinking twiceabout it and who are happy when they see another lane being added to themotorway, but who become angry when “their” street becomes pedestriani-sed, and who would possibly stop voting for a particular party that was pro-posing to implement some type of eco-friendly change, because they con-sidered it unnecessary.

1. INTRODUCTION

ficiently aware of what is happening inour global habitat, or in our owncountry, or even in the much closer en-vironment of our own city. And this isbecause we are still going through aphase in which the environmental pro-blem is for many people, an invisibleone. When someone takes the trouble toinvestigate a little, he realises that theproblem is in fact already affecting alarge sector of humanity, and that po-verty and environmental destruction arenot two separate phenomenon but areinstead linked, and interdependent. Itwould be nice if we could apply the sa-me rules that are practised in medicineto the environment. For doctors, themost effective treatment is administeredto the patient in the early stages of an ill-ness, often before any symptoms haveeven been displayed. This is why wenow see the appearance of techniquesfor the early diagnosis of patients,which allows treatment to begin in thepreliminary stages of a disease. In thesame way, from an environmental pointof view, early attention to the problemwould avoid much economic waste, gi-ven that it costs less to avoid contami-nating the environment to begin with,than it does to try and decontaminate itonce the damage has been done...

Neither do I want to fall into thetemptation of presenting the issue by ex-pressly stating that no measures to com-bat the environmental degradation ofour planet have been taken. In Westerncountries, more and more legislation isbeing introduced to protect the environ-ment, and businesses are increasingways in which they can be as environ-mentally friendly as possible. All these

measures come at a high price however,and many developing countries are una-ble to introduce them for this reason–they would have to stop selling the in-dustrial goods that generate these pollu-tants in order to comply. One should al-so remember what was highlighted byvarious non-governmental organisa-tions and environmental movements onthe so-called ecological debt issue. Thisis the debt owed by the countries thatbecame industrialised before anyothers, towards the countries that begantheir industrialisation process at a laterstage. The latter group has a much mo-re costly way ahead of them, as they ha-ve to put in place and apply these envi-ronmentally friendly measures from theoutset.

For many environmentalists, thesetype of measures, also known as “end ofthe pipeline” measures, are not effecti-ve in tackling the environmental pro-blem, and therefore throw the wholemodern system of production intodoubt. Often they are solutions that con-sist in installing filters, or introducing away of re-using materials, but they arealways put in place at the end of the pro-duction process rather than at the be-ginning.

As we put the entire modern meansof manufacturing under the spotlight,one starts to talk about the need for an“eco-economy” that views the “humaneconomy” within the system that is“planet Earth”. This stance, which hasoften been seen as a more “radical”viewpoint would, according to manypeople, be the only long-term sustaina-ble way of preserving human life onEarth. Those in favour of the current

4

economic system would need to beshown its limitations. They would needto be shown not only its ecological li-mitations but also its inherent injusticein relation to the distribution of wealth,and the limitations that exist caused bythe ongoing conflict to secure control ofvarious energy sources. Let's thinkabout the geographically strategic moti-vations that lie behind our recent wars:Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, andChechnya... In all these conflicts, thecontrol of global fuel resources (com-bustible fossil fuels), was a principalfactor, particularly at a time when forcertain countries, it was very important

to be able to at least secure its fuelsupply during this period of transition aswe move towards a post-petroleum (andnatural gas) era. Some authors use evi-dence to highlight the fact that there arecurrently several petroleum companiesthat have started to invest in new formsof energy, taking the imminent deple-tion of fossil fuels very seriously. Infact, since the petrol crisis of 1973 whenOPEC suddenly raised fuel prices,many European countries started to fo-cus on searching for alternative sourcesof energy, in order to make way for eco-nomies that would not be solely de-pendent on petrol.

5

2. ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?

According to surveys, the environ-ment is one of the issues that concernssociety in many Western countries. Thispreoccupation can mean many differentthings; and it does not mean the samefor a citizen of Barcelona as it does fora fisherman from Roses. For one per-son, it might only mean excessive noisein the streets on a Friday night, or widerissues that they may have read about innewspapers or magazines. For another,on the other hand, it may affect his tra-ditional means of survival, and have re-percussions for his most basic materialwell-being. It is not unheard of for so-me fishing companies in theMediterranean to voluntarily imposeclosed seasons upon themselves when

fishing is prohibited, seasons that goabove and beyond the legislation that isalready in force, in order to give variousspecies the time they need to reproduce.These people are acutely aware of theconsequences of the overexploitation ofour fishing resources.

Are we talking about a new problemfor humanity? Perhaps the magnitude ofthis problem could be seen as new; butsome authors1 have speculated on howecological problems may have influen-ced the decline of certain ancient civili-sations living in more enclosed habitats(for example, the Maya civilisation, orthe Sumerians on Easter Island)...Maybe we should start learning morefrom our past and abandon the blind, in-

1. TAINTER, J., The Collapse of Complex Civilization.

finite faith we have in the powers ofScience, and our belief that it can repairthe negative consequences that Scienceitself is responsible for.

The first environmental movementswere formed in developed countries andoperated by mobilising groups of peo-ple, who were faced with serious issuesthat affected them in a very direct way,but they mainly operated on a more aes-thetic level: e.g., rubbish dumps thatwere too near residential areas, smokefrom nearby factories, the destruction ofwoods where people used to be able to

go walking... Today there are several en-vironmental movements in existence, asmany in developed countries as thereare in poorer countries, because ecolo-gical problems have ceased to be solelyaesthetic ones, and have become pro-blems of daily survival. For the farmerin India it is becoming harder every dayto drill wells in order to find under-ground sources of water for his crops...And in a country that is so densely po-pulated, this problem then translates in-to food shortages for a large sector of thepopulation.

6

3. WHY AREN'T WE THAT WORRIED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?

As we have already explained, sur-veys always reveal that the environmentis a problem that worries a lot of peo-ple, but other more immediate problemswill always have priority over it: unem-ployment, the price of fuel, crime andsafety... We should ask ourselves whywe always have a tendency to reduce theimportance of this problem as opposedto other issues.

– Firstly, we are usually only inte-rested in those problems that affect usor that affect those close to us (“our” ri-ver, “our” neighbourhood...) We alsopossess a real “short-sightedness” whenit comes to those issues that do not af-fect us directly. Our world of new tech-nology has revolutionised our percep-tion of both time and distance. We cansee events that are taking place milesaway and we can transport ourselves, byaeroplane, from one place to another ina short amount of time. This allows us

to feel closer to the peasant in India whohas lost everything in the floods.However, the fact that we are constantlybombarded by such tragic images thatare beamed into our homes, means thatwe end up becoming accustomed tothem, and for this reason a sort of co-llective insensitivity emerges and weshut ourselves off in our own little worldand our own daily lives. When we readan article about the environment in so-me journal, we come across an ava-lanche of facts that are both alarmingand catastrophic. But in the end, thesefacts bring about the opposite effect inthe reader, and end up desensitisingthem, rather than making them moreaware of what is going on. We will lookat the reason for this attitude in the fo-llowing point.

– Secondly, when confronted withthese problems we have little actualawareness of the risk factor involved.

The environmental risk factor is notfully appreciated, (except in certain di-sasters, such as that of the nuclear po-wer station in Chernobyl), given that theeffects of environmental degradation ta-ke place over a long period of time, andare in some cases, invisible. For exam-ple, look at the effects of radiation,caused by the progressive destruction ofthe ozone layer, on the formation of blo-od and skin cancers. Due to the type ofenvironmental danger involved, ourawareness of the risk factor is relativelylow. People only react towards suddenevents, which take place in a brief pe-riod of time such as earthquakes or floods.People have always wondered how theEuropean or American nuclear pro-grammes would have been affected ifthe nuclear disaster in Chernobyl had ta-ken place in New York, instead of in thefar-off Ukraine, which was in the mid-dle of making the transition from com-munism to capitalism. It is difficult toincrease people's awareness of the riskfactor when that risk is invisible. Forexample, people always feel more atrisk when travelling by air than whentravelling by car, when in fact the acci-dent statistics are much higher in the ca-se of cars. Nevertheless, it seems thatwhen one is controlling the situation(such as driving one's own vehicle) theawareness of the risk factor involvedalways seem to decrease. This is whypeople will need to be educated aboutseverity of the problem of the environ-ment, and shown that it is affecting usin a slow and subtle way...

– Thirdly, when faced with theseproblems, people always think that thepoliticians and experts are already on

top of the problem. We have the im-pression that these problems are way overour heads and that we are unable to doanything by ourselves, apart from per-haps a few conscientious actions, suchas recycling domestic waste or trave-lling by public transport. We live in aculture that believes that only the large-scale projects, or the policies of greatinstitutions are really able to transformreality, and not the actions carried out ona smaller scale. Yet these are the veryactions that can transform reality, be-cause they emerge as the concrete re-sponse of individuals to concrete situa-tions that are important to them. Fromthe smaller actions and the local sphere,we can begin to understand and collec-tively become responsible for problemsthat are further away.

– Fourthly, it is often the ordinarycitizens (usually from urban areas), whobelieve that the environmental problemis exaggerated and / or alarmist. Weshould ask ourselves if the problem rea-lly is exaggerated, or if the average citi-zen, from an urban and westernisedarea, has so little awareness of the envi-ronmental risk factor involved, that tohim, everything seems to be blown outof proportion. Also, although some willadmit to the existence of environmentalproblems, many citizens place all theirfaith in Science and believe that it willbe able to resolve these problems in afavourable way. Today's culture of scep-ticism, that brings with it so-called post-modernism, has not affected people'sbelief in techno-scientific progress.That is why a certain awareness of ourhuman vulnerability in relation toNature has been lost. We have forgotten

7

that there is still one sector of humanityin existence that is completely exposedto Nature: to its earthquakes, flooding,epidemics, and cyclones... Urban cultu-re has gone to the extreme of losingNature as a point of reference. Forexample, it would be unthinkable for so-meone living in the country to hope thatit wouldn't rain, just so they didn't haveto open their umbrella or get stuck in atraffic jam. This is simply because peo-ple living in urban areas have lost theconnection between the rain and agri-cultural production that is essential toour well-being.

– Fifthly, some scientific facts aboutenvironmental issues sometimes seemcontradictory in comparison to others.This is because there is often no experi-mental model to go by, and because weare looking at a hypothesis that has totake many possible variables into ac-count. Also, many of the alleged effectsare more long-term, and are thereforedifficult to measure accurately. We ha-ve heard people talking about the cli-matic changes, and how the averagetemperature of the planet is increasing,and the repercussions of this effect, thatwill for example cause the desertifica-tion of wide areas of southern Europe.Yet at the same time, we are presentedwith the hypothesis that the temperatureof Europe could decrease due to the pos-sible disappearance of marine currents

coming from tropical areas that heat thecontinent. These contradictions are ac-tually emphasised by many people whowant to discredit or minimise the envi-ronmental problem, and in this way sa-ve themselves from the profound chan-ges that are necessary in their lives toresolve the problem.

– Sixthly, when we hear people tal-king about environmental issues, sub-conscious mechanisms in our minds areactivated that have the express aim ofdefending our current way of life.Environmentalism calls our comforta-ble style of modern life into question.Why do we choose to go by car and notby public transport? Why do we wasteso much water on our hygiene? Why dowe need so many things in order to li-ve? Do we ever take a moment to noti-ce how little time we actually spendusing the products and gadgets we haveacquired? Environmentalism is therefo-re seen as a threat to our modern way oflife, in that it touches on the point of fu-tile consumerism, which we as citizensof richer countries are responsible for.In short, we have become too attachedto our way of life, this way of life thatenvironmentalism tells us can no longerbe sustained and cannot be enjoyed ona universal scale. This realisation is whywe don't want to know too many thingsabout the negative effects of our currentway of life...

8

Before answering this question, it isimportant to remember that these typesof social movements are incredibly di-verse. A simple glance at the internetwill make one aware of the huge num-ber of these movements that exist inCatalonia, Spain, Europe... Many socie-ties, of different types, some small (intheir number of members), and voicingdifferent concerns, some rooted in thepolitical domain of conservatism, othersbelonging to left-wing movements andsome even belonging to libertariangroups... So there is nothing remarkableabout the fact that such profound diffe-rences exist between them as to howthey should respond to environmentalissues.

In Catalonia for example, some arefirm believers in wind energy as beinga solution to the environmental degra-dation brought about by combustiblefossil fuels, and they therefore supportthe construction of wind farms.

Others that are more sensitive to thevisual impact of such stations and theirdetrimental effect on birds, are againstthe construction of these wind farms.These characteristics (so varied, andfrom a decentralised network), formpart of the intrinsic nature of environ-mental movements. According to thedefinition of the sociologist M. Castellsin his trilogy The information age, theyshare “...a collection of beliefs, plans,theories... that consider humanity as onecomponent of a wider eco-system, anddesire to maintain the balance of that

system from within a dynamic and evo-lutionist perspective”. The importanceof these movements, that often begin invery localised areas in response to con-crete problems, and that bring togetherpeople who are sensitive to ecologicalproblems, is their role as a mediator bet-ween the powerlessness of the citizenthat is concerned about the environ-ment, and the influence of both theMarket and political structures that areable to bring about changes.

These movements have the power tomobilise people at a local level, andthanks to their links with other groups,their influence has far-reaching poten-tial. They also remind us that as citizens,we can have more power than we imagi-ne in the face of politicians and the “godof the Common Market”, given that wehave the right to vote and also hold thepower to choose whether or not to buycertain products. This latter power hassometimes shown itself to be quite use-ful in response to the behaviour of cer-tain companies or public institutions. Inspite of this, environmental movementsdo not have much sway when it comesto supporting causes that are more re-mote, whether they are in the distant fu-ture, or at a distant location.

It is not the same to fight against thedraining of the River Ebro in Ampostaas it is to fight against the destruction ofthe ozone layer, or the deforestation ofChina, which has caused the great floo-ding that the country has seen in recentyears.

9

4. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS IMPORTANT?

1. The relationship betweenenvironmentalism and Science

Environmentalism has quite an am-biguous relationship with science andtechnology, in that on the one hand, cer-tain conservation groups emphasise thenegative effects of technology on the envi-ronment, while on the other hand, they alsodepend on much of the scientific evidenceand statistics that scientists can providein relation to the effect of that sametechnology on the atmosphere. Wecould even say, in a type of play onwords, that environmentalism usesscience to oppose many of the issuesthat science itself has brought about,concerning a basic respect for life.Conservation seeks a more holisticperspective on reality, and not the par-tial viewpoint that is offered by science,which only concerns itself with one as-pect of reality without taking everythinginto consideration.

2. Concerned with local issues,but interconnected

Conservation concerns itself with alot of local issues (a slogan of one of thefirst American environmental move-ments was “Not in my back yard”), butearly conservation movements soon be-gan to link to other similar movementsand create a network, in such a way thatthey became one of the first movementsto really take advantage of current worldglobalisation. From local problems,

they often went on to realise that theircause was greater than their immediateenvironment, and therefore sought mo-re global solutions. That is why somepeople say “environmentalists are lo-calists when it comes to defending theirspace and globalists when it comes tothe passage of time”.

3. The passing of time: looking atlong-term issues

Environmentalism talks about theconcept of a potential “ice age”. It in-troduces this future time into our con-cept of temporality, and thus forms alink between our life and the lives of ourchildren and of future generations. LashUrry defines this by saying: “The rela-tionship between humans and Nature isevolutionary and very much rooted inthe long-term. It looks back at our im-mediate human history and looks for-ward to a completely indefinable futu-re”2.

This concept in the field of moralthought was introduced by H. Jonaswhen he looked at the changing identityof our “neighbour”: formerly he wouldhave been the person that we could see,while now we have to think about ourneighbour as being part of a future ge-neration, someone we can't see, but whowill find themselves affected by our ac-tions in the here and now. One example:our generation, with its social and poli-tical power, will certainly be able to sur-

10

5. WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM?

2. URRY, L., Economies and signs of space, 1994.

vive the destruction of one or two fo-rests in the world, but will our childrenand grandchildren be able to survive it?This is why environmental problemsand also the appearance of genetic en-gineering have caused us to broaden ourtemporal perspective in relation to tho-se people whom we should respect.

4. The human species withinNature

Environmentalism is characterisedby integrating the human species withhis natural environment, instead of pla-cing him outside it, or suggesting he isabove it or not working in conjunctionwith it. It has also emphasised that animpoverished natural environment willultimately result in the impoverishmentof the human species, in such a way thatdefending the human species also beco-mes part of protecting the whole bios-phere. This characteristic was alreadypart of the lives of primitive peoples whoknew that their lives were dependent onmaintaining a good relationship withNature, and that this was why they hadto respect it. For this reason, environ-mentalism has listened to and taken onboard much of the wisdom of indige-nous peoples that enjoy a much betterrelationship with Nature than Westernsociety does.

5. Environmentalism andmass-media

Environmentalism has adapted verywell to our mass-media society, in sucha way that it has been able to make useof it to help people become aware of is-

sues on the other side of the world, aswell as using it to spread this knowled-ge as much as possible.

Environmental clashes that have beeninstigated by certain minority groupshave become more widely publicisedthanks to the internet and to the com-munication network that exists amongmajor environmental groups.

Some movements like Greenpeacehave used libertarian tactics, such asleading by example, in order to makepeople more aware of the issue. Forexample, who could forget the imagesof militants from this organisation boar-ding boats? At that time, it was incre-dibly important to organise some spec-tacular event so that it would be pickedup by the world's media and cause a hu-ge public reaction and a public debate.

We find something similar in theprophetic acts. The effect of these ac-tions would not have been possiblewithout the existence of a means ofcommunication by which their impactcould be broadened. In today's world,we deceive ourselves into thinking thatthe only things that make the news arethose items that contain somethingspectacular about them.

6. Is environmentalism a problemof the Justice system?

During the final years of the twen-tieth century, environmentalism becameinvolved with the problem of world jus-tice. It wasn't by mere coincidence thatminority groups and poorer countriesfound themselves most affected by en-vironmental problems. This is why so-me people prefer to talk about

11

Environmental Justice, a term that lea-ves the more aesthetic roots of the mo-vement to one side, that had been theoriginal aim of the environmental mo-vements of richer countries. Now peo-ple want to link the problem of wealthdistribution with the problem of envi-ronmental degradation, given that bothare found side by side in many coun-tries. Poor countries and minoritygroups are increasingly suffering fromthe degradation of their “habitats”. Thatis why Environmental Justice has fo-cussed on the issue of equality, and nowcombines a respect for people's diffe-rences with ecological concerns. Onboth counts it manages to overcome theold Marxist left-wing school of thoughtthat did concern itself with equality, butdidn't take cultural differences into ac-count or the ecological consequences ofindustrial growth. Since the famousBrundtland Report (1987) and up to theRio Conference (1992), the issue of thedevelopment of countries has becomeincreasingly linked with environmentalissues.

7. Two paradigms or culturesEnvironmentalism often talks about

the existence of two opposing culturesor paradigms in the modern world: theculture of industrialism and the cultureof ecology. These two cultures possessa very different prioritisation of values.The culture of industrialism would bedefined by the following elements: itwould regard Nature as a source of un-limited provisions, and consider the hu-man being as both master and exploiterof Nature. The culture of ecology would

be characterised by the fact that it viewsNature as a source of provisions, butwith a limited supply available, and re-gards human beings as both part ofNature and with the responsibility ofmanaging Nature, yet always in the con-text of respecting its cycles. The mainvalues of industrialism would be consu-merism, quantity, productivity, a short-term perspective, linear growth and ageneral optimism about the future. Thebasic values of environmentalism wouldbe a respect for Nature, quality, sustai-nability, a long-term perspective, an un-derstanding of limits, and the importan-ce of cycles.

8. Radical environmentalism andanthropocentric environmentalism

Within environmentalism there aretwo quite distinct extreme standpointsthat can be adopted: anthropocentric en-vironmentalism and radical or eco-cen-tric environmentalism. Anthropocentricenvironmentalism believes that youmust respect the atmosphere, as this isnecessary for human life to develop andalso ensures that all people on the planet canenjoy quality of life.

Eco-centric or radical environmen-talism focuses on Nature rather than onthe human species, and often looks atNature from the point of view ofWestern dualism: the subject (the hu-man being) and the object (Nature). Agood example of this view of Nature canbe found in certain Oriental traditions(Taoism, Buddhism), and in NativeAmerican traditions. From this point ofview, what is most important is life on

12

Earth in general, and not just the humanspecies.

9. A new ethical subject: futuregenerations

One of the characteristics of envi-ronmentalism, which we have alreadymentioned, but which needs to be em-phasised, is its concern for long-termconsequences and for future genera-tions. We need to secure quality humanlife for our future, given that our currentway of life could greatly harm the ge-nerations that follow us. This school ofthought is in direct conflict with the no-tion that prevails in the modern world,in which the present moment is the mostimportant: carpe diem, let each genera-tion of people sort out their own pro-blems... In the world of business, every-thing tends to function from within ashort-term perspective, and the politicalworld is also ruled by the idea that short-term plans will gain more votes than theproposal of long-term measures thatcould be regarded as unpopular. This iswhy environmentalism talks about“sustainability” in relation to the issueof development. Sustainable develop-ment, according to the words of the fa-mous Brundtland Report of 1987, is so-mething “...that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the abi-lity of future generations to meet theirown needs”.

10. A movement helped by historyOne of the advantages of environ-

mentalism is that it is a movement thatis helped by the course of history. It is

becoming clearer every day that themodel of development of the existingglobal economic system is unsustaina-ble, particularly if all countries, not justthe rich ones, were to become consu-mers of primary materials and fossilfuels, as current hypotheses suggest.But the need for each country to achie-ve greater development cannot be de-nied. In every publication that is in fa-vour of adopting eco-friendly measures,we always come across examples thatillustrate this.

For example: Japan currently consu-mes 10 million tonnes of fish and sea-food. If China (that is ten times more po-pulated than Japan) were to consumethe same amount, which would be 100million tonnes, that would be the equi-valent of the current world total for fishcatches per annum. If the number of carowners in China were equal to that ofthe USA, China would need to consu-me 80 million barrels of fuel /day, andcompare this to the present global pro-duction which is around 75 million ba-rrels/day. The consumption of paper inChina is currently at 35 kg/person/day,and in the USA it stands at 342 kg/per-son/day.

Another very graphic way of explai-ning the non-sustainability of thesystem in which we find ourselves, isthrough the so-called ecological foot-print. This is obtained by: “convertingthe consumption of all types of materi-al resources into the area that would beneeded to produce them, and convertingthe corresponding emissions of wasteand pollution, into the area that wouldbe needed to absorb them. Then, the to-tal of these two areas that is measured

13

according to different people's levelsand rates of consumption, can be com-pared with the environmental space cu-rrently available on the Earth to supportthem”.

So for example, the ecological foot-print of the citizens of Barcelona was3.25 hectares/person. If the whole ofhumanity needed a similar ecologicalfootprint we would basically need twoplanet Earths3. The ecological foot-prints vary greatly for different regions,according to the report Living Planet2002. It's particularly interesting to lookat the significant difference that existsbetween the Western European ecologi-cal footprint (which is around 5 globalHectares/person) and the NorthAmerican one, (which is around 10 glo-bal Hectares/person), the latter beingmuch higher. That is why some coun-tries with a similar way of life, accordingto classic economic parameters, can ha-ve much more sustainable models thanothers. In regions such as Latin Americaonly 2 hectares per person is needed andin the whole of Africa, only 1.7.

11. Biodiversity and its threatsEnvironmentalism believes in the

value of biodiversity, and for this reasonsupports any measures taken to preser-ve it, whenever it finds itself threatenedby humanity. Using a few examples, wewill firstly see the reason why biodiver-sity has decreased in recent years, andwhy we see so many species threatenedwith extinction or species that have al-

ready disappeared in large areas of theplanet. Secondly, we will look at the va-lue of biodiversity.

A. At the moment we are seeingsigns of biological tension: a decrease infish stocks, the extinction of certain spe-cies, the deterioration of pastures, soilerosion, a deforestation of the entireplanet... According to the Living PlanetIndex of 2002, from 1970 onwards the-re has been a 15% decrease in planetaryspecies, a 35% decrease in sea speciesand a 54% decrease in freshwater spe-cies. At the start of the twentieth cen-tury, the total forest area of the planetwas 5000 million Hectares, and by theyear 2000, it was only at 2900 millionHectares. This decrease brings with itmajor economic consequences: an in-crease in flooding, and an increase in therate at which sea levels are receding.And remember that 54% of the woodthat is cut down in the world is used forcooking and heating purposes. (Around2000 million people still cook using woodfires).

In many places, the erosion of pas-tureland has already had dramatic ef-fects and caused a significant decreasein farming production. In Africa, ear-ning potential has gone down by sevenbillion dollars, in North America it hasdecreased by 2.9 billion dollars, inSouth America by 2.1, in Asia by 8, inAustralia by 2.5, and in Europe by 0.64.Looking at this evidence it is clear thatthe economic repercussions are huge,particularly in poorer countries.

14

3. RALEA, F. - PRAT, A., La petjada ecològica de Barcelona, Ajuntament de Barcelona, 1998.4. BROWN, L., Ecoeconomia, Centre UNESCO, Barcelona, pàg. 63.

In some areas it has resulted in a lackof vital food, which has caused the po-pulation to enter into a vicious circle ofpoverty (more illnesses relating to mal-nutrition, as well as a decrease in edu-cation...).

B. So, is biodiversity good? Since li-fe began, species have become extinct,while others have evolved, and yet the-re have been no major consequences forthe biosphere ... Nevertheless, recentlythe reason behind the depletion of ani-mal species and the increase in speciesin danger of extinction has been the hu-man race. I don't know if this humancause is comparable to the natural chan-ges that have taken place with evolu-tion, as human beings are now yet ano-ther species that have become highlypredatory in biological terms.

One of the values of biodiversity isthe fact that it preserves the survival oflife and allows certain varieties to sur-vive in the face of sudden climatic chan-ges (for example, changes of tempera-ture, droughts...). A wide genetic poolalso increases the chance of survival fora species in the face of external changes.That is why we see a greater use of ge-netically modified products in agricul-ture. We use wheat, rice, and maize...that have adapted in a natural way to se-veral different habitats, surviving at gre-at heights, like on the high Bolivian pla-teau (at 5000 m), or in very humidplaces, or very dry places... In the faceof the many uncertainties that lie aheadfor planet Earth, it would be good to keepas much biodiversity as possible, as this iswhat can help us survive in the future.

15

6. ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE NEED FOR GLOBAL ETHICS

Often, environmental problems gobeyond the borders of a country, and de-mand global solutions– not just solu-tions linked to a certain area or country.Many proposals for global ethics (alsoknown as, minimal, civil or planetaryethics) focus some of their aims on va-lues connected to ecological issues. Intoday's globalised world, they acknow-ledge the futility of localised or territo-rial legislation, as many of the problemsgo beyond the artificial frontiers that ex-ist between countries. This is seen in thefact that many companies move to a dif-ferent location in an attempt to flee fromlegislations on ecological issues in their

own countries that they regard as beingtoo strict, and they look for countrieswith more relaxed laws. Worldwide le-gislation is necessary on these issues,and sanctions need to be imposed if the-se legislations are not followed. Thereare many countries (including some wi-thin the EU) that have started to intro-duce laws on ecology, but they oftenlack the means to enforce the legisla-tion, or the sanctions may be so insigni-ficant that some industries just prefer topay the fines. On a global scale, therehave been many conferences that havetried to set up international agreementsand made declarations with the best of

intentions, but countries did not subse-quently include these measures in theirlegislative practices. One of the mostsignificant of these was the RioConference, in 1992. Among all theseinternational agreements, we can citeone such contract that up to now has beenone of the few small successes in rela-tion to the environment, and that was theMontreal Agreement of 1987. It succe-eded in putting into practice a reductionof the emission of chlorofluorocarbonsby around 70% between 1987 and 2000.The other side of the coin has been thelesser success of the Kyoto Protocol(1997) that was aimed at reducing theemission of greenhouse gases (globalwarming). This agreement was fraught

with difficulties, as developing coun-tries felt they were being victimisedcompared with more industrialisedcountries. For environmentalists, theagreement was not significant enough,because the reductions agreed uponwould be very easily compensated forby the intervening growth and develop-ment of new economies, particularlythose in China and India. Furthermore,some of the countries that contributemost to the emission of greenhouse ga-ses did not sign the agreement, as in thecase of the USA. Nevertheless, we stillneed more global agreements on thesubject of the environment, and aboveall, the political determination to trans-late these agreements into law.

16

7. THE DILEMMA: SHOULD WE CHANGE THE PARADIGM OR DO NOTHING?

The attitude of some people could beviewed as a lack of solidarity with futu-re generations, because either they don'ttake the problem seriously enough orpostpone its solution. We don't know ifthe scientists of the future will be ableto repair the damage done or if planetEarth, as certain theories suggest, (suchas the Gaia Theory), will respond to theaggression of the human race in its ownway, and treat the human species as if itwere a malign tumour growing out ofcontrol. In this instance, the Earth couldeliminate the human species entirely ordecrease its population through epide-mics and catastrophes... Some moreapocalyptical theories, believe that thisis what is happening at the moment, and

that the victims are the world's poorestcountries. The AIDS pandemic in Africais starting to take on apocalyptic pro-portions. There could be many more hu-man lives at risk if the ecological pro-blem is not tackled, and it will notalways be those with the most financialmeans who will be saved, but possiblythose who are more genetically power-ful. For example, certain scientists sug-gest that the white race, due to its lackof melanin, will ultimately disappear ifthere is a considerable increase in ultra-violet rays, due to the destruction of theozone layer.

I would share the conviction that inorder to tackle environmental issues wecannot hope for a sudden change in the

mentality of people, but we must makethese people more aware, and thus cre-ate the foundations for setting up globalagreements on ecological issues. Wemust also apply measures directed notonly at solving the “end-of-the-pipeli-ne” issue, but at creating a favourableclimate for making the transition to-wards an economy that is more respect-ful towards the environment. The diffi-culty is that this new economy we createmust have a global relevance, and somust not just deal with environmentalissues but also be capable of dealingwith the issue of poverty, or in otherwords, the issue of global inequality. Ifpeople believe that an environmental eco-nomy can be created for rich countries on-ly, I don't know how these countrieswould be isolated from the common en-vironment of planet Earth that we allshare. Or maybe they're planning on theemigration of a chosen few to a newplanet? In order to make the transitiontowards this new economy, progress ne-eds to be made on many fronts:

Firstly, ethical agreements need tobe made that can be translated into le-gislative measures.

Secondly, the work of educating pe-ople about environmental issues and theproblem of inequality that was alreadystarted some time ago in primary andsecondary schools needs to be continued.

What could possibly help this trans-formation as well as its accelerationwould be certain historical facts thatcould serve as catalysts. One cannotdeny that in the history of humanity so-me great ethical declarations arose outof catastrophes or extreme situations,for example, the Declaration of HumanRights made by the UN in 1948, afterWorld War Two, or the NurembergCode on human experimentation... Wedon't want to predict or wish for envi-ronmental disasters, but these will takeplace and are taking place now, and theyare sometimes the only way to make au-thorities react. We can find one exampleof this in China, where following the in-discriminate destruction of great forestsin the Yangtze basin that caused the lossof 85% of its trees, huge flooding wascaused that claimed the lives of thou-sands. Following this disaster, the au-thorities began to focus on ecologicalreforestation measures.

17

If someone wants to examine this as-pect further, it is explored in LeonardoBoff's book (Ecology: Cry of the Earth,Cry of the Poor) and Ian Bradley's bo-ok (God is green), which was the mainsource and inspiration for Boff's book.They could also read the novel byGermán Ubillos, Climatic Change,which explains the scientific aspects ofthe environmental problem in narrativeform. I won't be focussing on any of the-se points. However, as a preface to mytheological reflection I will emphasisewhy ecology has made us as humans in-to such a serious problem today.

The fact that man has impoverishedthe Earth is nothing new, in fact this hasalways been the case. Almost one hun-dred and fifty years ago, Tolstoy wrote

at the very start of his novelResurrection:

“Man, whether subconsciously orthrough his own self-centredness, hassystematically mutilated the Earth sinceits creation; he has disfigured thecountryside by cutting down trees; hehas burnt fields and turned what used tobe meadows into deserts; he has poi-soned the atmosphere, filling the airwith smoke and gas, he has poisoned therivers and seas with lethal waste, he hasmade animal species extinct, species thatused to run free in the forests or soar highabove the Earth, in short, he has usedscience to sterilise his soul and erasefrom it the imprint of God”.

These words, which seem to apply totoday, are more than a century old. But

18

"MY WORLD, YOU ARE BEING CHANGED" (ATAHUALPA YUPANKI)

“In order to keep the biosphere inhabitable for another 2000 years, we and our descen-dants need to forget the example of Pietro Bernardone, a great textile businessman of the

thirteenth century, and his material wealth, and instead begin to follow the model of Francishis son, the greatest man to have ever lived in the Western world... The example of Saint

Francis is one that we as westerners should wholeheartedly follow, because he is the onlyWesterner… who can save the Earth” (A. Toynbee) 5

Showing me statistics or describing the current state of environmentalproblems doesn't really bring the issue home to me; this idea was some-what looked at in the previous chapter. However, I do want to begin bysaying that this is a very serious problem, and that the threat of the des-truction of the ecosystem by man is not some fantastical tale. Planet Earthis seriously ill and in refusing to acknowledge or become more aware of theproblem, we can never cure it.

5. Quoted by L. BOFF on p.271 of the work that we mention in the text, and in reference to the daily news-paper ABC, 19th December 1972, pàg. 10-11.

there is a fundamental difference betweenour time and that of Tolstoy: the Russiannovelist, in spite of his accusations, wasconvinced that Nature was stronger thanman and would be able to repair the da-mage that had been done itself. What isnew in today's thinking, is the realisationthat Nature is not capable of repairing it-self, at least, not at the same rhythm thathuman life needs it to, and so it is gra-dually being destroyed (or is taking itsrevenge, interpret it as you will) in thewake of so many attacks. This realisa-tion has been brought about by studiessuch as that of the “World WildlifeFund”, that tells us that at the present ti-me, humanity is consuming around 20%more natural resources than the Earth isable to regenerate. It also tells us that by

around 2050 this rate will be at over80%. This is at the heart of today's envi-ronmental problems.

The theological reflection on this is-sue should begin by answering one im-portant accusation. There are many pe-ople who believe the ecological dramawe are currently experiencing has beencaused by the notion of progress held byWestern Christianity, and therefore bla-me this global calamity on Judeo-Christianity, focussing their accusationmore specifically on the Biblical orderfrom God to man to “subdue” the Earth.We will start by analysing this com-mand and looking for a more holistic vi-sion of the relationship between manand the Earth as seen through Biblicaltradition.

19

1. BIBLICAL INFORMATION

1. The issue of Genesis 1The phrase of Genesis 1:28 usually

translates as: “Be fruitful and multiply,fill the Earth and subdue it”. TheHebrew verb kabash means to set footon, and has the same ambiguity inHebrew as it does in English: it couldmean to populate or inhabit, and it couldalso mean to tread on, or to dominate ina humiliating6 way. We're now going tolook at both meanings.

a. Firstly, if to dominate the Earthsimply means to inhabit it, then this se-

ems to allude to the previous verb used:to fill the Earth. This translation wouldseem to be confirmed by a phrase fromDeutero-Isaiah (another Biblical authorlinked to Genesis 1 by his teachings oncreation): “(He) who created the hea-vens, who formed the Earth, did not cre-ate it a chaos: he formed it to be inhabi-ted” (Is 45:18). In Genesis this teachingalso includes an acknowledgement thatparts of the Earth are not always habita-ble7 or that God, on giving the Earth toman, leaves a certain area of indecision,so that man can decide himself on how

6. I refer to my anthropology Proyecto de hermano. Visión creyente del hombre, pgs.72-74 in which I com-ment on the duality of various Biblical expressions, such as: progress, work, alliance, and dominion.

7. On the high Andean plateau, for example, people understand the necessity of making an inhospitableplace habitable.

he wants to inhabit it. However, man haschosen a way of inhabiting the Earth thatgoes against the Earth and ultimatelyagainst man himself. Maybe this is howwe should understand God's instructionson not eating from the tree that revealsthe difference between Good and Evil.

b. So we move on to the second pos-sible translation of kabash. This secondinterpretation would justify the accusa-tions laid against Judeo-Christianity.But in order to understand the Hebrewverb in this way, it would need to be ta-ken completely out of context, and iso-lated not only from the command to in-habit the Earth but also from the wholeof the second chapter of Genesis, whichis written by a different author, andwhich is much more optimistic in rela-tion to the Earth. Genesis 2 does not talkabout the Earth in general, but ratherabout the Garden of Eden: its authorwrites that God put man in His gardennot to dominate it, but to “watch over itand cultivate it”. Its language is muchgentler than that of Genesis 1; but thisis because the author of the first chapterdid not view the whole Earth as beingthis paradise or Garden of Eden. Man'smission would therefore be to respectand cultivate the areas of the Earth thatare fit for human habitation, and makeinhabitable those areas that aren't.

It seems then that we should gowith the first meaning, and that the me-aning of the Hebrew kabash would beeffectively expressed in the words ofthe love song by Raimon: “treballaréel teu cos, como treballa la terra el

llauraor del meu poble: amb amor iforça... i obrirem junts el camí que lavida ens tanca desesperansadament:ens farem, serem junts”...8

In conclusion: if one sector ofWestern civilisation understood Gene-sis by its second translation, that is thefault of the West and not of the Bible: infact, Eastern Christianity never unders-tood it in this way. And this message isdoubly reinforced if we do not take thisverse of Genesis as an isolated piece,but rather allow it to be considered inthe context of the whole message of theBible in relation to the Earth. So let's ha-ve a look at what this context is.

2. The mentality of the OldTestament

The interpretation given to the ex-pression “subdue the Earth” is con-firmed by the Old Testament view onthis matter: the Earth does not belong toman, but to God: “The Earth and all itsfullness is the Lord's”. Human beingswere not given the Earth but are res-ponsible for it in the eyes of its Creatorand owner. This is why the practice ofresting the Earth every seven years ca-me into being – this goes against our in-tensive cultivation of the planet that isdraining its resources: “the land shallnot be sold in perpetuity, for the land ismine, for you are strangers and sojour-ners with me” (Lev 25:23).

So Earth does not belong to man; heis responsible for it before God. He re-ceived it like a gift (“the Heavens be-

20

8. “I will tend to your body as the labourer tends to the Earth of my people: with love and strength. Andtogether we will open the pathway that life in its despair closes to us. We will both make it, we will betogether”.

long to the Lord, Earth was given toman”: Psalm 113), a gift that in someway could be seen like the evangelicalparable of the talents. This comparisonwould only work up to a certain pointhowever, as in the case of the Earth weare talking about a gift that “was made forus”: Earth is the planet with the highestconcentration of Oxygen and Nitrogen,and the least amount of Carbon Dioxide(there is a huge difference between thisand other planets); and it holds almostthe same proportion of water as the hu-man being does. It really is a gift, and itwould be fitting to apply the phrase ofthe old matrimonial liturgy to it: “I giveyou a companion, not a servant”.

In contrast to this obsession with“impoverishing the Earth”, one of thegreat friends of the Earth, and a prede-cessor of modern day environmentalistswas the prophet Teilhard de Chardin,who in his Hymn to Matter, desires “toembrace the universe in perfect chas-tity.” Today the problem lies in the factthat everything that seems to be pure oruncorrupted is ridiculed. From the pointof view that we have “outlined” here inregards to progress, the concept of trea-ting God's gifts with respect just doesn'tseem to fit. This idea is also present inthe Old Testament narrative about themanna in the desert.

The narrative in which God gave theland of Canaan to His people is like aparable of Him giving the planet to hu-manity, and with the same aim in mind.If man takes on this gift, he will be ma-de unique, but he will also be made in-significant. In the awe-inspiring im-mensity of the universe, one smallplanet that he destroys will be a varia-

tion that will hardly be noticed. For thisreason man should be aware both of hisimportance and of his insignificance, inorder to learn how to treat the Earth.This is what I see expressed in Psalm 8,which has also been used in reference tothe theme of ecology. The Psalm is asong to man's greatness. “Thou hast gi-ven him dominion over the works of thyhands” etc. But this is an importance thatinspires gratitude from the perspectiveof man's insignificance: “what is manthat thou art mindful of him?” What itseems to tell me is that if we eliminateGod, all the elements of human duality(greatness - insignificance, etc), becomereduced into one single element. And inthat case, we are heading for disaster.

From these reflections on the Old Tes-tament we can reach a few conclusions:

a) Biblical mentality should not beblamed for environmental problems,but rather we should blame modern in-dividualism and the Roman idea thatviewed property as “ius utendi et abu-tendi” (the right to use and abuse).

b) The part that Judeo-Christianityhas to play in this thus becomes reducedto a certain disenchantment of theworld: in Biblical mentality there are nosuch things as sacred stars or “sacredcows”; what is sacred is human life, andin the famous words of Jesus, the sacred(the Sabbath) “was made for man”. SoI will not talk about recovering the “sa-cred” character of the Earth, as L. Boffdoes, but I will talk about recoveringrespect for everything that I am not, aswell as accepting my own limits. Andhere is, in short, the way that humanitycan progress on the Earth, as well as theBiblical affirmation that man has

21

abused this possibility. But we shouldnot look for the solution in some newway of making the Earth sacred, but ins-tead by being aware of the fact that theEarth is a gift that was given to man.And perhaps we should also realise that,if the view that God as a giver of life islost, we will be heading for the self-di-vinisation of man. In our material pro-gress and our technological dominionover Nature, this could all change frombeing seen as our obedience to a divinebeing, to being seen as the result of thedecision and will of man.

We can also detect a certain “sancti-fication” of earthly matter, not so muchin the Old Testament, but in the NewTestament and through Christology.Let's have a look at this now.

3. The universe in the NewTestament

Up to now we have spoken of theEarth as being a creation of God. But inaddition to this, through the Incarnationof the divine “Word”, all creation and allmatter became sanctified, and are calledto participate in the divine destiny of hu-manity. The corporal resurrection ofJesus and the importance of the Eucharistplay an important role here. Let's say afew words on each of these matters.

1. The Resurrection of Christ is be-hind many reflections in the NewTestament: creation shares the destinyof humanity (Rom 8:19) and the uni-verse in its totality has become sancti-fied through Christ (Ephesians andColossians). Jesus Christ is head “of thistotality” (ta panta), and not just head ofthe human species. “His will…” (Eph.

1:10) and “in Him all things hold toge-ther” (Col 1:17)...

This teaching, which raises manyquestions if you consider the possibilityof other inhabited worlds, is now a gua-rantee of the inviolability of our planet.It also gives meaning in another way tothe Gospel of Matthew: 25: what youdid to creation you did to me, becausecreation is also waiting for “the revela-tion of the sons of God” and is now“subjected to futility, not of its own willbut by the will of him who subjected it”,although it cannot be greater than thehuman being (Rom 8:19ff).

2. This also affects the symbolism ofthe Eucharist, in relation to the signifi-cance of the bread and wine, which isnow not just a sacrament of human com-munion with God. It is also a divinisa-tion of matter, which is what Teilhardsang about in his famous Mass on theWorld: all matter is destined to becometransubstantiated into the body of Christ.

Among all these texts, the letter tothe Ephesians was most influential inearly theology: “to unite all things inhim, things in heaven and things onearth”. Saint Irenaeus, who developedthis concept in the second century, speaksof recapitulating “in” Christ or “towards”Christ. So we are talking about a dynamicconcept that must be thought of in an evo-lutionary way. Teilhard de Chardin, whohas great similarities with Saint Irenaeus(although he probably wasn't aware ofhim), focussed on this dynamic characterwith his characterisation of Christ as the“omega” of all evolution.

From this perspective, we can thenassume a certain Christological dignityof the Earth that should influence man's

22

relationship with the planet. It is not justa question of what we might imagineabout the future, because what we call“Heaven” is not just Heaven, but rather“the new Heaven and the new Earth”.This can also be applied to the presentday: although man is master of theEarth, he should not see it from theRoman point of view of owning pro-perty which we already mentioned.

3. Although it doesn't specificallymention the Earth, the Johannine wri-tings also provide the elements that L.Boff sees as necessary in relation to en-vironmental issues, that is “a change ofparadigm”. Later on we will look at thedefinition of God as Life in relation tothis point, rather than God being seen asa distinct Being. I would like to point outhere that the writings of the fourth evan-gelist were born into a world that was lin-

ked to the idea of “gnosis”. In John's Gos-pel, terms such as knowledge and truthabound; but for its author, the true gno-sis is love. And he demonstrates that thislove extends to matter (“flesh”) when hetalks of the antichrist as being the personthat claims that the Saviour did not cometo Earth “in the flesh” (1Jn 4:2). Scienceshould not forget this. And neither shouldtheology as Jon Sobrino reminds uswhen he talks about “intellectus amoris”alongside the classical definition of the-ology as “intellectus fidei”. So Boff is co-rrect when he says that the ecological is-sue requires “a change of paradigm” aswell as a change of attitude from oursel-ves. What should be discussed is whetherthis change requires us to abandon so-ca-lled “anthropocentrism”.

This is what we will examine in thefollowing section.

23

2. ISSUES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

1. Anthropocentrism and a changeof paradigm

In my opinion, the great difficulty wehave with this issue is that we live in aculture that encourages immediate satis-faction and memory loss. And environ-mental problems are all long-term is-sues. On another issue, if we don't showthat much solidarity with people today,how are we going to show it towards thepeople of tomorrow? In this case, so-ca-lled postmodernism has played a nega-tive role, because although it claims tohave abolished all these “great fables”,it has managed to keep one of them in-tact: that of technical progress. Since

science and technology have been madesacred in this way (and I underline thispoint: not only supported and applau-ded, but sanctified), it seems that every-thing else has become subservient to it,and that this alone is capable of solvingall our problems. As if it were God.

On the other hand, and going againstwhat Leonardo states, I don't believethat the change of paradigm necessarilymeans we have to abandon anthropo-centrism in order to establish an equalrelationship between man and Nature.In the previous section, J. Carrera alsospoke about a change of paradigm, butwithout denying the need for anthropo-

centrism. And Boff himself, after dis-missing the validity of anthropocen-trism, accepts the scientific school ofthought on “the anthropic principle”.But is this not just another form of an-thropocentrism?

The fact is that according to scien-ce, evolution seems to have been “pro-grammed” in order to make man's exis-tence possible at the end of theevolutionary process. In Genesis too,the creation of man takes place on thelast day and is narrated with a particu-lar solemnity: of all the creatures, thehuman being is the only one to be ma-de in God's image.

Denying the validity of anthropo-centrism simply because man hasabused it, seems to me as if it would bedenying the image of God in humanbeings, because man wanted to “be likeGod” (Gen 3:5).

1. A clarification of the ideasBefore we agree or disagree with

this idea, it's important to have a look atwhat we mean by anthropocentrism. I'mgoing to focus on the following defini-tion given by Boff:

“What does anthropocentrism mean?It means that everything, in 15000 millionyears of history, has its reason for beingonly because of the human race, men andwomen. For this reason, everything cul-minates in humanity. Nothing holds anyintrinsic value; nothing possesses alterityor meaning without it.

“All life is therefore at its disposal sothat man can fulfil his desires and plans.They are his property and belong to hisdominion. He feels above everything and

not alongside or with everything. He ima-gines himself as an isolated and unique ra-ce, separate from Nature, as well as abo-ve Nature. His arrogance means he doesn'tneed to respect the planet.

“Yet he forgets that the universe andthe Earth are not of his making or of hiswill. He was not present at its birth andneither did he define the course of time.He did not create the primordial energiesthat played a role in the evolutionary pro-cess and that are at work in his own hu-man nature, a nature that is only one sin-gle part of the universal nature” (L. Boff,Op. cit.,. 93-94).

I have structured the quotation intothree paragraphs in order to make it cle-ar that unlike Leonardo, I do acceptwhat is said in the first paragraph, andin this sense, I support anthropocen-trism. However, I do not support thedefinition of anthropocentrism in thesecond paragraph and so would com-pletely agree with Boff on this point.But it doesn't seem to me that what issaid in the second paragraph should ne-cessarily follow on from what is said inthe first paragraph. And I think that thisis clarified in the third paragraph that Iwould again agree with; I do think thathis point of view does not necessarilyimply a total negation of all forms ofanthropocentrism, but rather that weshould be making a distinction betweentwo ways of accepting the centrality ofhumanity in God's creation: the firstway is Promethean anthropocentrismthat thinks it is self-made and ignoreseverything that is so rightly pointed outin the third paragraph. The second wayis received anthropocentrism, that is fre-ely given, and similar to the relationship

24

we were looking at earlier where manviews the Earth as a “gift”, a relations-hip that does not imply man's self-affir-mation but rather man's responsibility.There are two observations linked tothis:

a) The rejection of anthropocentrismis valid in relation to God, but not in re-lation to Nature. I believe that we cansee the differences between the anthro-pocentrism that belongs to WesternModernity and the Biblical form ofanthropocentrism here. Biblical anthro-pocentrism is radically centred inChrist, and in this sense, man is not en-tirely dominant, God is. While our mo-dern form of anthropocentrism is groun-ded in a desire to have absolute power,it degenerates into a form of anthropo-solipsism or individuocentrism. Its un-derlying principle is not a global formof thought, but rather an individualistway of thinking that feels threatened byany need for the consideration of others,and desperately needs to be replaced bywhat certain schools of thought, thatsupport an economy based on solidarity,would call the “we rationality”.

One could describe this individualistform of anthropocentrism in the sameway as Karl Marx described the bour-geoisie in his Manifest of theCommunist Party: on the one hand, weare overwhelmed by humanity's im-pressive successes (“ (he) has createdmore massive and more colossal pro-ductive forces than have all precedinggenerations together”); and on the otherhand we are hurt and shaken when werealise the human price of this success(“it has drowned the most heavenly ecs-tasies of religious fervour in the icy wa-

ter of egotistical calculation. In the pla-ce of the numberless indefeasible char-tered freedoms it has set up that singleuntouchable freedom - Free Trade.”).

Now let's compare Boff's definitionthat we have just analysed with a phrasefrom the Spiritual Exercises of SaintIgnatius: “the other things on the face ofthe earth were created for man's sakeand to help him in the following out ofthe end for which he was created”. Herewe encounter a very sharp understan-ding of anthropocentrism, which fits inwith the birth of what we know asModernity. And yet he is talking aboutan “obedient” form of anthropocentrismthat is far removed from the definitionoffered by Boff. The problem is thatman does not want to be obedient to-wards anyone, not even towards thevery Source of his being, the source ofLife and the ultimate objective of hu-manity. So Saint Ignatius' form of an-thropocentrism therefore becomes theanthropocentrism described by L. Boff.

b). Another observation. ThePromethean form of anthropocentrismthat we rejected earlier should actually becalled “androcentrism”: as we alreadyknow, the Greek word anthrôpos (man)is an inclusive word that signifies bothmale (aner, whose genitive is andros) andwoman (gynê). True anthropocentrismshould therefore not exclude others, butinstead welcome alterity. And yet this isnot what has characterised man's rela-tionship with the Earth. For this reason,I believe that man's relationship with theEarth should be compared with what wewould call in sexual terms, a rape. Let'slook at this further:

25

A woman's body offers “beauty, vul-nerability and fertility” (ElizabethJohnson). On the first point we are talkingabout a desire for possession. The thirdpoint suggests an inferiority of the male,as although he is necessary to create life,he is incapable of bringing life into theworld himself. The second point is whe-re the male asserts his superiority throughphysical force and comes from his desireto reconcile the two points previouslymentioned. Rape is therefore an act ofpossession and humiliation, and demons-trates a profound lack of respect. And thisis exactly how man has treated Nature.

2. Some consequencesWhat I referred to as “obedient

anthropocentrism” in religious terms, orwhat I could describe in more secularterms as a form of anthropocentrismthat does not exclude others and embra-ces alterity, has a series of very clear-cutconsequences. Looking back at this the-me of man being made in God's image,the superior dignity of the human beingis found in the fact that (although he ispart of Nature, and is “made of theEarth” = Adam) the law of “survival ofthe fittest” that predominates in Naturedoes not apply to him as much, or inother words: the Darwinist principlethat requires human sacrifices. As re-gards human beings, we are looking atthe very image of God and this cannottherefore be sacrificed (although hu-mans will sometimes sacrifice themsel-ves through deep service and love).

This helps us to understand anotherpoint on which Boff was correct, and itis perhaps the most important point ofthe whole issue: the environmental pro-

blems regarding our preservation of theEarth, cannot be separated from the is-sue of justice or the satisfaction of itsvictims. “Cry of the Earth, cry of the po-or” is a perfect summary of the problem(which I would actually put the otherway around). Saint Francis of Assisi isthe patron saint of environmentalistsand everyone quotes his words on thisissue. But as I. Bradley rightly pointsout, Francis only learnt to call the sun,moon, waters and the Earth his brothersafter he had learnt to call the lepers hisbrothers. The World Council ofChurches was very expressive on thispoint, and from one of its first declara-tions (made around the 1970s) develo-ped what was to become a central mo-tivation for action: “Justice, Peace andthe Integrity of Creation”.

And this also brings us to realise thatin the human species there is no greatdesire to save the planet, just as there isno huge desire to bring about justice andeliminate poverty. In both cases we de-ceive ourselves with gentle slogans: wetalk about “creating wealth” in order toend poverty and we forget somethingwe know only too well: that our econo-mic system is only capable of creatingwealth in a concentrated area, and notdistributing it evenly. In the same way,we use the slogan “sustainable deve-lopment”, confusing growth with develop-ment. But sustainable development hasnothing to do with slowing down our ra-te of economic growth: the so-called NetPhotosynthetic Product outlines the li-mits of the amount of energy the Earth iscapable of providing; and our rate ofgrowth very much surpasses these limits.

26

Nevertheless we take refuge underthe slogan of sustainable developmentin order to continue this growth withoutstopping. We forget that rich countriesneed to slow down, because if everyo-ne grew at the same rate as them, theplanet would simply be ruined. And yetthis doesn't matter to us. Or rather: wecontinue to be part of a system that caus-es us to ignore these issues, becausewhat we perceive to be a threat (whichisn't always the case, as in the instanceof our need to slow down our rate ofgrowth), causes us to react against it,with no regard for other people or byconsidering them as the collateral da-mage which is inevitable according tothe rule of “every man for himself”.Consider the examples of the USA,England and Thailand – they continuedto export contaminated blood, meat fromcows suffering from BSE and chickenswith “bird flu”, just so they could avoideconomic loss. However, this is notanthropocentrism but rather individuo-centrism or more accurately, “Pluto-cen-trism”: the centre of creation is not the hu-man being, but rather money, the classicidol that requires human sacrifices.

3. In summary: Adopting a change of paradigm se-

ems to imply the need to abandon thenotion of progress, more specificallyunderstood in this situation as technolo-gical progress. Our desire to producemore, in order to avoid sharing what we

have (and forgetting the fact that eco-nomy is the science of scarcity), hasmeant that richer people have exhaustedthe Earth's resources. They have not gi-ven the planet a chance to recuperate,and have abused it with pesticides andfertilisers, creating problems for whichwe cannot yet provide clear answers,such as the issue of genetically modifiedfoods9, as well as continuing to exportproducts that we know are harmful tous. This leads us to solve the crisis usingonly temporary measures, instead of at-tacking its very causes. It also makes uswonder if the theologian of the sixteenthcentury was actually right when hewanted to classify original sin as the ex-ploitation and seizure of the Earth. Ourenvironment and the struggle for justi-ce are therefore inseparable. And themajor difficulty of this fact pivots on thenotion that taking the necessary actionwould require sacrifices from us withnothing in return. This would be a gooddeed with no possibility of reward, be-cause the catastrophe we are trying toavoid would not affect us, but wouldinstead affect future generations.Unfortunately this sense of goodwill doesnot form part of the current pattern of de-velopment that the planet has adopted.

2. AIDS and the environmentOne concrete example of this preda-

tory mentality we possess and this patternof behaviour that we need to change can

27

9. The voice of Science can sometimes seem like the unequivocal truth, and is strengthened by the fact thatit has the possibility of becoming a universalised opinion. But the problem also lies in the fact thatscientists are individual people. In the case of genetically modified foods, one can read arguments bothfor and against, depending on the interests of the person who is arguing the case. And this example isnot unique. We are not capable of recognising that there is still no clear scientific stance on the posi-tion, and that the environmental risk genuinely exists.

be found in the AIDS pandemic to whichJ. Carrera also referred. To my understan-ding, this is a real environmental problem.

This modern conception of sexualityas a mere object of consumerism , leadsto a mentality of wanting this object asmuch as possible, and with no law toguide people other than their desire.When one reads the descriptions ofDominique Lapierre's famous book onAIDS (Greater Than Love), we see thatthese damaging attitudes can lead tosuch a serious decay, that the law ofcause and effect in relation to Nature nolonger functions in a linear way.

We have another example of this at-titude taken from a personal letter, inwhich the protagonist looks back overtheir past on finding themselves facingissues of sexuality in relation to theirown children in the present: “you alre-ady know about how liberal we used tobe in our day, and although I might ha-ve slept with so many people to thepoint that I can't put a name or even aface to some of them, when you look atit from a mother's point of view, it's dif-ferent. I worry about the model of se-xual behaviour… that doesn't have theadded value (or excuse) that it had be-fore, when in those days it representeda struggle against repression.”

On making these comments, I wouldlike to make it clear that in relation tothis matter I would be in favour of theuse of condoms. Furthermore, I do notunderstand the position of the Vaticanon this matter, as it seems to be contra-dictory when you take into considera-tion the classical principles of moraltheology on the “lesser evil”. But, thatsaid, I must add that supplying condoms

is not the whole solution when dealingwith such a serious problem, particu-larly when one condom costs a wholeday's wages in Africa (yet again, anexample of Pluto-centrism). A changeof paradigm should also play a role he-re. But at the last world summit onAIDS, the Minister for Health encoura-ged young people to enjoy “the freestand most agreeable” sexuality possible.It beggars belief that words like self-control or respect remained absent fromthis speech. The message of that greatKorean film (Spring summer, autumn,winter...): which was that desire createsa need for possession and this then des-troys that which we love the most, do-esn't seem to fit in with any current so-cial trends. Neither does it seem to fit inwith our relationship with Nature. Andthis is how I wanted to use this example.

However, I am not writing this inorder to dictate moral norms. I want tomake people see that the change ofparadigm that Boff was referring to ismuch greater and much more essentialthan we realise.

3. God is LifeOne useful element to bring about

this change of paradigm would be tochange the notion of God as a distinctBeing, and use the language of MichelHenry when he talks about God as beingLife. I am in no way dismissing the re-asons for which God has been called aBeing: this was a way of demonstratingHis relationship with human understan-ding. The latter was able to show itselfas being open to the idea of this beingthrough its capacity to ponder on great

28

concepts. But herein lies the weaknessof this description: “being” is a notionthat is too abstract because of its tran-scendental character (such as other va-gue words like “thing”, or “something”etc). When we characterise God likethis, we take away His supreme concre-te presence: this is the great limitation ofour way of thinking, in that it can onlydefine something by taking away itsvery proximity (in other words: by ma-king it more abstract). And God, throughHis absolute uniqueness, should not bethe object of any abstraction.

This danger is averted when we talkabout God as Life or as Life in all itsFullness. In spite of its formality, life isa notion that has more real presencethan the idea of an abstract being. Infact, eternity is described in scholasticterms through its relationship with life.And God is eternity10.

The Bible is also much closer to thisway of thinking: according to the firstletter of John, the Word of God is “theWord of Life”, and “that which mani-fested itself to us is Life”, a notion I al-ready looked at in the second chapter ofthis section. Furthermore, life is nor-mally in the feminine gender in mostlanguages (particularly in Hebrew andGreek, which are the languages thatconcern us the most), so using this wordto describe God will therefore bringabout a certain balance, and compensa-te for the often patriarchal terminologythat is used to talk of God.

In reality, God is life in its fullness,absolute, total and necessary, from

which arises the age-old question ofexistence: why does life exist instead ofnothing? A question that one can onlyanswer by making a parody of the fa-mous verse of A. Silesius about a rose:“Life exists without a reason, it lives be-cause it lives” etc.

Life is the real “Source of all”. Andto this formal characterisation of God aslife and as the source of life, we can addthe same comments from the Johanninewritings explaining that the essence ofthis life is love. Life that is giventhrough love is such a maternal and fe-minine concept (among all the analo-gies used in our language to describeGod) that in a certain sense, the defini-tion of Mother would be more fittingthan that of Father.

In this way, it is easier to understandthat God (who is Life) must have a “lo-gos”: because to live is to be aware thatone is alive. This perspective does notlook at the notion of existence as beinga transcendental one11. Life is veryaware of itself. And this primary duality(I who am alive, know myself to be li-ving) is not the sign of a division, be-cause in the Fullness of Life, being awa-re that one is alive ultimately leads to anenjoyment of life, that unites one's cons-ciousness to one's life. Life, awarenessand an enjoyment of life are three “co-eternal, consubstantial and co-equal”elements.

The same can be said about them aswas said about the Trilogy in early the-ology. If I have succeeded in clarifyingthis point, it will be possible to move on

29

9. Look at Boecio's definition of eternity: "the perfect possession, complete and simultaneous, of a lifewithout end".

to a new stage in our discussion. So let'sproceed.

If Life is something that is both fulland necessary (to such a point that wesometimes talk about living life to thefull, although on this point we are reallydeceiving ourselves), one can then un-derstand why the creation of a limitedand fleeting life would be a problem.God is able to create life (that is finiteand experienced) giving something ofHimself, but at the same time, “holdingsomething back” so as not to take awayfrom or make this incomplete life futi-le. He holds something back, while atthe same time feeds and sustains the li-fe, like a mother feeding the foetus sheis carrying inside her, without the babyeven realising. “Life of my life” saidone famous line of Lope de Vega.

And also: God can give a dynamic ofgrowth to this precarious life (which doe-sen’t exists “without a reason”, like Lifein its fullness). And this will be a coherentdynamic because Life in essence is a com-munication of God, and Love is God's gift.Here in short is the theme of spiritual pro-gress and of God's image in man.

In this more philosophical context, Iwould like to insert a personal meditation,which I hope will breathe “life” into whatI have been describing in a speculative andabstract way, and which I wrote inMontseny (“mont assenyat” or 'mountainwith good sense', as I prefer to call it, in

the face of our extreme behaviour [or hi-bris]).

“I look at the orchestra of greenery andtrees at Montseny. I feel that they are ele-mental aspects of life, and for this reason,they are a veritable gift to my senses andmy soul. I remember that on other plan-ets, Mars, Jupiter, and the moon, thesetype of scenes denoting the harmony of li-fe do not exist: they are all desert, lava,basalt, stones...

“This contrast seems impossible andabsurd to me. You desire and affirm thatthere must be the same sights on otherplanets as well as our own. After all, ourplanet is not the centre of the universearound which everything else revolves, li-ke the ancients believed. Ours is only onemore planet that circles the Sun like theothers. But on the other hand, there are somany “coincidences” (and minusculecombinations) that happened in order forthis complex and perfect life to occur, li-fe is so astronomical and is repeated somany times, that we end up wonderinghow strange it is that life doesn't exist onother planets, as opposed to it existing onjust one planet.

“Actually, the Life Source, or MotherLife has been very generous towards us asimperfect living human beings (imperfectin relation to Her, although much evolvedin relation to other living species).

“So I go on to think about the journeyof the human race on this planet, which

30

11. The presocratics hinted at this when they spoke of the link between thinking and being (in the originalGreek verse: "to de gar autó noeîn esti kai eînai"). Aristoteles abandoned this line of thought in orderto speak of being as something that (although in many different ways), can be said about everything.But the presocratic principle is more fitting to the notion of life than it is to that of being: it draws a linkbetween living and thinking. However, in this case too, in relation to more primary forms of life (andgiven the continuity that exists in the scale of living things), self-awareness becomes reduced to move-ment of the self (or "motus immanens" as the classics defined life).

has covered hundreds of thousands of ye-ars, from the discovery of the first planetsand their orbits, to our gaining knowled-ge about the first plants and trees, or theappearance of agriculture.... up to todayand our current command of the planet.Undoubtedly this human trajectory hasbeen both amazing and frightening. Andyet what is most hurtful is the fact that thistrajectory has been beset with blind ambi-tion, expropriation and a lack of humanrespect for Life and for the living envi-ronment, which is the reason why today'secological problems have emerged.

“So I come back to that Biblicalphrase of Genesis 3:5, and paraphrase it:in reality he who was made in the “imageof Life” wanted to be “like Life itself”.And this is why all life and all stabilityfinds itself profoundly threatened today.”

Perhaps this might be a way to bet-ter understand the serious and respect-ful attitude that the whole of Naturedeserves, however incipient a reflectionit may be. To destroy “things” or “be-

ings” is a much less challenging ex-pression than to destroy life itself. Usingthis last term, it is much easier to un-derstand that we are affecting somethingthat in a sense belongs to us but at the sa-me time, is worthy of respect in its ownright. The environmental problem is abo-ve all a biological one: it is not simply“our dwelling place” (oikos) that is calledinto question, but something that is ofgreat internal significance for us. And forthis reason, without leaning towards pan-theism, idolatry or mystification, we canshare the desire of L. Boff to move to-wards a paradigm that sees us living incommunion with Nature.

Therefore, the various reflections wi-thin this chapter lead us to the understan-ding that the issue of ecology has a lot todo with Life itself and with a love for it.What we call an “ecosystem” should becared for and respected because it is life..iving. And if Life is one of the best waysof describing God, then ecology must beclosely linked to God.

31

CONCLUSION

Years ago, in a study made by ourCentre on globalisation, I spoke about“imperative technology” as being oneof the negative cultural roots of our ti-me. I was referring to the claim that, ifsomething is technically possible, itshould be carried out, regardless of itsmoral consequences and without stop-ping to look at the short and long-termconsequences it might lead to, arguingthat, if these consequences are negative,

by that time we should have found away to solve them.

While I would agree that science hasmade great progress through a system of“trial and error,” we need to realise thatin more than one instance, when we lo-ok at the damaging consequences thathave taken place as a result of progress,it is now no longer possible to take atechnological step backwards. This isbecause we are now totally affected by

and reliant on this progress, and have li-terally become “addicted” to these so-called positive steps made in techno-logy, a dependency that is very similarto that of drug addiction.

The same should not occur in rela-tion to environmental problems. But Ifear that it will happen if we don't ma-nage to “change the paradigm” and ke-ep a watchful eye on unscrupulous peo-ple. Science is tending towards thinkingthat the environment has already survi-ved other ecological catastrophes. Ineach of these disasters, what has beenirretrievably lost is not the Earth'secosystem but rather a few selected spe-cies (the marine saurian, for example).The Earth is wounded and manages torecover over a period of millions of ye-ars, in order to renew its evolutionaryprocess. Some scientists believe that ifa new ecological catastrophe were tooccur due to man's mistreatment of theEarth, the planet would not completelydie, but the human species would be wi-ped out. Again, over millions of years,a new species would emerge, capable ofknowledge and love (and in this sense,similar to man, so that some have calledit a new humanity).

And so we return to our startingpoint. But still we know very little abouthow to address the issue: the only valueof our discourse has been to confirmthat in relation to the environment “resnostra agitur”: we are calling not just theenvironment into question, but also our-selves.

Other questions that arise from thisreflection seem pointless to me. Whatwould be the theological implications ofman's extinction, having destroyed the

ecosystem that had given him shelter?Firstly, there are reasons to hope thatthis will not happen because for God,the existence of just ten righteous menof Sodom would have saved the cityfrom destruction. And we can also lookat what Saint Irenaeus said: for goodpeople (referring to Christians with anoptimism that characterised the earlyChurch), creation will not be destroyed.This means that environmentalists, andfriends of the Earth can save the planet,even if their struggle seems like Davidversus Goliath.

Secondly, we still have another alar-ming question: if the human species we-re to disappear like we said, what wouldbecome of those human beings who ha-ve already died in the Lord and who, ac-cording to our incomplete and temporalperspective, are waiting for the fullnessof Christ's Kingdom, when His Creationhas already been destroyed? Will therebe an Incarnation of another hypotheti-cal “human” species (or a substitute forhumans)? Should we see in theIncarnation of the Word into humanflesh, and in the eternal presence of thehumanity of Christ in the Trinity, a gua-rantee that this will never happen?

Naturally we cannot know this. Butagain, it is not the answers that are im-portant here, but rather that these ques-tions remain alive. These type of ques-tions really place the importance of theissue at the fore: the environmental is-sue is not a game or solely a concern oftree-huggers, and nor is it, as too manypeople tend to regard it, a threat thatwill resolve itself. It is a question of “li-fe or death”. And this is the best way ofexpressing it.

32