Integral Ecology : Protecting Our Common Home [1 ed.] 9781527512108, 9781527503762

Citation preview

Integral Ecology

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home Edited by

Gerard Magill and Jordan Potter

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home Edited by Gerard Magill and Jordan Potter This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Gerard Magill, Jordan Potter and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0376-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0376-2

We dedicate this book to Duquesne University in tribute to the Endowed Annual Conference Series on the Integrity of Creation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................ ix Gerard Magill I. Context Chapter One................................................................................................. 2 Pivotal Perspectives on Integral Ecology Gerard Magill II. Environmental Science Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 10 The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality Ursula Goodenough Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 26 Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics Michael Blackhurst III. Social Science Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 48 Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough: Christian Mysticism and Transpersonal Ecopsychology Will W. Adams Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 83 Embracing a Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change: The Mandate for Moving beyond Empathy and Raising Levels of Compassion Lisa Lopez Levers, Natalie Drozda

viii

Table of Contents

IV. Religion and Ethics Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 132 The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’: Tracing the Interplay of Theology, Science, and Ecology Celia Deane-Drummond Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 155 The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’: The Cosmic Common Good as a Common Ground for Interreligious Ecological Ethics Daniel P. Scheid. V. Advocacy Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 184 Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics Peter Osuji Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 209 The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home John Kilcran, Jude Nnorom, Chika Oneyjiuwa VI. Conclusion Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 244 Ethics and Integral Ecology Gerard Magill Contributors ............................................................................................. 252 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 259

INTRODUCTION GERARD MAGILL

In 2015, the President of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh in the United States (Charles J. Dougherty) commissioned an endowed annual academic conference series on the Integrity of Creation to celebrate the organization’s Spiritan mission. The University is Catholic and was founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit: the Spiritans.1 The current University President, Ken Gormley, continues to provide outstanding support for the conference, inspiring excellence as the series develops. This conference series is an interdisciplinary endeavor in the sense that presenters and participants from different disciplines are invited to engage each other in civil discourse on the conference topic. The conference has three goals: to provide a scholarly opportunity to engage with established and emerging research; to foster interdisciplinary discourse; and to enlighten public awareness and discussion on the selected issues. The topic of the inaugural conference in Fall 2015 was Climate Change as an urgent concern regarding the Integrity of Creation.2 The conference was preceded by the publication in May 2015 of the environmental encyclical of Pope Francis, Laudato Si’—Praise Be To You.3 The Pope invited “every person living on this planet,” “all people of good will,” “to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” as “a shared inheritance.”4 The call of Pope Francis for “a religious respect for the Integrity of Creation” is very similar to the focus of the Spiritan mission.5 As this conference series evolves, many other topics will be discussed to shed light on the Integrity of Creation from multiple perspectives. To safeguard our planet, we must be attentive to the global water crisis, environmental concerns with air pollution, problems that arise from toxicity in the land and ocean regarding food sources and biodiversity, and many other crises, not least of which is how to anticipate the movement of vast populations from coastal regions that may become permanently flooded. Pursuing this agenda, the second annual conference and its proceedings in this book focus on the topic of Protecting our Common Home. The book adopts this intriguing phrase, Integral Ecology, used by Pope Francis

x

Introduction

as one of the chapter titles in his encyclical.6 As the title of this book, the phrase highlights the scope of this environmental undertaking. The conference title reflects an admonition of Pope Francis in Laudato Si’ when he wrote: “The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development.”7 The concept of Integral Ecology seeks to convey the indispensable inter-relation of topics, expertise, and specialties in the quest to protect the planet when threatened with environmental catastrophe. The subtitle of the encyclical of Pope Francis, On Care for our Common Home, functions as a leitmotif throughout the book. Although the inspiration for the topic comes from this religious leader, the analysis engages both secular and religious perspectives on crucial issues that threaten the ecology of our planet. The presentations at this conference on Protecting Our Common Home were selected in a peer reviewed manner for inclusion at the conference and in these published proceedings. The book chapters reflect the conference presentations and have been written to appeal to a general audience with rigorous scholarship, depicting the interdisciplinary focus of the conference. The chapters have been organized into several interdisciplinary categories that relate together in an integral manner. Each section has been designed to present a wide variety of perspectives: environmental science, social science, religion and ethics, and advocacy. The first section sets the context for the discussion on Protecting Our Common Home. This section provides an overview of the interdisciplinary arguments, indicating that there is an overlapping and cumulative sense of protecting our planet as an indispensable common good. The section on environmental science introduces a critical perspective on our common ecomorality and explores the significance of climate mitigation decisions. The section on social science explores how our ecological breakdown presents the possibility of a psycho-spiritual breakthrough; the section also discusses how a human ecological approach can enhance a much-needed sense of planetary compassion. The next section on religion and ethics sheds light on the relation among theology, science, and ecology, and explores the cosmic common good as a resource for interreligious ecological ethics. The subsequent section deals with advocacy from a global perspective, addressing traditional African environmental ethics and how the poor and Earth must be engaged together to protect our common home. The final section is the conclusion that presents Integral Ecology as an urgent ethical imperative. A few words of acknowledgment are appropriate to recognize the contribution of many in planning the inaugural conference that has led to

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

xi

this collection of conference proceedings. Above all, the establishment of an endowment by President Charles J. Dougherty at Duquesne University to support this annual academic conference series presents a wonderful legacy. Also, the continuing support of Ken Gormley as our current University President is very much appreciated. Insofar as the conference series celebrates the Spiritan mission of the University, the Congregation’s commitment to the University also is greatly appreciated. The meticulous work that generates a large academic conference cannot occur without a highly dedicated Conference Planning Committee and superb support staff, including a very gifted group of graduate students, to whom sincere gratitude is extended. The extraordinary grace and talent of the conference coordinator, Glory Smith, deserves to be recognized with high acclaim and heartfelt gratitude: this outstanding commitment, in addition to all of her other daily office duties, continues to be a labor of love that assures success and joy at each conference.

Notes 1

See, http://www.duq.edu/about/mission-and-identity; also see, http://www.spiritans.org. 2 See the conference proceedings, Gerard Magill, Kia Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016), Introduction,” xi-xiv. Permission has been provided to reiterate in the Introduction of this book much of what was said in that Introduction. 3 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015). Hereafter, this Papal Encyclical is referred to as, Pope Francis LS. 4 Pope Francis, LS, no. 3, 28, 93. 5 Pope Francis, LS, no. 130. 6 Pope Francis, LS, no. 124 (in chapter three), and chapter four. 7 Pope Francis, LS, no. 13 (emphasis added).

Literature Magill, G., K. Aramesh. 2016. The Urgency of Climate Change. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

I. CONTEXT

CHAPTER ONE PIVOTAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GERARD MAGILL

Introduction To consider the Integral Ecology of our planet requires a variety of disciplines that engage each other in an integrative way. The book has been organized to let the dialogue in these disciplines unfold in an overlapping manner, with points of view being enriched as they are explored from different angles. As mentioned in the Introduction, there are several main sections to bring coherence to the contributions. The first section introduces the context of the book and the subsequent sections present a wide variety of perspectives on environmental science, social science, religion and ethics, and advocacy.

Context This opening chapter provides an overview of the interdisciplinary views on Integral Ecology that are discussed in the book (using the abstracts submitted by the various contributors). This overview is designed to assist readers to keep an eye on the big picture as they explore the various topics. The context of the book highlights the interdisciplinary character of each section. As the chapters develop there is an over-lapping and cumulative sense of Integral Ecology belonging to all and meant for all (adopting a phrase from the Papal encyclical, Laudato Si’, §23).1 This study enlightens what is meant by the Integrity of Creation as the over-arching theme of the annual conference proceedings—fostering the wholeness of creation from interdisciplinary and holistic perspectives. The book presents the proceedings of the 2nd annual endowed conference series, Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home. The following

Pivotal Perspectives on Integral Ecology

3

sections summarize pivotal perspectives on Integral Ecology as we seek to protect our common home.

Environmental Science Within this general context, the contributions on environmental science consider two related topics. First, the relationship between science and religion elicits continuing debate. All too often this relationship is described in military terms—being at war or in conflict. Unfortunately, there are ample historical and present-day examples that generate such language. In contrast, in the Papal encyclical, Laudato Si’, Pope Francis offers connections that foster what can be referred to as our common ecomorality. These connections hold exciting promise for detente and collaboration as we take on the moral imperative to remediate our ravaged ecosystems and their inhabitants. Second, climate mitigation decisions can shed light on ethical concerns regarding environmental science. The complex knowledge and various skills involved in quantitative climate mitigation decision methods is unprecedented. These decision methods reflect not only the complexity of our climate but also the challenge of reconciling physical science with accompanying implications for social, economic, and technological change. There are significant ethical implications that accrue from relying exclusively on quantitative climate mitigation decisions. That reliance emphasizes that quantitative methods are based upon economic and technological models that are purportedly devoid of altruism, empathy, and reverence for nature—a reverence that is implicit in effective mitigation solutions. There needs to be a measureable involvement of ethics in research and a cleaner separation of disciplines to avoid compromising highly confident basic science with otherwise irreducible uncertainties.

Social Science Two fascinating Social Science perspectives can provide astute insight to understand the Integral Ecology of our planet. First, today’s perilous ecological circumstances involve a profound crisis of consciousness and culture, one that requires interdisciplinary collaboration. The fascinating field of ecopsychology and transpersonal psychology can join with religious mystical traditions to foster mutual well-being for humankind and nature. It is important to consider these dynamically related points: how our ecological breakdown is calling forth a radical psycho-spiritual breakthrough; and how the shared Earth community’s interdependent

4

Chapter One

functioning is an auspicious ally in this crucial transformative process. By adopting a contemplative-phenomenological-hermeneutical approach, an intriguing discussion can arise regarding nondual teachings of Pope Francis and other classic and contemporary Christian mystics. Second, Social Science can enable us to avoid the danger of ignoring well-documented effects of climate change and its links to human behavior. The situation continues to become ever more urgent, and will remain so, until a more prosocial and systemic human-response approach is espoused. Such an approach can arise from translational research regarding human responses to anthropogenic climate change, synthesizing data and theories from relevant areas of the social and behavioral sciences. This endeavor advocates for a human ecological approach that emphasizes the need for moving beyond personal empathy and increasing compassion regarding climate change. In other words, the planet’s sustainability may depend upon human transformations that embrace, evoke, and espouse human compassion on personal, interpersonal, and systemic levels.

Religion & Ethics Another two inter-related features of Integral Ecology can be found in relating religion and ethics. First, the theological tapestry of Laudato Si’ enlightens a renewed understanding not only of humanity but also of our particular responsibilities to protect creation. The concept of ecological conversion incorporates scientific understandings of ecology to show more clearly the present context of suffering and devastation of both the poor and the planet. This outlook inspires a manifesto of liberation that concentrates on the inner personal changes and the development of virtues that are needed to undertake a deep cultural revolution. Also, this outlook recognizes that an authentic humanity is marked by interconnectedness with God, each other, and the created world. Second, an interreligious ecological ethics can be nurtured from the environmental encyclical of Pope Francis. In Laudato Si’, he develops a compelling moral vision grounded in the universal communion of creatures and the interconnectedness of humanity with the rest of the cosmos. In addition, he appeals to all religious traditions to dialogue among themselves for the sake of protecting our common home, the Earth. This stance can foster what can be called a cosmic common good, drawn especially from the Catholic tradition, as a potentially unifying category for stimulating interreligious ecological ethics. This moral vision can be placed in dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and indigenous traditions. By doing so, there emerge further justifications for Pope

Pivotal Perspectives on Integral Ecology

5

Francis’ call to all humanity to protect our imperiled Earth. A critical facet of protecting the Earth is an appropriate moral vision that apprehends the Earth as our common home. Four themes of a Catholic moral vision can enlighten the cosmic common good: 1) perceiving a Creator; 2) God’s presence in creation; 3) the interconnectedness of creatures; and 4) the universe is best understood as a communion of creatures. Parallels of these themes can be traced in the ecological moral vision of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Native Americans. As a result, the cosmic common good can become an interreligious common ground for protecting our imperiled Earth.

Advocacy Finally, it can be helpful to consider practical aspects of advocacy that complement the theoretical discourse in the previous sections. Another two connected perspectives can shed light on advocacy regarding integral ecology. The first example deals with traditional African environmental ethics. The damage done to our Earth by industrial and agricultural activities are well known. These include ozone layer depletion, deforestation, and unjust exploitation and sharing of natural resources. Africa is often seen as the most vulnerable region regarding the effects of climate change. However, it should be recognized that the region has contributed to the problem of climatic change and environmental degradation, albeit in a restricted amount. The reason for the degradation of the environment includes a tendency to neglect traditional African environmental ethics that served the continent for generations. Interestingly, in Laudato Si’ Pope Francis echoes core principles of traditional African environmental ethics, especially the cosmic common good, cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth. These approaches can be harnessed together to forge a better and more global framework to foster the integral ecology and thereby safeguard our common home. The second example of advocacy can be seen in the connection between the poor and the Earth crying out for protection that characterizes Laudato Si’. Pope Francis emphasizes that the poor, who constitute the majority of the planet’s people, is the population that is mostly affected by the effects of environmental degradation. Advocacy is needed for an integral ecology to direct its focus upon impacting the poor. The poor and those living on the periphery are unfortunately the most affected by changes in the climate and environment, often suffering negative impacts more than others. They experience material, environmental, social, political, economic, religious, and other forms of deprivations. Yet, typically, their

6

Chapter One

voices are not heard in environmental debates. The approach to integral ecology that is advocated in Laudato Si’ focuses on the poor; its holistic understanding of ecology highlights the impact on the poor. Because Spiritan missionaries experience the effects of the environment on the poor, a Spiritan response has been to develop a three-pronged interventional approach at the local, regional and global levels. This approach constitutes an inspiring form of practical advocacy.

Conclusion To conclude, it is heartening to encounter the realism and optimism of Pope Francis in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si’ that was published in 2015. The Pope recognized the enormous difficulties that we encounter, insisting that doomsday predictions can no longer be disdained and urging a frank analysis of the fact that the Earth as our common home is falling into serious disrepair. He warned that our unsustainable lifestyle today will precipitate catastrophes, being unambiguously critical of the human roots of the ecological crisis that threatens creation. The global environmental compromise that we encounter results from the ethical degradation of a consumerist mindset. However, the Pope was also optimistic, delineating what he considers to be the necessary path to recover and safeguard the planet. He emphasized the need to avoid halfway measures that would only delay inevitable disaster. That is why he urged the development of an integral ecology that revolves around the notion of the common good, which for centuries has been a unifying principle of social ethics. Also, he insisted that we prevent invested economic interests trumping the common good. Above all, he argued that it is crucial to avoid separating the environmental crisis from the social crisis around the world. His vision is that we are dealing with one complex crisis that is both social and environmental. His optimistic vision for an integral ecology is very encouraging, belonging to all and meant for all, to protect our common home.2

Notes 1

Pope Francis. Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015). 2 The format of this chapter adopts the format and some of the analysis in the equivalent chapter in the proceedings of the 1st annual conference in this series.

Pivotal Perspectives on Integral Ecology

7

See, Gerard Magill, Kiarash Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishers, 2016), chapter 1.

Literature Magill, G. 2016. The Urgency of Climate Change. Newcastle Upon Tyne. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Hereafter, this Encyclical is referred to as, Pope Francis LS.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

CHAPTER TWO THE POPE AND THE RELIGIOUS NATURALIST: OUR COMMON ECOMORALITY URSULA GOODENOUGH

Introduction I am an evolutionary microbiologist who calls herself a non-theistic religious naturalist.1 My core narrative is the naturalistic worldview, based on the discoveries of contemporary science. This narrative elicits in me three kinds of religious responses: 1) the interpretive (the philosophical/existential meanings of the worldview); 2) the spiritual (e.g. awe, gratitude, humility, reverence, and joy); and 3) the moral/ethical (e.g. responsibility, fairness, cooperation, and community), with a major focus on social justice and ecomorality.2 The theistic religious groundings of Pope Francis are very different from my groundings. Yet we share a common passion: love and care for the Earth. In this essay, I compare our earthly perspectives, and I conclude that our core understandings turn out to be deeply similar, whether approached from an informed theistic framework (the pope) or from the non-theistic framework of a religious naturalist (the author).

Laudato Si’ In his lyrical and pathbreaking 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’: On Care for our Common Home, Francis devotes most of the encyclical to two topics: x

The particular ways that the planet is now in distress (rapid warming, pollution, oceans, drinking water, etc.) and recommendations for their remediation. These aspects of Laudato Si are masterfully considered by Tucker and Grim (2016).3

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality x

11

A call, notably in Chapter 2, to heed these recommendations in the Christian context that God, as Creator of All, directs us to “tend and keep the garden” (Genesis 2:15).

I am also called to tend and keep the garden, but the call comes from my naturalist and existential understandings. Importantly, Francis makes clear that his encyclical is addressed to “all people of good will” and not just “believers,”4 and asserts that “whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the Earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone.”5 In preparing this essay, I have focused on those passages of Laudato Si’ that are resonant with a religious naturalist orientation. In cases where they are expressed in God language, they continue to resonate at their core.

Finding the Naturalist Worldview in Laudato Si’ The worldview of the Christian religion is embedded in text and tradition, while the naturalist worldview is a work in progress, continuously deepening as discoveries are made about the nature and history of the cosmos, the planet, life, and the human. That said, Loyal Rue offers the broad outlines of our current worldview, which he calls “Everybody’s Story” (1999), as follows: During the course of epic events, matter was distilled out of radiant energy, segregated into galaxies, collapsed into stars, fused into atoms, swirled into planets, spliced into molecules, captured into cells, mutated into species, compromised into thought, and cajoled into cultures. All of this (and much more) is what matter has done as systems upon systems of organization have emerged over thirteen billion years of creative natural history.6

I have presented an illustrated version of this story.7 Pope Francis lifts up this story on four occasions in his 40,000-word document: x

We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the Earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.8

x

Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution.9

Chapter Two

12 x

Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation…. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings.10

x

Many people realize that we live and act on the basis of a reality which has previously been given to us, which precedes our existence and our abilities.11

These passages, while minimalist, capture key features of naturalist understandings: that our universe is constituted of matter, time, and space, and that biological evolution occurs slowly over time and employs a common genetic code. My one correction would be that a good part of our genetic code is in fact shared by all living beings, meaning that we all share common ancestry with an original microorganism, a point that I expand upon in my videotaped presentation. That said, I came away from reading Laudato Si’ with the sense that Francis, who was trained as a chemist, has taken these naturalist understandings deeply into his mind and heart. They undergird and pulse through his writings. He gets it. The fact that he also holds additional beliefs that I don’t share–beliefs about a Creator God and an afterlife12–is, to my mind, incidental to these shared perspectives.

The Emergence of Human Uniqueness It is important at this juncture to point to an interface where the pope and I see things differently on the evolutionary axis. He writes: x

Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems.13

x

Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology….14

x

This is not to put all living beings on the same level nor to deprive human beings of their unique worth.15

Such assertions of an evolutionary discontinuity between humans and other organisms can be ascribed to the pope’s Christian theology, to the need to reconcile evolution with the belief that humans are uniquely created in God’s image.

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

13

But this notion–that human evolution has entailed discontinuities that separate us from other creatures–is readily encountered in secular contexts as well. As we witness human civilization, art, technology, and so on, it is pretty obvious that we are really, really different from other animals, let alone plants and microorganisms. Neuroscientist Terry Deacon offers a memorable quote on this axis: “Biologically we are just another ape. Mentally we’re a whole new phylum of organism.”16 It turns out, however, that it is not necessary to posit that the unique features of human mentality–much as they may impress us–transcend the spheres of physics and biology, nor that we therefore possess a unique worth, nor that this is necessarily the handiwork of a god. Instead, one can become familiar with the challenging and fascinating concept of emergence, Nature’s mode of creativity. Deacon and I do our best to explain emergence dynamics here,17 and Deacon has written a masterful 600-page book on the topic,18 but a few sentences can convey the core idea. Basically, when atoms or molecules or cells interact, they usually impose constraints on one another such that their original properties are altered: they no longer have the same shape, or the same chemical properties, or the same functions as they do when they are not in such relationships. Water, for example, has a different shape and properties from its constituents, hydrogen and oxygen. In biology, the properties generated by relationships may give rise to novelties–what we call “something-else from nothing-but.” When an organism remembers how to set up such relationships via genetic coding, the outcome is the heritable persistence of novel traits that distinguish that organism from other organisms. Natural selection “sees” such emergent traits, and not their underlying nothing-buts, and if the traits are adaptive, they spread in the population and can come to define a new species. During the ~6 million years of human evolution from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, novel interactions between neurons in the brain, some occurring during fetal development and others as a consequence of experience, have resulted in our possession of the emergent trait we call symbolic language, which, in turn, underlies our unique mental abilities and accomplishments. How this arises–which constraints are imposed where–is still far from understood, nor is its genetic underpinning, but both questions are the subject of intense research in numerous neuroscience labs. And now the larger point. A second sequence of remembered constraints has given rise to the emergent hunting behavior of the hawk, with its keen vision and precise diving abilities. A third sequence has

14

Chapter Two

given rise to the emergent ability of some flowers to open and close their petals at daybreak and sunset. A fourth sequence has given rise to the emergent response of a fat cell to the hormone insulin, opening up its membrane channels to take in glucose from the blood. Its emergence all the way down and all the way up, at every level, in every example of biological evolution, meaning that each species is by definition unique. All of which is to say that the unique traits possessed by the human can be understood as mind-blowing examples of emergent properties. I write “can be understood” because, in the end, there is no way to disprove the one passage wherein Francis uses the term emergence: “The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a [human] personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God.”19 Of course, there is also no way to prove this presupposition. Claims based on theistic faith are not amenable to empirical test. Importantly, Pope Francis couples his conviction that humans have evolved differently from other organisms with exhortations that we regard our special traits with humility, noting that “it would also be mistaken to view other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination”20 and that the “unique worth” of the human entails “tremendous responsibility.”21

Interrelatedness and Interdependence In Laudato Si’, Francis repeatedly lifts up two core understandings of the natural world: we are interrelated and we are interdependent. Considering these two concepts from the perspective of a scientist, our interrelatedness derives from ~3.5 billion years of biological evolution from a common ancestor, while our current interdependence derives from our current interactions in ecosystems. That is, evolutionary is a past-tense concept, while ecological is a present-tense concept. Considering the planet as it was, say, 100 million years ago, the existing species were also interrelated and they also occupied interdependent ecosystems, but both the organisms and the ecosystems were different. Most of those species are now extinct, their lineages having evolved into present-day forms, and the planet itself, molded by tectonics, climate, and recent human activity, offers present-day conditions within which ecosystems develop. Francis blurs these distinctions at one point when he writes: “Because all creatures are connected, each must be cherished with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another.”22 I would say that the offer of love and respect for all creatures would be laudable

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

15

even if we were not dependent on one another. But, of course, we very much are. I will first consider interrelatedness and then interdependence.

Interrelatedness/Interconnectedness The naturalist considers interrelatedness as a genetic concept. Humans and yeast share ~30% of their genes despite a billion years of separate evolution. Most of these genes are responsible for generating emergent traits, like sugar metabolism, protein synthesis, and membrane transport, that are found in all present-day organisms. Versions of these “housekeeping” traits, in turn, were by definition also features of our deepest universal common ancestor. While Francis acknowledges this level of relatedness in the passage cited above–“a good part of our genetic code is shared by many [all] living beings”23–he usually invokes interrelatedness in the social/communal sense of relationship, frequently substituting the word interconnectedness: x

In this universe, shaped by open and intercommunicating systems, we can discern countless forms of relationship and participation.24

x

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.25

x

Everything is related, and we human beings are united as brothers and sisters on a wonderful pilgrimage, woven together by the love God has for each of his creatures and which also unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river and Mother Earth.26

x

It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected…. 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.27

x

Give us the grace to feel profoundly joined to everything that is.28

x

It is proper to every living being to tend towards other things, so that throughout the universe we can find any number of constant and secretly interwoven relationships.29

x

[Ecological conversion] entails a loving awareness that we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion.30

Chapter Two

16

These poetic evocations of interrelatedness echo the writings of cultural historian Thomas Berry,31 whose haunting phrases include: x

The universe is a communion of subjects rather than a collection of objects…Existence itself is derived from and sustained by this intimacy of each being with every other being in the universe.32

While descriptions of interrelatedness using the language of DNA and genomes are music to the ears of those of us centered in science-based accounts, access to science-based contexts and understandings is often abetted by metaphor.33 If a metaphor is valid–that is, if it carries some core truth about an understanding–then what’s important is whether it carries that core truth over to someone else. The metaphors of Francis and Berry are splendid examples of this principle. Francis richly expands the interrelatedness theme to emphasize that we humans are also interrelated and that our responsibilities also extend to one another in an “integral ecology:” x

We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor.34

x

We cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships.35

x

A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings…. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.36

x

Genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others.37

x

There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.38

This emphasis echoes the message in his earlier Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013), with its impassioned call for economic and political justice and attention to the poor, wherein he offers the scathing

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

17

question: “How is it not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?” The connection is brought home here: x

This is why the Earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22).39

Interdependence As noted earlier, interrelatedness can be thought of as a past-tense concept, established during cosmic and global history, whereas the interdependence of organisms in an ecosystem is an ongoing and fluid process, and hence vulnerable to disruption. The dynamics of ecosystems were beautifully captured 800 years ago in the passage from St. Francis of Assisi, “Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with colored flowers and herbs.”40 St. Francis was unaware of–although he would doubtlessly have been thrilled to learn of–the astonishing complexity of ecosystems. Pope Francis understands this well: The good functioning of ecosystems also requires fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumerable variety of microorganisms.41

Microorganisms. They rule. They always have. There are as many microorganisms in a spadeful of soil as there are humans on the planet, and a single drop of ocean water contains a million of them. At least half of the planet’s photosynthesis, and all of its nitrogen fixation, is carried out by microbes, generating the molecular building blocks for the complex carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and DNA that undergird life’s processes. Microbes also break down these complex molecules (think of the fungi on a dead tree), generating new building blocks for new molecules in new organisms. And they form the base of the vast food chain that culminates in the plants and animals most familiar to us. Indeed, there are ten times more microbes in our own bodies than there are human cells, participating in sustaining many of our bodily functions. Were microbes to suddenly go extinct, life on the rest of the planet would grind to a halt in a matter of months. But none of life would be possible without “Mother Earth” herself, providing the soils, the fresh water and oceans, and the climate necessary for life to proceed and, from the naturalist perspective, to originate from.

Chapter Two

18

The call from Saint Francis–“Mother Earth sustains and governs us”–is a clarion call. Pope Francis lifts up an eloquent description of our interdependence in the Catechism: x

God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.42

Ecomorality Accompanying the pope’s extensive documentation of the ways that our common home has been compromised and degraded by human activity is a call that we put an end to such activity, that we adopt what some of us are calling an ecomorality. Francis pulls no punches in calling out humans for their immoral treatment of the planet: x

This sister [Earth] now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.43

x

All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution…. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.44

A core theme in Judeo/Christian ethics is to assume that humans are inherently prone to sin and that this is held in check by a desire to acquire the favor of God. While Francis does not dwell on this motivation, he offers such a sentiment here: x

The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the Earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

19

the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.45

Religious naturalists point to two non-theistic “motivators” for adopting an ecomoral trajectory. One, expanded here,46 centers on the fact that humans evolved within the intensely social primate lineage, and that traits conducive to generating a flourishing community–the “social emotions”47–are inherent in our makeup and can be cultivated, by cultural education, to motivate our decisions. As the concept of community is expanded to include its planetary context, these same social traits can, and must, be engaged. A related, but distinctive, approach is called virtue ethics,48 where Paul Woodruff and I have written a detailed paper on virtue ethics from a religious naturalist perspective.49 The basic idea, found in numerous philosophical traditions, is that the virtuous person feels like doing the right thing. Virtues are ideals, visions of the good, that humans value and seek to attain. They are ways that we can’t think better than. A powerful example is given by the woman who took great risks to shelter Jews in Holland during WWII. Her comment: “I don’t think it was such a courageous thing to do. For certain people it is a self-evident thing to do.”50 To my ear, Francis is most often calling to us not in the voice of sin and salvation, but in the voice of virtue ethics. Indeed, he extolls the bishops of Brazil for asking that we cultivate the “ecological virtues.”51 Some examples: x

If we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously.52

x

A capacity for wonder takes us to a deeper understanding of life.53

x

If we acknowledge the value and the fragility of nature and, at the same time, our God-given abilities, we can finally leave behind the modern myth of unlimited material progress.54

x

We are speaking of an attitude of the heart, one which approaches life with serene attentiveness, which is capable of being fully present to someone without thinking of what comes next.55

Virtue ethics is deeply dependent on role models–revered poets and philosophers and community/religious leaders. Pope Francis and Saint Francis have both emerged as compelling role models for millions of us.

Chapter Two

20

Mindfulness Woodruff and I maintain that for the virtue ethics approach to succeed, it needs to be constructed in the context of mindfulness, a widely used term that we confine to a specific meaning: x

Wisdom and knowledge are entailed by mindfulness, but mindfulness demands more of us. Mindfulness is knowledge or wisdom that pulls the whole mind-and-heart of the knower towards a connection with the way things are all their exciting particularity. You cannot be mindful and know things in a purely academic way; as you become mindful of something, your feelings and your behavior towards it will not be untouched.56

Here again, there is deep concordance with Francis’s writings: x

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 programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm.57

x

Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience…We cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded selfrestraint.58

Woodruff and I also argue that mindfulness is receptive to all forms of wisdom, scientific and cultural, where the traditional religions, a vibrant component of our culture and our cultural evolution, are very much included. Francis echoes this sentiment: If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it.59 I would add that religious classics can prove meaningful in every age; they have an enduring power to open new horizons… Is it reasonable and enlightened to dismiss certain writings simply because they arose in the context of religious belief?… The ethical principles capable of being apprehended by reason can always reappear in different guise and find expression in a variety of languages, including religious language.60

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

21

The Exemplar: St. Francis of Assisi I will close with the elegant and loving homily to Saint Francis offered by Pope Francis in this encyclical, which captures the essence of the mindful, virtuous, ecological beings that we must all strive to become: I do not want to write this Encyclical without turning to that attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. He is the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology, and he is also much loved by non-Christians. He was particularly concerned for God’s creation and for the poor and outcast. He loved, and was deeply loved for his joy, his generous selfgiving, his openheartedness. He was a mystic and a pilgrim who lived in simplicity and in wonderful harmony with God, with others, with nature, and with himself. He shows us just how inseparable the bond is between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace. Francis helps us to see that an integral ecology calls for openness to categories which transcend the language of mathematics and biology, and take us to the heart of what it is to be human. Just as happens when we fall in love with someone, whenever he would gaze at the sun, the moon or the smallest of animals, he burst into song, drawing all other creatures into his praise. He communed with all creation, even preaching to the flowers, inviting them “to praise the Lord, just as if they were endowed with reason”. His response to the world around him was so much more than intellectual appreciation or economic calculus, for to him each and every creature was a sister united to him by bonds of affection. That is why he felt called to care for all that exists…. Such a conviction cannot be written off as naive romanticism, for it affects the choices which determine our behavior. If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously. The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled…. Rather than a problem to be solved, the world is a joyful mystery to be contemplated with gladness and praise.61

22

Chapter Two

Notes 1

Ursula Goodenough, The Sacred Depths of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 2 More information can be found here: http://religious-naturalist-association.org/what-is-religious-naturalism. 3 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, "II. Integrating Ecology and Justice: The Papal Encyclical," The Quarterly Review of Biology 91, no. 3 (2016): 261-270. 4 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2015), §62. 5 Pope Francis, LS, §93. 6 Loyal Rue, Everybody's Story: Wising up to the Epic of Evolution (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000). 7 Presented at the 2016 Integrity of Creation conference at Duquesne University. This gave rise to this book volume. Available on-line at, https://edtech.msl.duq.edu/Mediasite/Play/0d411e631522419e83b5f076a3d702901 d?catalog=5f3e8361-6fa3-41f1-a9b29bb55f6a79cf&playFrom=21800&autoStart=true Start at 26 minutes; click on right screen for larger image. An evocative video of the story, Journey of the Universe, by Mary Evelyn Tucker and Brian Swimme, is available here: https://app.curiositystream.com/video/480?utm_campaign=S-TitlesAlpha&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=journey%20of%20the %20universe&gclid=CjwKEAiA17LDBRDElqOGq8vR7m8SJAA1AC0_imQ11e 0Zy0R9kdkwFNgKpte_vsT0YI-GACq8alDk4xoC3Njw_wcB 8 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 9 Pope Francis, LS, §18. 10 Pope Francis, LS, §138. 11 Pope Francis, LS, §140. 12 Pope Francis, LS, §243. 13 Pope Francis, LS, §81. 14 Pope Francis, LS, §81. 15 Pope Francis, LS, §90. 16 Terrence W. Deacon, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain (NY: WW Norton & Company, 1998). 17 Ursula Goodenough and Terrence W. Deacon, “The Sacred Emergence of Nature,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, ed. P. Clayton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 854-871, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=bio_f acpubs. 18 Terrence W. Deacon, Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter (NY, WW Norton & Company, 2011). 19 Pope Francis, LS, §81. 20 Pope Francis, LS, §82. 21 Pope Francis, LS, §90. 22 Pope Francis, LS, §42.

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality 23

23

Pope Francis, LS, §138. Pope Francis, LS, §79. 25 Pope Francis, LS, §139. 26 Pope Francis, LS, §92. 27 Pope Francis, LS, §138. 28 Pope Francis, LS, §246. 29 Pope Francis, LS, §240. 30 Pope Francis, LS, §220. 31 http://thomasberry.org. 32 Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era-A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos (San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1992). 33 Ursula Goodenough, “Reflections on scientific and religious metaphor,” Zygon 35, no. 2 (2000): 233-240, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=bio_f acpubs. 34 Pope Francis, LS, §49. 35 Pope Francis, LS, §119. 36 Pope Francis, LS, §91. 37 Pope Francis, LS, §70. 38 Pope Francis, LS, §118. 39 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 40 Canticle of the Creatures, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New York-London-Manila, 1999), 113-114. 41 Pope Francis, LS, §34. 42 Pope Francis, LS, §86. 43 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 44 Pope Francis, LS, §114. 45 Pope Francis, LS, §75. 46 Ursula Goodenough and Terrence W. Deacon, “From Biology to Consciousness to Morality,” Zygon 38, no. 4 (2003): 801-819, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=bio_f acpubs. 47 Loyal D. Rue, Religion is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture our Biological Nature and What to Expect When They Fail, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006. 48 Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 49 Ursula Goodenough and Paul Woodruff, "Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence," Zygon 36, no. 4 (2001): 585-595, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=bio_f acpubs. 50 Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics, 127. 51 Pope Francis, LS, §88. 52 Pope Francis, LS, §11. 53 Pope Francis, LS, §225. 54 Pope Francis, LS, §78. 24

24

Chapter Two

55

Pope Francis, LS, §226. Goodenough and Woodruff, "Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence," 586. 57 Pope Francis, LS, §111. 58 Pope Francis, LS, §105. 59 Pope Francis, LS, §63. 60 Pope Francis, LS, §199. 61 Pope Francis, LS, §10-12. 56

Literature Canticle of the Creatures. 1999. In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1. New York-London-Manila. Deacon, Terrence W. 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. NY: WW Norton & Company. Deacon, Terrence W. 1998. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. NY: WW Norton & Company. Goodenough, Ursula. 2000. “Reflections on scientific and religious metaphor.” Zygon 35, no. 2: 233-240. See, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&co ntext=bio_facpubs. —. 1998. The Sacred Depths of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodenough, Ursula, Terrence W. Deacon. 2007. “The Sacred Emergence of Nature.” In, P. Clayton, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 854-871. See, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&co ntext=bio_facpubs. Goodenough, Ursula, Terrence W. Deacon. 2003. “From Biology to Consciousness to Morality.” Zygon 38, no. 4: 801-819. See, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&co ntext=bio_facpubs. Goodenough, Ursula, Paul Woodruff. 2001. "Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence." Zygon 36, no. 4: 585-595. See, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&co ntext=bio_facpubs. Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. Rue, Loyal. 2006. Religion is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture our Biological Nature and What to Expect When They Fail. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

The Pope and the Religious Naturalist: Our Common Ecomorality

25

—. 2000. Everybody's Story: Wising up to the Epic of Evolution. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Swimme, Brian, Thomas Berry. 1992. The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era-A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. Tucker, Mary Evelyn, John Grim. 2016. "II. Integrating Ecology and Justice: The Papal Encyclical." The Quarterly Review of Biology 91, no. 3: 261-270.

CHAPTER THREE CLIMATE MITIGATION DECISIONS, UNCERTAINTY, AND ETHICS MICHAEL BLACKHURST

Introduction Over the last several decades, increasing awareness of the impacts of our changing climate has spurred a tremendous amount of basic and applied science aimed at understanding (1) how our climate system works, (2) the human contribution to climate change, and (3) what we should do to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. The breadth and depth of knowledge and skills involved in climate decision making is unprecedented, reflecting not only the physical complexity and formidability of our climate system but the challenge of reconciling the physical science with its implications for social and economic change. Effective mitigation solutions that scale with our climate challenges involve orchestrating global decisions made by actors that span policymakers to individual laypersons with heterogeneous cultures, values, institutions, and resources. The propensity to weigh all aspects of climate decisions using quantitative methods is understandable. All actors in the decision space–from individuals to global policy makers–are bound on one end by the longstanding pedigree of reliable confidence derived through basic science (highly confident climate science) and on the other by the implication that a strategic reliance on technology and quantitative social science can identify policies and clarify robust decisions. While there have been tremendous improvements to the ensemble of quantitative models of climate decision making, some fundamental flaws have persisted since their inception. Purely quantitative climate mitigation decision models have been unable to effectively parse and manage the most persistent decision uncertainties, many of which are purely ethical or stem from irreducible uncertainty (ignorance). By their very construction, quantitative climate mitigation decision models make implicit stark ethical

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

27

choices, which have the effect of deciding whose ethos is and is not represented in weighing difficult decisions. These de facto ethical choices can easily become diluted and diffused by the net complexity of climate decisions, exaggerating problematic information asymmetries with respect to access to the knowledge and proficiencies needed to participate in climate decisions. Purely quantitative decision methods may also shortcircuit ethical choices through overconfidence in economic-technological mitigation alternatives. There are also subtle, second-order ethical aspects implicit to relying on quantitative climate mitigation decision models that are exogenous to respective quantitative models. Given their assertion that future innovations will mollify or moderate otherwise difficult economic challenges, quantitative climate mitigation decision models invite society to delay salient climate mitigation decisions. The extent of such decision delay is likely unknowable given the irreducible uncertainties in climate mitigation decision models. Compounding the problem of decision delay, purely quantitative climate decision models presume anthropogenic knowledge can be constructed and operationalized at a pace that exceeds salient decision needs, a pace that may not align with potential irreversible environmental outcomes. Continued mitigation decision delay is likely to constrain available solutions to more invasive so-called “backstop” technologies–like geoengineering–that only deepen climate uncertainties and broaden ethical challenges. More importantly, the undisciplined mixing of all manners of decision uncertainty, manageable or otherwise, allows any decision maker to flatten confidence in a manner of their choosing, which means highly confident climate science can be easily dismissed by its association with less robust information or methods. As a result, hyper-quantitative climate mitigation decision models create conditions ripe for the erosion of confidence in science and technology. In this chapter, I aim to make more vivid the ethical concerns of an over-reliance on quantitative methods for climate decision making. In doing so, I am in no way advocating for supplanting quantitative methods with value based decision modes. However, I hope to elevate ethics in climate decisions in a manner that goes beyond parsing manageable uncertainty from value judgments, particularly value judgments that are supplanted from one population group to another or whose empirical bases are speculative or missing altogether. I question whether such parsing is even possible or appropriate. If such judgments continue to be made, I suggest a stronger and broader representation of disciplines and cultures in

28

Chapter Three

decision making, which requires reducing high barriers to entry created by the complexity and institutional knowledge characteristic of quantitative climate mitigation models. However, I question whether the ambitious degree of interdisciplinarity inherent in some quantitative climate mitigation models is even appropriate given their ability to diffuse indispensable climate science with overconfidence in technological and economic solutions. I emphasize a few important caveats. I am not a climate scientist nor an ethicist. I have no experience using integrated assessment models or preparing climate scenarios, and I currently do not wish to develop such skills for the reasons indicated below. I keep pace with the literature cited below simply because I, like others, am concerned about the human and non-human impacts of a changing climate. I aim only to challenge, not judge, stakeholders involved in climate mitigation research and decisions. My assertions below may very well be “wrong” or an overreach. I hope and trust that those with more experience will correct me and, more importantly, potential readers. This essay is not offered with any authority or overconfidence, but with a tremendous degree of reverence for nature and respective humility.

Quantitative Climate Change Decision Paradigms Quantitative climate mitigation methods could refer to many endeavors, from discrete social science experiments aimed at quantifying the rebound effect to energy efficiency to models much broader in the temporal, geographic, or disciplinary scope. In this chapter, I refer to the latter. By “quantitative” I mean long-term mathematical models of global futures derived by joining natural, economic, technological, and social methods aimed at informing current climate mitigation decisions. In this sense, integrated assessment models (IAMs) are the most tangible and vivid representation of the “quantitative” paradigm to which I refer, but readers unfamiliar with IAMs should feel comfortable readily substituting other approaches of similar pedigree, such as scenario analysis and backwards analysis. IAMs aim to assimilate an ambitious amount of prevailing physical and social scientific knowledge and applied modeling skill towards articulating carbon mitigation scenarios. The scope of integrated models is tremendous, including the joint modeling of the global economy, ecosystems, population dynamics, public health, and technological change. The architecture of IAMs is such that they are relatively extensible with respect to new knowledge and modeling techniques.1

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

29

IAMs attempt to weigh (and monetize) the long-term social benefits of anthropogenic carbon emissions (from using fossil fuels for economic production) against their long-term costs (such as damages to human health and the environment). IAMs allow modelers to consider various mitigation policy drivers against their potential impact on carbon emissions and costs. While IAMs produce a variety of outputs, most evaluations are centered on the social cost of carbon (SCC). An oversimplified description of the SCC is that it indicates how much we should pay for anthropogenic carbon emissions to bring the social costs of emission in balance with their social benefits.2 The SCC aligns with the neoclassical economic externality theory, which suggests that if externalities (undesired outcomes of markets) are integrated into the market (e.g. “polluter pays”) then emitters will adjust to the cost of emissions by reducing emissions in their own best ways. Higher estimates of social cost of carbon call for fewer emissions, indicating marginally higher long-term damages relative to the long-term benefits of fossil fuel consumption. IAMs attempt to find the “optimal” SCC (e.g. enacting the right amount of carbon tax), which affords each emitter of carbon unique flexibility in reducing carbon emissions by employing a strategy that works “best” for them. Some emitters may find it in their best interest to adopt technologies that reduce carbon emissions, such as energy efficiency or renewable energy generation technologies. Some may decide to produce less goods and services. Some may simply pay to pollute.

Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Given their scope and potential implications, it likely comes as no surprise that the assumptions of integrated assessment models have been contentious, and several recent criticisms bear emphasizing: Pindyck indicated “(IAMs) have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analysis of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.”3 Stern provides less harsh but similar criticisms noting that “scientists describe the scale of the risks from unmanaged climate change as

30

Chapter Three potentially immense. However, the scientific models, because they omit key factors that are hard to capture precisely, appear to substantially underestimate these risks. Most economic models add further gross underassessment of risk because the assumptions built into the economic modeling on growth, damages, and risks, come close to excluding the possibility of catastrophic outcomes.”4 Rosen and Guenther’s review of IAMs suggests that “not only do we not know the approximate magnitude of the net benefits or costs of mitigating climate change to any specific level of future global temperature increase… but we also cannot even claim to know the sign of the mitigation impacts.”5 With respect to substitution between human, technological, economic, and ecological capital, Klinksy and Dowlatabadi indicate that “if human and non-human goods are seen as less substitutable, ‘dangerous climate change’ is a more proximate concern and lower stabilization levels are likely goals… “Unlike economics, which incorporates behavior and preferences in policy recommendations, the central tenet of utilitarianism is equal consideration for all involved in a decision. From this perspective, discounting where there are no substitutes should be zero and, where everything is substitutable, it can be the social discount rate.”6

These criticisms largely stem from IAMs’ need to make tractable assumptions about the climate system, ecosystems, social science, and technological capacity over very long time periods, perhaps 1,000 years. Such a propensity seems troubling prima facie and is discouraging for anyone, like myself, interested in employing quantitative arguments to articulate defensible and unifying climate mitigation pathways. More troubling are that these criticisms echo criticisms made since their inception. Morgan et al. provided novel constructive criticisms of assumptions implicit in earlier IAMs, suggesting as flawed the assumptions that: “the impacts involved are of manageable size and can be valued at the margin;” “the decision maker should select a policy by maximizing expected utility;” “tie preference is accurately described by conventional exponential discounting of future costs and benefits;” and “uncertainty is modest and manageable.”7

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

31

To be fair, some of these criticisms, particularly casting IAMs as having “no theoretical or empirical foundations” are extreme and dismiss where IAMs produce value. I would be surprised if anyone critical of IAMs would call for their outright abolishment. Characteristic of all applied models, their value is context dependent, depending on the decisions at hand. In that sense, they build helpful intuition for how the anthropogenic and natural world interacts, articulate sources of climate damage, and, at a minimum, provide an architecture that prioritizes refinement towards more robust basic scientific knowledge and applied modeling techniques.8, 9, 10 However, the purported goal of IAMs (and again… similarly ambitious quantitative paradigms) is to clarify robust climate mitigation decisions. This acute emphasis on current decision making sharpens criticism towards those cited above. In the following sections, I summarize in more detail some previously cited ethical issues associated with the development and application of IAMs and offer both substantive and speculative other potential issues. While I certainly draw on those ethical issues endogenous to actual models (e.g. the assumed intertemporal discount function and rate), I focus more on ethical issues exogenous to the actual quantitative details, such as second-order issues and side effects of a heavy reliance on quantitative paradigms for making climate mitigation choices. I attempt to reframe the lines of inquiry in a manner that sharpens the ethical dimensions of making tough climate mitigation decision paradigms. I do not have easy answers and often leave issues open-ended. Indeed, I discuss briefly the degree to which hyper-quantitative approaches to climate mitigation might simply be a distraction from the pressing realities of climate science. I find it helpful to categorize criticism endogenous to IAMs into either overconfidence or casting ethical decisions in purely quantitative terms (either implicitly or explicitly). Endogenous overconfidence can be sourced to making inaccurate empirical or epistemic (structural) assumptions about “how the world works” and an inherent inability to properly parse out the contributions of those assumptions to decision making. Ethical issues endogenous to IAMs include making modeling decisions that have de facto implications for the temporal and geographic distribution of resources to human and non-human systems or assuming an unproven degree of substitution between economic, human, technological, and non-human capital. Of course, these distinctions are not so cleanly separable in a quantitative model and, given their degree of inductive inferences made, such parsing may not be feasible. Such persistent and likely permanent uncertainty is part of the problem. Similarly, the distinction

32

Chapter Three

between ethical issues endogenous and exogenous to quantitative climate migration decision modes is also not so clear, which is discussed below.

Reaction Time I have a high degree of confidence in the underlying theoretical proficiencies of basic and applied science. However, I am not so naïve to think that the world won’t surprise us. The issue is whether emergent natural and social phenomena will occur more quickly than the net “reaction time” of the ensemble of quantitative methods (basic science + applied science + policymaking + technology deployment). This concern was stated quite directly by Metcalf and Stock: Considerable uncertainty surrounds the current state of scientific knowledge about the current and future costs of climate change. Although research is progressing rapidly on some fronts, we argue below that some important aspects of the uncertainty, such as the appropriate discount factor to use or the damages induced by extreme events far outside the range of historical human experience (such as melting of ice sheets), are unlikely to be resolved within the time frame necessary for making important and costly decisions on climate policy.11

Some readers will see this as a simple recasting of the “adaptation” versus “mitigation” debate, in which proponents of adaptation suggest that resources should be prioritized towards adapting to expected climate change. While related, such a clean distinction cannot be so simple in that adaptation methods are fraught with the same methodological challenges characteristic of mitigation models. The concern here is that emergence will occur faster than society can fully understand it and direct it towards relevant decisions. It may be unfair to imply that, by their very construction, IAMs presume that anthropogenic knowledge can be constructed and operationalized at a pace that exceeds relevant decision needs. I do not think that IAM modelers do or would view their proficiencies as being in a race with emergence. However, once IAMs are constructed, they naturally beg for a little more science or a little more modeling. They invite a kind of undisciplined experimentation and added complexity that purports movement towards more decision confidence. What are the ethical issues of such an implication? What constitutes sufficient confidence, and who gets to decide? To what degree are calls for a little more science or a little more modeling substitutes for delaying tough mitigation decisions? To what degree does the pursuit of purely

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

33

quantitative mitigation paradigms contribute to such delay? Is society weighing any marginal benefits of more modeling against the potential costs of delay? Is such an analysis even feasible? How do research sponsors, institutions, and researchers weigh these issues, if at all? Reading the literature on IAMs gives an outsider the impression the research community, research sponsors, and broader society are unwilling to reconcile the climate science with its implications for economic and social change, but may be unwilling to admit it by diluting the climate science with the promise of unproven future technological-economic solutions and added simulation complexity.

Technological Capability, Promise, or Subsistence? There is no doubt that technology plays a crucial role in climate mitigation. However, the modeling of future technological capacity and its role in mitigation is also deeply uncertain and, like the social science elements, fraught with tenuous assumptions. At a minimum, these assumptions include technological costs, performance, causal change, and diffusion.12 However, there are more fundamental issues with relying on future technological capability that extend beyond modeling capabilities. There is a subtle, implied premise that all (or most) technological gains will displace fossil fuel consumption as opposed to further growth. This assumption seems hardly justified. Even robust methods that weigh marginal substitutions of inputs is limited to short-run, historical empirical records. One cannot possibly envision the relevant suite of elasticities between unknown future inputs to the production and consumption of future unknown goods and services. Innovators do not get to choose all subsequent uses of their technologies. I do not see how such choices can be made in IAMs. While I am certainly in favor of investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy development, I am not so optimistic to think that we will not eventually grow into their technological capacity and have less confidence that we could know the respective future end uses, let alone the aggregate growth curve. Will such growth be fueled by continued and sustained investments in efficiency and renewables, or will it be fossil driven? How does our current investment in efficiency and renewables reconcile with such a paradigm? Is it possible that we have expected too much of efficiency and renewables because they align, in the short-run, with the “least cost” criteria for decision making? My experience has been that their capacity

34

Chapter Three

for climate mitigation is too easily converted into the promise of a future remedy, to be put off when urgency calls. I find underwhelming the collection of U.S. policies aimed at increasing efficiency and renewable technology adoption and am concerned about the implications of the persistent uncertainty still characterizing the so called “energy efficiency gap.” To be sure, there are state and local leaders in enabling efficiency and renewable technology adoptions, but there are more laggards. How does our current experience with efficiency and renewable technology adoption policy diffusion reconcile with the approaches to technology modeling in IAMs? Besides fuel shifting and efficiency, there are those technologies more aligned with the notion of a climate change “backstop,” such as carbon capture and geoengineering. Carbon capture involves capturing and storing carbon emissions at the source of fossil fuel combustion. Geoengineering involves anthropogenic cooling of the atmosphere to combat the effects of warming through either “carbon geoengineering,” which removes excess carbon from the ambient atmosphere, or “solar geoengineering,” which injects aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation. (Some would classify “carbon engineering” as another type of carbon capture.) The technological efficacy and ethics of these approaches are actively debated, and I do not doubt that qualified researchers will clarify their role in, if any, in climate change mitigation.13 With respect to the unintended consequences of technological change, there is something fundamentally different about mitigation strategies that accommodate fossil fuel extraction (e.g. geoengineering) versus those that keep fossil fuels buried (e.g. the “right” carbon tax). While technologists often cast unintended consequences as vague distractions or as unjustified dissent, how does a longstanding record of technological overconfidence stack up against 100- to 1000-year forecasts of integrated social, climate, and economic change? Who gets to draw the lines between appropriate and inappropriate inductions? IAM modelers? Sponsors? The mere notion of calling such technologies “backstops” begs of overconfidence. Is there a line between technological capacity and technological subsistence?

Uncertainty, Transparency, and the Burden of “Proof” All models of our world, be them basic or applied, include uncertainty. To oversimplify, basic science utilizes experimental design and hypothesis tests custom tailored to parse uncertainty from scientific confidence. As a result, basic science produces a relatively high degree of scientific confidence, confidence that often approaches certainty. Much of our

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

35

confidence in fundamental climate science–such as the greenhouse effect and the Earth’s climate sensitivity–is derived through basic science applications. Few practicable decisions lend themselves to the confines of basic science. The greenhouse effect may be indisputable, but it does not tell us what we should do about it. Fortunately, applied models can stretch inductive towards a realistic decision context. In doing so, applied models introduce a variety of uncertainties. Researchers have developed helpful typologies of uncertainties in calling for their more rigorous applications to environmental decision making.14 At a minimum, most typologies differentiate uncertainty along two dimensions: the sources of uncertainty and the degree to which uncertainty can be elucidated (and thus modeled). For example, Van Asselt and Rotmans describes two primary sources of uncertainty: uncertain variability (e.g. value diversity, human behavior) and limited knowledge (e.g. irreducible ignorance, measurement error, indeterminacy). They then further stratify these sources of uncertainty along the degree to which they can be quantified (and thus modeled) from “inexactness” to “irreducible ignorance.”15 Similar typologies differentiate between “risks” with known outcome distributions, recognized ignorance where incomplete knowledge is known but cannot necessarily be modeled, and total ignorance. In contrast to basic science, which is designed for the purposes of isolating uncertainty from confidence, applied models can generally only manage uncertainty. This may seem like a fatal flaw. However, applied models are not only critically important for making decisions informed by science, but they can help researchers prioritize uncertainties that can, in turn, guide basic science inquiry. Where models start with a high degree of uncertainty, the self-corrective tendencies of science can and do significantly improve model performance over time. Where significant uncertainty remains, researchers aim to make more transparent the implications of uncertainty for downstream decisions by parsing a priori uncertainty into its impact on downstream decisions using modeling approaches like sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo modeling. By making uncertainty more transparent, modelers aim to maintain objectivity by unmasking the implications of traceable uncertainties and, in doing so, invite contributions by others. However, effective uncertainty modeling requires both moderately defensible empirical characterizations of model inputs and structural representations of model components, and the degree of induction appropriate for any given applied model has and will likely remain debatable.

36

Chapter Three

With respect to their spatial, temporal, and disciplinary inductive reach, ambitious climate mitigation models, like IAMs, appear problematic prima facie, and such criticisms have plagued their performance since their inception.16 While researchers continue to offer uncertainty typologies that help frame the shortcomings of IAMs, typologies alone are not adequate substitutes for uncertainty management or transparency. No typology of uncertainty can elude the need for IAMs to embrace a high degree of “irreducible ignorance” or “ethical uncertainty.” Funtowicz and Ravetz perhaps best summarized this situation by stating “we (scientists) have not merely lost control and even predictability; now we face radical uncertainty and even ignorance, as well as ethical uncertainties lying at the heart of scientific policy issues.”17 As a result, IAMs mix all types of uncertainty into an unhealthy cocktail that makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the contributions of a priori sources of uncertainty and variability to model output. By integrating the modeling of climate, the global economy, ecosystems, and other complex systems without a defensive empirical and structural purview, IAMs produce uncertainty estimates that encourage non-experts to associate a posteriori uncertainty with confidence levels in any and all upstream inputs. This mixing of a priori and a posteriori confidence situates otherwise defensible climate science to be guilty by association with the crudeness and deep uncertainties demanded by other aspects of IAMs. In doing so, it allows anyone to relatively easily depress decision confidence in any manner of their choosing and cast bias in relatively broad strokes. The effects of such cherry-picking uncertainty and associating it with any model have had subtle but very powerful effects and led to a tremendous amount of unhealthy dissent both from within and outside of the research community.18 There is, again, an implied expectation in the literature that all we need are improved quantitative uncertainty models to elucidate “better decisions” using IAMs. Is it possible that we seek degrees of omniscience where none exists? If so, what are the implications for society’s confidence in science and engineering? Even if climate mitigation uncertainties were perfectly transparent, would such a model render climate mitigation any more straightforward? So what, then, would be sufficient confidence for climate mitigation decisions?

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

37

Reframing the Questions from an Ethical Perspective Thankfully, ethical considerations are increasingly preceding basic research strategies in many salient issues involving innovation, inquiry, and ethics. This a priori role for ethics follows somewhat naturally from the respective domains of scientific inquiry and related downstream “disruptive technologies.” I increasingly find myself considering an a posteriori role where ethics could sharpen inquiry or assist decision uncertainty (not scientific uncertainty) when the collection of quantitative methods, including sufficient basic science, is not enough. As I reflect upon my experience and the literature cited above, I feel compelled to consider the completeness of quantitative methods for climate change mitigation and adaptation decisions. Moreover, if I allow myself to render quantitative decision methods incomplete (not useless), I imagine deeply troubling climate outcomes, such as societal collapse in a manner similarly documented for past environmentally isolated societies.19 Is it appropriate to ignore the parallels between our climate dilemma and historical societal collapses? Is this too much induction to be considered scientific thinking? How does such induction contrast with those of forward looking methods? I find similar uncomfortable tensions in juxtaposing limits to growth against other mitigation solutions. With respective to climate mitigation, it seems more robust to reduce consumption than to embrace the tenuous outcomes of formidable technological solutions like geoengineering.20,21 Again, I, like other peers, do not enjoy entertaining this line of thinking, one that positions growth as part of the problem, but I do not know how one can assert quantitative thinking without considering all the available information. Is it biased thinking to dismiss information just because it is ethically charged? This type of mental exploration has forced deep introspection regarding my experiences and education. Such introspection is characterized by potent internal tension between a profound and intuited reverence and the “solutions” offered by purely quantitative methods distorted by anthropogenic limitations and needs. Such introspection has forced me to clarify connections among ethics, emotional, and rational decision making. In doing so, I have found it helpful to reframe some inquiries characteristic of purely quantitative climate decision models towards questioning that underscores both rational and ethical/emotion decision modes. Consider the following example questions:

38

Chapter Three If I could concentrate the externality effects of my consumptive choices into the life of another person (or the n lives of future others persons, depending on your future expectation of my wealth gains), would I make different choices now and why? Would I act empathetically, rationally, or some combination thereof? How might my responses vary from someone with a different cultural, education, and income outcomes? What does my reaction imply for current mitigation decisions? What sort of endowment would I entrust to mitigate any effects of my consumption? A monetary endowment? A technological one? To whom or to what institution would I entrust such an endowment? My national government? A global entity? What kind of endowment would I want for myself in that situation? What if I am unwilling to grant such an endowment? If we all had perfect information about future climate outcomes, would we make different decisions and why? Would we recognize the challenge posed by climate and engage in a winner-take-all mentality or would we act with some degree of altruism and empathy? How do my responses change if I have children or grandchildren? How do initial allocations of resources–wealth, property, rights, and access to knowledge–affect decision making and respective allocations of the costs and benefits of climate damage, mitigation, and adaptation? If I knew the contributions of my consumptive choices to the permanent extinction of a species or loss of an ecosystem, would I make different choices? Would these choices vary by type of species or ecosystem? What endowment would I provide in this context?

Of course, these hypothetical questions involve similar hypothetical responses, and they oversimplify the decisions at hand. On one hand, such pretenses might encourage readers to outright dismiss them. On the other, aren’t these exactly the kind of questions pursued by hyper-quantitative climate decision models, simply reframed in starker introspective terms? If they are in any way restatements of elements of such quantitative approaches, how might we answer them and who might those answers effect decisions? Should we be concerned about how climate mitigation stakeholders respond to these questions and what their responses imply for the implications of their work? The methods and practices of IAMs strictly embrace a utilitarian perspective. A utilitarian would often justify a certain degree of unfairness, as

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

39

well as sanction actions we might otherwise find immoral, so long as the overall “benefits” exceed the “costs.” Normally, a deontological or virtuebased ethics would be a helpful counterbalance to utilitarianism. In most domains, deontology or virtue ethics would be more present because affected people are present in and connected to the decision context. However, the recipients of climate damage are disconnected in time and space from current choices by global markets, delays in climate damage, and ignorance regarding long-term climate impacts. Reframing climate decisions around an exchange between individual beneficiaries and recipients of climate damage provides the needed deontological and virtue-based balance to climate decisions. These issues make it difficult to escape the reality that climate mitigation involves a significant degree of altruism, empathy, and reverence for nature, which underscores my deepest concerns with relying solely on quantitative methods for climate mitigation decisions. Purely quantitative approaches to climate mitigation rely upon economic models largely empirically and theoretically devoid of altruism and empathy and technological models centered on anthropogenic needs and limitations.

Closing Thoughts I have no doubt that purely quantitative paradigms have and will continue to add value to climate mitigation decisions. However, I am convinced that they are incomplete with respect to decision making. While it might be tempting to capture the momentum of highly confident climate science by rigorously joining it with models from other disciplines, I am concerned that there are clear and subtle ethical implications of doing so that are both endogenous and exogenous to such joint models and that no degree of quantitative modeling can supplant the ethical aspects of such decisions. At a minimum, these issues include encouraging decision delay; presuming anthropogenic knowledge can outpace emergence; making tenuous and opaque resource and burden allocations to human and nonhuman systems; assuming an unproven degree of substitution among economic, human, technological, and non-human systems; engendering technological subsistence; and supplanting a needed degree of altruism, empathy, and reverence for nature with technological and economic models devoid of such. Society needs to increase awareness of these limitations and assert more strongly that quantitative methods alone cannot reconcile the climate science with its implications for economic and social change. In their

40

Chapter Three

introducing of “post normal science,” Funtowiz and Ravetz called for more transparency and inclusion as a means to resolve the changes, stating “the activity of science now encompasses the management of irreducible uncertainties in knowledge and in ethics, and the recognition of different legitimate perspectives and ways of knowing. In this way, its practice is becoming more akin to the workings of a democratic society, characterized by extensive participation and toleration of diversity.”22 While transparency and inclusion may help, I do not see the necessary disciplines being included in quantitative modeling decisions. More formal involvement of ethicists and philosophers in the review of research proposals and peer reviewed publications would help. Anyone who has ever applied to an institutional review board for approval to conduct research involving human subjects knows how deeply we respect the integrity of the human condition in the context of research. Can we draw parallels from these internal review practices to infuse ethics into environmental research characterized by deep uncertainties, ethical decisions, and high stakes? Beyond transparency and inclusions, we need to reconsider the implications of preparing and using models so ambitious in their geographic, temporal, and disciplinary scope that they become opaque and dilute and diffuse their most important and confident contribution, which is the climate science. Perhaps interdisciplinarity has met its match, and it is time to uncouple the disciplines. This suggestion has been made by several recent economists: Ackerman et al. indicated “Policy decisions should be based on a judgment concerning the maximum tolerable increase in temperature and/or carbon dioxide levels given the state of scientific understanding. The appropriate role for economists would then be to determine the least-cost global strategy to achieve that target. While this remains a demanding and complex problem, it is far more tractable and epistemically defensible than the cost-benefit comparisons attempted by most IAMs.”23 Rosen and Guenther suggested “Because of these serious technical problems, policymakers should not base climate change mitigation policy on the estimated net economic impacts computed by integrated assessment models. Rather, mitigation policies must be forcefully implemented anyway given the actual physical climate change crisis, in spite of the many uncertainties involved in trying to predict the net economics of doing so.”24

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

41

These arguments bring tremendous sanity to making difficult climate mitigation decisions. They do not let the allusion of robust or optimal climate mitigation strategies diffuse and flatten the climate science. They elevate decision making towards the strengths of relevant disciplines. Let the climate science speak for itself without being encumbered by future hypotheticals that are largely impossible to know. Let economists do what they do well, which is manage observed externalities and distribute respective impacts. The uncertainties can be resolved with the selfcorrection tendencies of science, the flexibility of economic policy instruments, and the creativity of engineers. Finally, we need to balance the current heavy emphasis on utilitarianism in climate modeling with deontology and virtue ethics. The missing voice in the ethical debate–the recipients of climate damage– creates a special need for deontological and virtue based ethics when making climate mitigation decisions.

Notes 1 Richard H. Moss, Jae A. Edmonds, Kathy A. Hibbard, Martin R. Manning, Steven K. Rose, Detlef P. Van Vuuren, Timothy R. Carter, et al., “The next Generation of Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Assessment,” Nature 463, no. 7282 (2010): 747–756. 2 For a more detailed description of the SCC, see Metcalf and Stock (2015). 3 Robert S. Pindyck, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?,” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3 (2013): 860–72. 4 Nicholas Stern, “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models,” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3 (2013): 838–59. 5 Richard A. Rosen and Edeltraud Guenther, “The Economics of Mitigating Climate Change: What Can We Know?,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 91 (2015): 93–106. 6 Sonja Klinsky and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Conceptualizations of Justice in Climate Policy,” Climate Policy 9, no. 1 (2009): 88–108. For other more involved criticisms of IAMs see Schneider (1997), Garner et al. (2016), Morgan (2011), Van der Sluijs (2006), Akerman et al. (2009), and Beck and Kruger (2016). 7 M. Granger Morgan, Milind Kandlikar, James Risbey, and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change,” Climatic Change 41, no. 3 (1999): 271–281. 8 Stephen H. Schneider, “Integrated Assessment Modeling of Global Climate Change: Transparent Rational Tool for Policy Making or Opaque Screen Hiding Value laden Assumptions?,” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2, no. 4 (1997): 229–249. 9 James Risbey, Jeroen van der Sluijs, Penny Kloprogge, Jerry Ravetz, Silvio Funtowicz, and Serafin Corral Quintana, “Application of a Checklist for Quality

42

Chapter Three

Assistance in Environmental Modelling to an Energy Model,” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10, no. 1 (2005): 63–79. 10 Valeria Jana Schwanitz, “Evaluating Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change,” Environmental Modelling & Software 50 (2013): 120–131. 11 Gilbert E. Metcalf, James Stock, and others, “The Role of Integrated Assessment Models in Climate Policy: A User’s Guide and Assessment,” The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper (2015): 15–68. 12 For a more detailed description of these uncertainties see Gillingham et al. (2008), Wilson et al. (2013), Kriegler et al. (2014), and Yeh and Rubin (2012). 13 For example, see Tavoni (2013); Szulczewski et al. (2012); Zoback and Gorelick (2012); Corner et al. (2010); Keith (2010); Vaugh and Lenton (2011); Gardiner (2011); and Preston (2011). 14 For examples, see Van Asselt and Rotmans (2002); Weinberg (1972); Morgan et al. (1992); Walker et al. (2003); and Beck and Krueger (2016). 15 Marjolein BA Van Asselt and Jan Rotmans, "Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling," Climatic Change 54, no. 1 (2002): 75-105. 16 For examples, see Morgan et al. (1999); Schneider (1997); Risbey (1996); Metcalf and Stock (2015); Pindyck (2013); and Beck and Krueger (2016). 17 Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, “Science for the Post-Normal Age,” Futures 25, no. 7 (1993): 739–755. 18 Justin B. Biddle and Anna Leuschner, "Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science be Epistemically Detrimental?," European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3 (2015): 261-278. 19 Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin, 2005.) 20 Paul J. Crutzen, "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: a Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?," Climatic change 77, no. 3 (2006): 211-220. 21 Alan Robock, “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64, no. 2 (2008): 14–18. 22 Funtowicz and Ravetz, “Science for the Post-Normal Age,” 739-755. 23 Frank Ackerman, Stephen J. DeCanio, Richard B. Howarth, and Kristen Sheeran. “Limitations of Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change.” Climatic Change 95, no. 3 (2009): 297-315. 24 Rosen and Guenther, “The Economics of Mitigating Climate Change: What Can We Know?” 93-106.

Literature Ackerman, Frank, et al. 2009. “Limitations of Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change.” Climatic Change 95, no. 3: 297-315. Beck, Marisa, Tobias Krueger. 2016. “The Epistemic, Ethical, and Political Dimensions of Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modeling.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7, no. 5: 627–45.

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

43

Biddle, Justin B., Anna Leuschner. 2015. "Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science be Epistemically Detrimental?" European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3: 261-278. Corner, Adam, Nick Pidgeon. 2010. “Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 52, no. 1: 24–37. Crutzen, Paul J. 2006. "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?" Climatic Change 77, no. 3: 211-220. Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguin. Funtowicz, Silvio O., Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the PostNormal Age.” Futures 25, no. 7: 739–755. Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011. “Some Early Ethics of Geoengineering the Climate: A Commentary on the Values of the Royal Society Report.” Environmental Values 20, no. 2: 163–188. Garner, Gregory, Patrick Reed, Klaus Keller. 2016. “Climate Risk Management Requires Explicit Representation of Societal TradeOffs.” Climatic Change 134, no. 4: 713–723. Gillingham, Kenneth, Richard G. Newell, William A. Pizer. 2008. “Modeling Endogenous Technological Change for Climate Policy Analysis.” Energy Economics 30, no. 6: 2734–2753. Keith, David W. 2010. “Photophoretic Levitation of Engineered Aerosols for Geoengineering.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 38: 16428–16431. Klinsky, Sonja, Hadi Dowlatabadi. 2009. “Conceptualizations of Justice in Climate Policy.” Climate Policy 9, no. 1: 88–108. Kriegler, Elmar, et al. 2014. “The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate Policy Objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies.” Climatic Change 123, no. 3–4: 353–367. Metcalf, Gilbert E., et al. 2015. “The Role of Integrated Assessment Models in Climate Policy: A User’s Guide and Assessment.” The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper, 15–68. Morgan, M. Granger. 2011. “Certainty, Uncertainty, and Climate Change.” Climatic Change 108, no. 4: 707. Morgan, M. Granger, et al. 1999. “Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change.” Climatic Change 41, no. 3: 271–281.

44

Chapter Three

Morgan, M. Granger, Max Henrion, Mitchell Small. 1992. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moss, Richard H., et al. 2010. “The next Generation of Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Assessment.” Nature 463, no. 7282: 747–756. Pindyck, Robert S. 2013. “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3: 860–72. Preston, Christopher J. 2011. “Re-Thinking the Unthinkable: Environmental Ethics and the Presumptive Argument against Geoengineering.” Environmental Values 20, no. 4: 457–479. Risbey, James, et al. 2005. “Application of a Checklist for Quality Assistance in Environmental Modelling to an Energy Model.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10, no. 1: 63–79. Risbey, James, Milind Kandlikar, Anand Patwardhan. 1996. “Assessing Integrated Assessments.” Climatic Change 34, no. 3–4: 369–95. Robock, Alan. 2008. “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64, no. 2: 14–18. Rosen, Richard A., Edeltraud Guenther. 2015. “The Economics of Mitigating Climate Change: What Can We Know?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 91: 93–106. Schneider, Stephen H. 1997. “Integrated Assessment Modeling of Global Climate Change: Transparent Rational Tool for Policy Making or Opaque Screen Hiding ValueǦladen Assumptions?” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2, no. 4: 229–249. Schwanitz, Valeria Jana. 2013. “Evaluating Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change.” Environmental Modelling & Software 50: 120–131. Stern, Nicholas. 2013. “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models.” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3: 838–59. Szulczewski, Michael L., et al. 2012. “Lifetime of Carbon Capture and Storage as a Climate-Change Mitigation Technology.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 14: 5185–5189. Tavoni, Massimo, Robert Socolow. 2013. “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions.” Climatic Change 118, no. 1: 1–14. van Asselt, Marjolein BA, Jan Rotmans. 2002. "Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling." Climatic Change 54, no. 1: 75-105.

Climate Mitigation Decisions, Uncertainty, and Ethics

45

van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. 2006. “Uncertainty, Assumptions, and Value Commitments in the Knowledge-Base of Complex Environmental Problems.” Interfaces between Science and Society, 64–81. Vaughan, Naomi E., Timothy M. Lenton. 2011. “A Review of Climate Geoengineering Proposals.” Climatic Change 109, no. 3–4: 745–790. Walker, Warren E., et al. 2003. “Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support.” Integrated Assessment 4, no. 1 (2003): 5–17. Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. “Science and Trans-Science.” Minerva 10, no.2: 209–222. Wilson, C., et al. 2013. “Future Capacity Growth of Energy Technologies: Are Scenarios Consistent with Historical Evidence?” Climatic Change 118, no. 2: 381–395. Yeh, Sonia, Edward S. Rubin. 2012. “A Review of Uncertainties in Technology Experience Curves.” Energy Economics 34, no. 3: 762– 771. Zoback, Mark D., Steven M. Gorelick. 2012. “Earthquake Triggering and Large-Scale Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 26: 10164–10168.

III. SOCIAL SCIENCE

CHAPTER FOUR ECOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN AND PSYCHO-SPIRITUAL BREAKTHROUGH: CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM AND TRANSPERSONAL ECOPSYCHOLOGY WILL W. ADAMS

Introduction Catching sight of a white-tailed doe soaring high over a fallen tree, my young son exclaimed, “Dad, that deer was falling from heaven! Like, like…floating!” While we were driving near our home in the woods, I, too, had seen her gliding in a graceful arc, as if “in slow motion” (in Eli’s words). I was already quite taken by this event, completely common where we live and thoroughly awesome at the same time. But my son’s poetic remark called forth something I had not explicitly named, at least not in that particular encounter. That is, there was a profoundly sacramental quality in what had just transpired among us. By “us” I mean, most centrally, the deer, Eli, and me in this situated encounter. But I also want to acknowledge all the other participants who gathered to bring this experience into being: the sloping woods, the sight and sound of our car intruding on the deer’s space, the big decaying tree in her escape path, her search for food as winter approached, the proliferation of white tails following the extermination of wolves and mountain lions, and on and on. Each of these participated in this ordinary, yet nonetheless holy, event, an event that left me feeling grateful and inspired (once again) to work in the service of our common home, the one Earth community that is shared and shaped by all our relations, human and “more-than-human.” 1 Eli must have been inspired as well because, following the season’s first snowfall a few days later, he asked me with real concern: “How do deer survive in the winter? They don’t hibernate, and their fur isn’t long like Lela’s [our beloved dog].” When we let ourselves be touched intimately, we see and

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

49

feel deeply, and our compassion flows spontaneously, yes?2 Thomas Berry, the esteemed Catholic cultural historian and ecotheologian, offered many a wise insight into our marvelous and troubled relationship with the rest of nature. Berry showed how every historical era calls upon its people to collaborate in a “Great Work”–a life-changing venture distinctive to the compelling circumstances of each particular age. “The Great Work now, as we move into the new millennium, is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the Earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial way.”3 I heartily agree with him on this point, and I offer the present essay as one contribution to this urgent project. Joining Berry, I believe it is important to utilize scientific and technological means to address our ecological crisis. However, like he also says, these efforts will be futile if we leave out another crucial “therapeutic” ingredient, namely, the psycho-spiritual dimension of existence: An absence of a sense of the sacred is the basic flaw in many of our efforts at ecologically or environmentally adjusting our human presence to the natural world. It has been said, “We will not save what we do not love.” It is also true that we will neither love nor save what we do not experience as sacred... The difficulty is that the natural world is seen primarily for human use, not as a mode of sacred presence primarily to be communed with in wonder and beauty and intimacy. In our present attitude the natural world remains a commodity to be bought and sold, not a sacred reality to be venerated… Eventually only our sense of the sacred will save us.4

How then may we come to respond to the natural world as sacred when so often we experience it merely as an objective resource to exploit or an impediment to our small, self-centered wishes? How may we live this way personally, and how may this relational sensibility and ethos come to guide larger socio-cultural practice? Clearly, it is not enough to know these things cognitively (as if mere information is sufficient), nor to be told by authorities that nature is holy (as if we need more preaching of morality). Rather, we must come to know the world’s sacramental nature by way of direct experience, time and again, so that this awareness exists vividly in our body and heart and springs forth consistently in our daily relational contact with others. According to Berry, a “deep psychic change”5 is required to foster such responsive attunement to the sacred depths of life. Pope Francis makes a similar appeal in his wise encyclical letter On Care for Our Common Home (Laudato Si’). In his words, “the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion.”6 And he goes on to say that “The ecological conversion needed to bring out lasting change is also a community conversion,”7 a radical change of our

50

Chapter Four

individualistic, anthropocentric, corporate-consumerist society. Today’s human-generated ecological crisis is unprecedented, multifaceted, and pervasive: our fellow species being massively extinguished, life-giving habitat destroyed for human convenience (in the name of progress), climate disrupted dangerously, floods and droughts amplified, sea levels rising, water becoming scarce, air and water poisoned with industrial toxins, etc. To be sure, this breakdown of the life-systems of our common home involves biological, geological, and meteorological maladies. Primarily, however, the rampant destruction of the Earth is a pathological symptom of a psycho-spiritual crisis, truly a crisis of consciousness and culture. Today we are facing–or, tragically, often turning further away from–a severe alienation from nature, and equally from the depths of our self, from intimate contact with others, and from the mysterious, divine presencing of God, if you will (or, if you prefer, the infinitely deep presencing of life, being, “I am,” mystery, spirit, reality, awareness, nature, love…the grand unnamable by whatever name). Herein, humanity and the rest of nature are impoverished together. Ecological devastation is evident in our home towns and all around the Earth. Its harmful impact on the well-being of the natural world is obvious. Its harmful impact on humans’ physical health is also obvious, with asthma rising from industrial air pollution and cancers from toxic chemicals. Less evident, but equally perilous, is the psycho-spiritual trauma of losing our conscious relational contact with the natural world. The very word human means Earthling, someone rooted in humus, Earth. Nature’s glorious beings and presences have been our cherished relational partners throughout the existence of our species. 8 Psychologists often emphasize that we humans are relational beings, and that our relations with others bring forth health or suffering both for ourselves and others. This is also true in our relations with the natural world. Yet today this relationship is being desecrated in an unprecedented way. We are suffering from a real “nature-deficit disorder.” 9 This deeply disturbing term highlights how socio-culturaleconomic shifts are increasingly leading us away from engaged awareness of our responsive (and responsible) participation in the natural world. As one boy remarked, tellingly, “I like to play indoors better, ’cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.”10 When we lose our (aware) contact with nature, we lose our experiential source of care for nature, and we ignore nature’s life-enhancing gifts. The field of psychology can bring both understanding and transformative practices to bear on this urgent crisis of consciousness and culture. This is especially true when it draws from the wisdom and

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

51

contemplative/meditative methods of the world’s spiritual traditions, as in the relatively new field of transpersonal (or spiritual) psychology.11 This mutually generative alliance between transpersonal psychology and Christian mysticism will guide our approach in the present essay. We will consider how, by way of immensely destructive conditions we would never have wished for, today’s ecological breakdown is calling for and calling forth a radical psycho-spiritual breakthrough. Our situation is dire. Things could get worse and stay worse. Yet there are incipient signs that the shared Earth community is struggling to create a distinctly new era and way of being together. In acknowledgement of the unprecedented impact that a single species, our species, is having on the life of the planet, some have called this the “anthropocene.” Human responsibility is crucial, no doubt. But the term troubles me because it places anthropos, us humans, at the center–and anthropocentrism is the primary source of our current crisis. Thomas Berry calls upon individuals and human cultures to wake up and step up responsibly, yet in doing so he proposes the possibility that an “ecozoic era” is emerging. Herein, we humans may humbly appreciate our distinctive place within an infinitely deeper Earth (and cosmic) community–thereby participating with others in (co)constructing a world of mutual flourishing for humankind and the rest of nature together. A “great turning” 12 does seem to be underway, nascently so, but it will take our “great work” to bring it to fruition.

Christian Mysticism, Transpersonal Psychology, and Ecopsychology This essay will draw out some of the major ecopsychological implications of the Christian mystical tradition. 13 We will explore teachings from Jesus Christ and Pope Francis (in Laudato Si'), along with insights from Thomas Berry, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King, Jr., Marguerite Porete, Mechthild of Magdeburg, Meister Eckhart, St. Teresa of Avila, and Saint John of the Cross. Though these texts are spiritual ones, I want to be clear that my interpretative offerings are not intended as theological claims. I am not trained as a theologian or a religious studies scholar. Rather, I will be addressing these texts from two interrelated perspectives: through my experience as a human science psychologist with experience in the psychology of religion, transpersonal psychology, and ecopsychology; and as a longtime practitioner of meditation and contemplative prayer. 14 In the process, I hope I do not unintentionally misrepresent something from the Christian mystical tradition. If this does

52

Chapter Four

happen I take full responsibility, and I hope that my presentation will still be fruitful. Given these caveats, let me also emphasize that the discipline of psychology does have a deep (if often disavowed) connection with spirituality and with wild nature, as well. The very word “psyche” comes to us by way of the Greek psykhe, and it gathers a significant collection of interrelated connotations: breath, life, soul, spirit, mind, animating spirit; “the animating principle in man [sic] and other living beings, the source of all vital activities;” “the animating principle of the universe as a whole, the soul of the world or anima mundi.”15 Clearly, the psychological, spiritual, and ecological dimensions of existence intertwine and blend into one another in a mutually creative way. Regrettably, the field of psychology was late in coming to acknowledge mature, transformative versions of spirituality, the very kind we now need to help foster a reciprocally life-enhancing rapport between humans and the larger natural world. With few exceptions–notably, William James and C.G. Jung–psychology tended to ignore or misunderstand spiritual phenomena until the emergence of transpersonal psychology in the 1960’s and 70s. This lack was partly due to the influence of Sigmund Freud’s powerful critique of religion as a childish, regressive, and/or pathological phenomenon; partly due to the limitations, yet near exclusive dominance, of experimental research methods; and partly due to psychologists’ (and our larger society’s) unfamiliarity with the mystical traditions (across various religions). Freud rightly warned of the dangers of certain common forms of religion, particularly those dominated by blind belief in authority, magical thinking, and abdication of our personal agency and responsibility. However, he had no understanding of contemplative or mystical approaches that are based upon experiential psycho-spiritual exploration. Indeed, his (mis)interpretation of the so-called “oceanic experience” was a major missed opportunity in the history of the psychology of spirituality.16 Transpersonal psychology and ecopsychology comprise two relatively new branches of the larger human science tradition in psychology.17 The emerging field of ecopsychology explores the psychological dimensions of humankind’s relationship with the rest of nature and the ecological dimensions of human psychology. 18 Ecopsychology affirms that human health and the health of the natural world co-arise in concert, and so, too, the lack of health. Physical, psychological, socio-cultural, spiritual, and ecological well-being are all included here, and understood to be inherently interrelated. Psychologists have long worked to alleviate suffering due to existential, interpersonal, intrapsychic, and socio-cultural adversity. Now (some) psychologists are addressing the human suffering

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

53

that arises due to our alienation from and desecration of nature, and, correspondingly, they are further addressing the suffering of the natural world that is due to maladies of human psychology. Human psychology is implicated, for good and for ill, in the quality of our connection with the animate Earth. Powerful collaborative work has been initiated in recent years among the world’s mystical or contemplative traditions, ecopsychology, and transpersonal psychology. The latter field grew out of the work of humanistic psychologists, such as Abraham Maslow and others. It focuses on the psychological significance of spiritual phenomena, spiritual knowledge and knowing, transformative spiritual practices, and spiritual ways of being. 19 A recent effort to provide a concise definition of this diverse field puts it this way: Transpersonal psychology is a transformative psychology of the whole person in intimate relationship with an interconnected and evolving world; it pays special attention to self-expansive states as well as to spiritual, mystical, and other exceptional human experiences that gain meaning in such a context.20

This alliance among the world’s spiritual traditions and Western psychology–widely available only in the last few decades of humanity’s history–holds untold potential for understanding, healing, growth, transformation, and liberation, both personally and socio-culturally. Although psychology did not become a distinct academic discipline until the second half of the 19th century, religious saints, sages, and mystics have always engaged in profound psychological (or psychospiritual) inquiry. By way of formal meditative practices, the mystics were the people attending most intimately to the workings of their body, mind, and heart. Transpersonal psychologists appreciate that experiential spiritual practices are powerful means of fostering transformation, healing, growth, and development. Most people–famous religious teachers and ordinary citizens alike–have had spontaneous spiritual realizations in the midst of daily life, whether or not they labeled them as “spiritual.” Such revelatory experiences show the person something profoundly important about the nature of their self, world, relationships, and way of being. Whereas these realizations are usually ephemeral and fleeting, formal meditative or contemplative practices can function to stabilize, clarify, and cultivate such insights. Through ongoing practice, it is not only that one garners new understanding but that one’s consciousness and way of beingwith-others are transformed, so that one more consistently sees the world through this awareness and relates with others accordingly. Although

54

Chapter Four

inspired by spiritual texts and principles, a mystic is someone who is not satisfied with second hand knowledge, with hearsay about spiritual matters. Rather, he or she is devoted to consciously experiencing the depths and mystery of life–union with God, in classical terms–and to allowing their everyday relations to flow forth wisely and lovingly from this direct experience. When I discuss testimony from various Christian mystics in this essay, please remember that their insights spring not from speculation on spiritual matters but from experiential inquiry undertaken repeatedly and tested in daily life. And be aware, as well, that the mystics emphasize that these contemplative explorations and contemplative findings are available to everyone. It is worth noting that, from its inception in the 1960s, transpersonal psychology has been most influenced by Asian spirituality, with Buddhism being especially prominent. Thanks to Thomas Merton and others, Euro-American culture is rediscovering the wisdom of the Christian mystical tradition. Nonetheless, Christian perspectives and practices have been significantly underrepresented in transpersonal psychology. One exception is the extraordinary work of James Finley, a clinical psychologist, spiritual director, and former novice monk under Merton at the Abby of Gethsemani.21 The present essay is one response to this gap in the literature. Today there are many excellent books on methods of contemplation/meditation. Contemplative retreats with experienced teachers are also easily accessible. Given this great fortune, the present essay will take a somewhat paradoxical approach: while honoring the profound importance of experiential psycho-spiritual practice for cultivating the mutual well-being of humankind and the rest of nature, I will focus on the inspiring fruits of contemplative practice rather than specific methods. That said, meditative reading of spiritual texts is certainly an authentic practice–lectio divina, in traditional terms–and one that could be applied to the passages I will be citing. I am heartened to find support in Laudato Si’ for my ecopsychological approach to Christian mysticism and my contemplative (or transpersonal) approach to ecopsychology. In his encyclical, Pope Francis often celebrates the profound sensibilities of many renowned mystics: Saint Francis of Assisi (whose eco-theological vision he celebrates by way of his adopted name), Saint Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Saint John of the Cross, and of course Jesus Christ. Based upon Laudato Si’ and other reports of his engaged contemplative work, I include Francis himself in this list of mystics. It is no accident that he presents his most extensive commentary on the mystical way in the culminating pages of his text.

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

55

There he encourages us to discover “a mystical meaning”22 in all realms of life, certainly in other people (especially those less privileged), yet also in our fellow beings and presences of the natural world: The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. St. Bonaventure teaches us that “contemplation deepens the more we feel the working of God’s grace within our hearts, and the better we learn to encounter God in creatures outside ourselves.”23

Placing the Word God in Context(s) The present essay is an interpretive inquiry into the transpersonal ecopsychology of the Christian mystical tradition, specifically in its relevance for our relationship with the more-than-human natural world. My primary method consists of contemplative and hermeneuticphenomenological readings of classic mystical texts.24 By doing so, I hope to present psycho-spiritual perspectives that help us deconstruct and compassionately reconstruct our involvement with the rest of nature. By embracing the mystics as partners in dialogue, I heartily, but cautiously, embrace a special time-honored word: God. Yet using this word in an academic context deserves some critical and contextualizing commentary. All too often the word “God” is tossed around so habitually that it becomes banal; or, conversely, it is automatically dismissed without critical consideration. These reactions mirror each other, both being largely devoid of reflection and precluding the arising of lively experience and action. To sponsor fresh awareness, understanding, compassion, and love: this, for me, is the whole point in invoking the time-honored word. The word God is one of countless names that have been bestowed on the one sacred, unnamable, nondual, participatory mystery. I cited just a few earlier in this work: love, being, nature, reality, “I am,” and so on. Without claiming that these words are identical, when used in spiritual contexts each serves as a metaphor for the ultimately unsayable and unqualifiable. Most classical spiritual or philosophical names work well for me, at least when I hear them via a critically thoughtful and contemplative consciousness. But I understand that spiritual language does not work for many people in today’s post-modern world. The word “God,” especially, often carries complex emotional baggage. To honor the unfathomable mystery of this sacred word, while bringing it down to Earth and making it experience-near, I often find it helpful to speak of “life”–not mere biology,

56

Chapter Four

of course, but that which is all-inclusive and quintessentially precious, the grand infinite dynamic life in and as which we and all things participate together.25 I can’t say what this life is, just as no one can ever really say what God is. (After all, God is certainly not a “what.” Nor is life.) Yet, with the mystics, I’m reaching towards an experientially accessible realization that has a direct influence on our daily existence. I am confident that the themes the mystics and I address in this essay are relevant for everyone, regardless of spiritual affiliation or non-affiliation. In this spirit, I encourage readers to make their own translations or substitutions. When the text says God, you could try hearing “life” (or your own preferred term, whether traditionally religious or secular). Since transpersonal psychology involves a mutually informative (indeed, transformative) dialogue with the world’s spiritual traditions, and since I am endeavoring to articulate an ecopsychology of Christian mystical experience (which has to include the experience of God), I have given myself the liberty of using the word God in this essay. Yet I will experiment with offering it in an alternative form: G-d. Here I take a cue from the Jewish practice of using the tetragrammaton, YHWH (in Latin). I opt for this strategy because the word God (at best) carries evocative, revelatory, transformative power–power that is most likely released when we pause humbly and receptively when we hear that revered word, appreciating that any concept of God is not G-d. But the word “God” is used (or misused) to mean vastly different things. Many of these are dangerously misguided, for example a terrorist (identified with any religion) believing that they are authorized to kill in the name of “God.” A related danger involves the fundamental (and largely unconscious) assumption that one knows what the word “God” means or refers to, or even the assumption that there can be some objective meaning or reference in this unique case. This is a fantasy–idolatry, in religious terms–and it leads to naïve presumptiveness at best and violence at worst. It is impossible to know, conceptually, what G-d means or is (or life, for that matter). But I do know what it cannot mean, at least in any spiritually mature and authentic way. G-d cannot justify killing those who see the world differently from “us;” or the exploitation of those less privileged; or the desecration and annihilation of nature’s beings and presences, our fellow participants in this one grand life. And G-d cannot be reduced to a parent or Santa Clause figure, conventionally male and authoritarian, who observes us from a distance, discerns who is “naughty or nice,” and dispenses punishments and rewards accordingly. This is the (notion of) “God” that Freud cogently critiqued.26

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

57

To my mind (and heart), the mystics often offer skillful language for exploring something–not a “thing,” of course–that can never fully be languaged, but calls to be spoken of (so as to be spoken with, experienced intimately, and responsively served). Mystics often write or say something and then un-say it, partially take it back, re-say it differently, again and again. Thus, Saint John of the Cross ecstatically invokes “I-don’t-know what”27 when alluding to G-d! And Meister Eckhart gives us a disquieting injunction: “we pray God to rid us of ‘God.’”28 In this spirit, I will do my best to use the word G-d skillfully, with a reverent pause that I invite readers to join in, in hopes of sponsoring fresh experience and renewed responsiveness to the ethical calls of daily life.

The Resistance of Contemplative Sensibility in Today’s Dominant Culture A contemplative approach certainly goes against the grain of our dominant culture. As Francis says: Nature is filled with words of love, but how can we listen to them amid constant noise, interminable and nerve-wrecking distractions, or the cult of appearances? Many people today sense a profound imbalance which drives them to frenetic activity and makes them feel busy, in a constant hurry which in turn leads them to ride rough-shod over everything around them. This too affects how they treat the environment.29

Silence and stillness are obscured by our excessively loud and fast-paced lifestyles. There are powerful forces operating that socialize us into exclusively anthropocentric views and values, and this is occurring largely outside of our awareness. None of us are immune to conceiving, perceiving, and treating nature primarily as a stockpile of material for human consumption (‘natural resources’); as an obstacle to our selfcentered wishes (‘how dare that river impede my oil pipeline’) and humancentered projects (‘global warming is a hoax, so we’ll damn well continue with business as usual’); and/or a danger or threat (“the dreaded external world,” as Freud once put it).30 There is a kernel of truth in each of these perspectives: all the food, air, water, and material goods that sustain us come from nature; we do need energy and sustainable development; ethical, socially/ecologically sensitive businesses serve us well; and the powerful forces of nature can be deadly at times. However, these conventional perspectives have come to tyrannize us in the last century (or more), thus impoverishing humankind and the rest of nature inseparably. Most of us are a far cry from seeing “a Heaven in a Wild Flower”31 or

58

Chapter Four

knowing intimately that “every thing that lives is Holy,”32 in the poetic words William Blake, a great visionary Christian mystic. Today nature is being ravaged with unprecedented ferocity, with little other than personal, political, or economic self-interest deemed as holy. It is clear that the Earth is under assault and calling for a profound transformation. From my perspective, it is not that we are evil, but rather confused, afraid, and misguidedly conditioned by anthropocentric cultural discourses and social/economic structures. Berry claims, rightly so, that we must actually “reinvent the human.” 33 Psychologists and spiritual teachers are familiar with this radical and challenging possibility, indeed opportunity. Developmental, social, and clinical psychologists have shown that both our sense of self and our socio-cultural realities are constructed– largely unconsciously–through our relations with significant others and through the assimilation of cultural values, discourses, and practices. They also emphasize that anything that is constructed can be deconstructed and creatively re-constructed. Similarly, the spiritual mystics have long demonstrated that consciousness and culture can be radically transformed. For example, following Christ’s archetypal path and his own experiential transformation, Saint Paul famously describes such a metamorphosis, or metanoia: a deep turning of our heart-mind, turning into our deeper transpersonal heart-mind, a process of “dying” to or transcending our “false” (supposedly separate and sovereign) egoic self-sense, and thereby opening to our real self or true nature. “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.”34 Who we construe our self to be, and what we construe nature to be, guides how we treat nature. As we see, so shall we act and interact, and as Blake declares: Everybody does not see alike. To the Eyes of a Miser a Guinea [gold coin] is more beautiful than the Sun & a bag worn with the use of Money has more beautiful proportions than a Vine filled with Grapes. The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the Eyes of others only a Green thing that stands in the way. Some see Nature all Ridicule & Deformity & by these I shall not regulate my proportions, and Some Scarce see Nature at all… As a man is So he Sees.35

Blake was wisely prescient in so many of his views, and fiercely so here. All-too-commonly now, afflicted with nature deficit disorder, we scarcely see nature at all. And when someone who is supposed to be President of the United States claims that human generated climate change is a “hoax” and “bullshit;” and when this man is a billionaire businessman who promises to "to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

59

payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs;" and when he works to fill his cabinet with similarly wealthy elites aligned primarily with fossil fuel and financial corporations, then what was obvious before becomes even more egregiously so, namely, that money for the few is deemed far ‘more beautiful’ than wild nature (or the plight of people who are oppressed).36 Chillingly, the charity Oxfam recently reported that the world’s eight richest people, all men, have as much wealth as the poorer half of the whole of humankind, that is, more than 3.6 billion people (not to mention our non-human fellows).37 These recent political and economic developments demonstrate that in many ways, and with compelling force, corporate capitalism has become a kind of new religion, one bent on uncritical (and often violently destructive) self-expansion and aggrandizement. Thus, Pope Francis says critically, “whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.”38 It is clear that “the great work” must be an interdisciplinary, psycho-spiritual-cultural therapy. This includes three complementary components: socio-cultural critique and work for social justice (with a special focus on ecologically sustainable economics and politics), interpersonal collaboration, and direct personal experience. In the present essay, I have chosen to focus on the latter, especially in its mystical or contemplative form. For Blake, the transformative path was one of visionary imagination, art, and poetry. For other mystics it was–or is–meditation or contemplative prayer. There are countless other methods, as well. Yet all these mystical paths share core things in common. All involve experiential practices that intentionally interrupt our habitual, self-centered, and all-too-certain-fearfilled-and-controlling attitudes. All go beyond mere method in order to foster a truly contemplative way of being. All involve surrendering our supposedly separate, self-sufficient self and surrendering into the divine, interresponsive flow of life. All are actualized as loving service to others. In a celebrated remark, Blake avowed: “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: infinite.”39 Further, he was clear about the spiritual significance of this realization: “He who sees the Infinite in all things sees God.”40 Via deep, intimate perception, every thing–the squirrel outside the window, the local river, the single mother and her hungry children, the distant mountain, all our neighbors (including those who are strangers, close by and far away)–every thing is revealed to be infinite. And the infinite is a classic metaphor for G-d, the precious one we are called to love (according to Christian contemplatives), to love in the guise of our neighbors.

60

Chapter Four

The tyranny of our dominant culture certainly resists this contemplative perspective. However, conversely and subversively, a contemplative perspective actively resists this tyranny. In ways radically contrary to the business-as-usual status quo, and as one component of a larger psychocultural therapeutic, a transpersonal or mystical sensibility can help us discover (and further co-create) a truly hallowed natural world.

A Transpersonal Psychology of Christian Mysticism Life is hard. We all know that pain is intrinsic in human existence. Yet, from a contemplative view, suffering is different from pain. Most deeply, suffering arises from a haunting feeling of being cut off from the depths of life or reality–alienated from G-d, in Christian terms, and equally from our deeper self, each other, our community, and nature. We become fearfully anguished when captivated by this estrangement, and in reaction we tend to afflict others (both human and more-than-human). As a therapeutic response, mystical practice sponsors a revelatory, liberating process of transcending one’s sense of separation from G-d. Thomas Merton often affirmed that there is no actual barrier to realizing our union with G-d. Rather, as he put it, “The obstacle is in our ‘self,’ that is to say in the tenacious need to maintain our separate, external, egotistic will. It is when we refer all things to this outward and false self that we alienate ourselves from reality and from God.”41 With this in mind, consider the analogous view of ecologist Robert Michael Pyle, who remarks powerfully: “The most dangerous idea in the world is that humans are separate from the rest of nature. The greatest enormities against the Earth stem from such delusions, just as us-and-them thinking justifies our inhumanity toward one another.” 42 Resonating with these views, Thomas Berry presents a cogent diagnosis of today’s rampant ruination of the natural world: “The deepest cause of the present devastation is found in a mode of consciousness that has established a radical discontinuity between the human and all other modes of being and the bestowal of all rights on the humans.”43 Significantly, the primary focus of transpersonal psychology is to help us address and grow beyond this dissociative (albeit illusory) sense of separation: Transpersonal psychology is commonly defined as one that examines states of consciousness and stages of human development that go beyond the bounds of the self as normally defined, as well as the aspirations and paths of practice directed at transcending the conventional [supposedly separate] “I.”44

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

61

The very word transpersonal carries intimations of three core themes from contemplative spirituality: namely, that I am an inseparable manifestation of and participant in a deep dynamic reality that transcends my conventional, personal, individual, skin-bounded self or ego or bodymind; that my true nature or real self extends infinitely beyond (trans-) my supposedly separate body-mind; and that when I consciously integrate this realization (especially by way of ongoing experiential practice), I live and interrelate differently, that is, with less fear, greed, and narcissistic selfcenteredness, and with greater awareness, wisdom/understanding, and love/compassion. Nearly everyone has undergone sudden moments of transpersonal awareness in the midst of ordinary life. Such experiences cannot be created by force of will, but we can foster their likelihood by adopting an open heart and mind in our daily relations, and also by way of formal contemplative practice. Originally, specific practices of meditation and prayer were probably developed as a way to foster spiritual experiences akin to those that had first occurred spontaneously. Consistent practice can also serve to integrate fleeting “peak experiences” into more stable modes of consciousness and ways of being. Transpersonal experiences can occur at any moment, but there are auspicious contexts. A work of art may take our breath away, indeed take our separate self-sense away: for a moment there is not a separate painting over there that I am looking at, but only a single seamless seeing. At times athletes fall into a heightened state of flow, wherein they sense a thorough interconnection throughout the field of play (and thereby respond more skillfully): no separation between my self, teammates, opposing players, the ball, the field, and so on. In intimate conversation or love-making with a beloved partner, the conventional dualistic boundary between my self and the other may dissolve, and we are graced with a sense of dynamic oneness–no lover, no beloved, only loving. Taking the last example, if we really incorporate this awareness (or allow it to incorporate us)–if we stay in contact with what we realized in that blessed event–then our heart knows that whatever befalls our beloved befalls us at the same time. The other’s pain is my pain, the other’s joy, as well. We feel this vividly because one thing is clear, not merely as an idea but as an evident fact of experience: although we each are singularly different, we are never separate. Bringing this nondual sensibility to our relations with nature, a student once shared a powerful realization that took place while driving slowly behind a logging truck carrying trees that had been freshly timbered around her mountainside home. “When I saw the sap dripping from those pines,” she said, “I felt my skin being slashed and my blood dripping.” Including yet going way beyond her personal,

62

Chapter Four

skin-bounded body, the beloved forest was her extended transpersonal body (self)–and thus she did bleed. Quite significantly, transpersonal experiences often bring with them a sense of the spiritual dimension of existence. In such moments we realize that we are inherently involved in and responsible for a sacramental world, a world whose depths are normally left undisclosed, a dynamic world that ceaselessly summons our care. In fact, perhaps the most renowned example of a transpersonal realization is Jesus Christ’s awakening to his divine nature. In his classic articulation of mystical union, Christ attests: “My Father and I are one;” “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”45 Christian mystics have consistently held that while the historical Jesus was unique, conscious union with G-d is everyone’s birthright and developmental possibility. More radically, they declare that nondual oneness is the actual ever present fact of everyone’s existence, although we are usually unaware of this. (Conscious awareness does make an immense practical difference, but lack of awareness can never annul the fact.) Thus, does Christ pray, “I ask… that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us… The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one.”46 From being identified exclusively as a finite separate sovereign self to participating in, and being identified with, the infinite presencing of G-d, this transformative mystical path liberates us from a contracted and dissociated sense of self and frees us to live and love accordingly. St. Paul famously affirms that this is an opportunity for each of us: “We have the mind of Christ.”47 And he alludes to a contemplative process that helps us actualize this possibility: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.”48 Meister Eckhart, a renowned 14th century German mystic, takes up this spiritual summons in a way that resonates deeply with Christ’s words, celebrating a breaking-through beyond all narrow (and narrowing) notions of who we are and who/what G-d is: “in this breakthrough, I know that I and God are one.”49 Marguerite Porete, a 13th-14th century French mystic (who was likely an influence on Eckhart), articulates this realization by way of an extraordinary dialogue between “the Soul” and “Love:” I am God, says Love, for Love is God and God is love, and this Soul is God by the condition of Love… such a Soul, says Love, is so enflamed in the furnace of the fire of Love that she has become properly fire, which is why she feels no fire [separate from or external her deep, transpersonal self]. For she is fire in herself through the power of Love who transforms her into the fire of Love (bracketed gloss added).50

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

63

Stated differently, love (G-d) transforms us into love. Or love allows us to be conscious that we are love. Bringing these experiences home for us today, here is an example from a nearly contemporary mystic. Speaking intimately with G-d, Merton offers an eloquent prayer: You, Who sleep in my breast, are not met with words, but in the emergence of life within life and of wisdom within wisdom. You are found in communion: Thou in me and I in Thee and Thou in them and they in me: dispossession within dispossession, dispassion within dispassion, emptiness within emptiness, freedom within freedom. I am alone. Thou art alone. The Father and I are One.51

To awaken to our inherent oneness with G-d, and to respond lovingly by way of this realization: this is life’s great mystical invitation, an invitation that is continuously being sent out to everyone. Of course, it is not that I (exclusively), as an individual body-mind, am G-d. That belief would comprise a psychotic delusion of grandeur. Rather, my finite self is distinct from the all-inclusive infinite reality of G-d, but never separate from this one reality. In his exquisite book Christian Meditation, James Finley puts it powerfully: “we are given to realize that although we are not God, neither are we other than God.”52 And I will add a correlate: today we are called to realize that we are distinctively different from, but surely not separate from, the kindred beings and presences who share this one Earth with us, and who in their own particular ways are not other than G-d. For the mystics, divine nondual union does not sweep away multiplicity and interrelationship. In mystical language, oneness or nonduality means not two separate things. All the world’s participants are seamlessly involved with each other in one ultimate mystery. Indeed, their relationship with one another is how the one grand life shows itself and freshly creates itself. Most importantly, as we will explore below, these mystical views carry a core ethical imperative. Meister Eckhart points directly to this: “Two as duality [separation] does not produce love; two as one naturally gives willing, fervent love (bracketed gloss added).”53 “What a man takes in by contemplation, he pours out in love.”54

From Supposed Separation to Union and Love The Christian mystics claim that, most deeply, we all yearn to realize our absolute union with G-d. Speaking intimately with G-d at the very beginning of his Confessions, Saint Augustine says, “Thou hast made us for thyself and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee.”55 Saint Teresa

64

Chapter Four

agrees: “The soul will not be content with anything less than God.”56 And in the eloquent words of a contemporary mystic, James Finley: “For God made our hearts in such a way that only God will do. Or we might say infinite love made our hearts in such a way that only infinite union with infinite love will do.”57 And yet astonishingly, perhaps, such contemplatives teach that we are always already one with G-d, that this nondual union is infinite and eternal, all pervading, ever given dynamically and creatively as an ontological fact of all being (and even beyond or other than being, if we might say so). Saint John of the Cross states it clearly: “union between God and creatures always exists.”58 With attentive care may we realize that we cannot actually become united or achieve oneness with G-d, because this notion presumes an actual dualistic separation and a real gap needing to be surpassed. But all such separation is illusory, just as our separation from nature is illusory. Simply, yet profoundly and crucially, life asks that we open ourselves to vividly experiencing the “fullness of the divine mystery giving itself, whole and complete, in and as each thing that is, just as it is.”59 Thus, “we meditate that we might realize that the present moment, in its deepest actuality, is the perfect manifestation of the mystery we seek… And the present moment, just as it is, manifests the mystery we call God.”60 Humans cannot overcome a (supposed) separation from G-d, because we are one form of G-d’s infinite presencing. Likewise, humans cannot overcome a (supposed) separation from nature, because we are nature. Each of us individually, and our species as a whole, are nature coming forth in human form.61 If we tried to abdicate air, water, or food, we would quickly know that we can never be separate from nature. But, alas, it is not that easy (even with the lessons its inevitable failure brings), because our cultural conditioning rapidly rushes back in. What needs to be surpassed– what must be released to heal our eco-catastrophe–is our felt-belief that we are separate from, elevated above, and superior to the rest of nature. Humans really separate from G-d and nature, Earth from Heaven, self from others, mind from body, men from women, wealthy from poor, one skin color from another, one religion from another, and on and on: our rigidly held felt-belief in the reality of these dualistic fantasies leaves us frightened and distressed, bringing great grief to our lives and the lives of others. Mystics do lament the fact that we tend to be unconscious of our core spiritual blessing, that of being inseparably one with G-d. Conventionally, we base our identity, security, and happiness exclusively on this misguided representation of who we are, this “false self” as Merton calls it. 62 This narrow, self-centered, self-sufficient representation (and the

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

65

feeling of estrangement it engenders) may be the fundamental delusion of humankind. The actions that flow from it bring great suffering to ourselves and others. This basic mistaken identity captivates and tyrannizes us, because our energy is devoted to defending and bolstering our contracted self-image and fulfilling our self-centered desires for security, control, mastery, and pleasure. Perhaps this (false, limited, and limiting) sense of self has always bedeviled human beings, but it was consolidated by views and values characterizing the modern era. For example, in chilling yet paradigmatic words, Descartes believed humans should be the “masters and possessors of nature.”63 But G-d, nature, even one other being: the life of each of these is infinitely wilder, subtler, and deeper than our most loving wishes, much less our egoic desire for mastery and control. Merton warns of the dangers of living from “the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is the fundamental reality of life to which everything else in the universe is ordered.” 64 Following the Christian mystics (and contemporary transpersonal psychologists), there is transformative remedy, a kind of psycho-spiritual therapy. Through ongoing contemplative/meditative practice, coupled with spontaneous experience and compassionate service, our inherent union with G-d becomes clear (and eventually more clear and liberating and loving). Yet what does oneness with G-d have to do with our relationship with nature? And what does it even mean to be one with G-d? This is difficult to say.65 However, we can take some guidance from three classical sources. Note that we are encountering the same linguistic impossibility, the same conceptual aporia, we faced with the very word G-d. Since G-d is not a definite thing, we can never really conceive or say what G-d is (even though our every saying is ultimately a manifestation of G-d!). Nonetheless, uncannily, it can be fruitful to try to say something (tentatively, strategically, and so as to evoke new experience). In my view, one of the best classical “tries”–not to represent G-d but to induce a new realization and way of being–is this: “G-d is love.” 66 If, let us say provisionally, G-d is love, then oneness with G-d must involve being loving. Here an inspired formulation from our second classical source becomes pertinent. When Christ was asked to name the greatest commandment of all, he invoked the Jewish prophets67 and proclaimed: Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. And there is a second one that is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.68

66

Chapter Four

Elaborating on this core teaching in her great mystical text The Interior Castle–the third classical source here–Saint Teresa of Avila stresses that: On the spiritual path, the Beloved asks only two things of us: that we love him and that we love each other… the most reliable sign that we are following both of these teachings is that we are loving each other. Although we might have some clear indications that we are loving God, we can’t be sure that we really are, but it is obvious whether or now we are loving each other. Be assured that the more you progress in loving your neighbor, the greater will be your love for God.69

Reading these three texts together, we can say that oneness with G-d has something–or everything?!–to do with loving our neighbors. The call to love G-d is a call to love our neighbors. Below we will explore the relevance of these insights for our relationship with all our neighbors in the natural world.

Nature as a Precious Embodiment of G-d Having laid some groundwork–the mystics might call it work on behalf of the groundless ground–we can now take a step towards explicating a crucial ethical calling intimated by the teachings we’ve addressed thus far. Let us (re)consider a renowned insight from the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word [Logos]… the Word was God…. The Word became flesh.”70 These passages are conventionally read as a reference to Christ’s incarnation, wherein the formless transcendent Word (G-d) becomes immanently embodied in the form of one particular human being, the historical Jesus. This interpretation certainly holds true when read from a mystical perspective. Yet the mystical view goes further, adding a radical supplement. Seen through contemplative eyes–vividly experienced, felt, known, and responsibly lived through mystical consciousness–the whole world is the body of G-d.71 Thus, Christ attests, “It is I who am the All… Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there.”72 For me, this is a profoundly revelatory teaching, both in what it affirms and (like a Zen koan) in the query it poses implicitly. That is: Who is speaking when Christ says “I”? To whom is he referring when he says “Me”? These questions might sound very strange, but I believe they provide a crucial key in mystical texts (and experience). It is easy to assume that the one speaking is Jesus of Nazareth. This is accurate, but it’s not the whole story. In the passage above, Christ actually tells us that he is speaking not only as a finite historical person, but as “the All,” in other words, G-d! In a more familiar passage, he proclaims, “If you know me,

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

67

you know my Father.” 73 The significance of this testimony is quite astonishing, and yet it is the very heart of the Christian gospel: As Christ, Jesus’ true, real, deepest self is G-d. This transpersonal, mystical perspective helps us appreciate a similar spiritual affirmation that sounds peculiar to our conventional ears (and consciousness). Jesus Christ once declared: “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”74 Only by knowing (or being) an absolute union with G-d, only by appreciating his supreme transpersonal identity as G-d, and only by speaking from these infinite depths, can Jesus Christ say “I am” before my spiritual ancestor was, “I am” before everyone and everything else was. Stated differently, “I am” eternally, before and beyond and other than time and space. Pick up any stone or cut any piece of wood, hear any owl hooting or encounter any mountain: you will find G-d there, Christ avows, because the infinite is embodied in and as that particular stone!; wood!; hooting!; mountain! From this perspective, Eckhart can remark, humbly, “All creatures are words of God. My mouth expresses and reveals God but the existence of a stone does the same.” 75 In a similar spirit, feminist theologian Sallie McFague poses a series of evocative questions in her remarkable book The Body of God: What if, with Christianity, we accepted the claim that the Word is made flesh and dwells with us; with feminism, that the natural world is in some sense sacred; with ecology, that the planet is a living organism that is our home and source of nurture? What if we dared to think of our planet and indeed the entire universe as the body of God?… We might begin to see (for the first time, perhaps) the marvels at our feet and at our fingertips: the intricate splendor of an Alpine forget-me-not or a child’s hand. We might begin to realize the extraordinariness of the ordinary. We would begin to delight in creation, not as the work of an external deity, but as a sacrament of the living God. We would see creation as bodies alive with the breath of God. We might realize what this tradition has told us, although often shied away from embracing unreservedly: we live and move and have our being in God. We might see ourselves and everything else as the living body of God.76

The importance of this sensibility may well be obvious, but let us dwell with the implications. Preeminently, when we know the Earth as the living body of G-d, we tend to love the living body of the Earth, spontaneously so. When the planet is dangerously overheated, when a person is attacked because of the color of their skin, when a mountain range is annihilated for coal and profit, we know the body of G-d is being assaulted. When an endangered species is preserved or a hungry person fed, the body of G-d is nourished. “Truly I tell you,” says Christ, “just as you did it to one of the

68

Chapter Four

least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”77 Along with far too many marginalized and oppressed peoples today, the natural world must be included among the “least.” Most contemplatives cherish phases of solitude, but most also affirm that the mystical path is principally one of service. Christ intimated that the core commandments are really inseparable versions of a single ethical summons. We are called to love G-d and love our neighbor as our self. And G-d is one: that is to say, one without any second, one without a separate other, not two, nondual (nonseparate), “the All,” transcendently immanent and immanently transcendent, all pervasive and all inclusive, with no thing excluded (neither other beings nor our self). Thus, Eckhart teaches: “God is equally in all things and in all places and he is ready to give himself in the same way and to the same degree in every circumstance. The one who knows God best is the one who recognizes him equally everywhere.”78 Therefore, when we love our neighbor we are loving G-d. And whether our neighbors are human or more-than-human, all our relations are included here. The specific beings and presences of nature in our local bioregion are surely our neighbors, neighbors who–like everyone and everything–are the very presencing of G-d. 79 Although expressed differently across eras and spiritual traditions, this has often been clear until the last few centuries, that is, until cultural changes led us to be so estranged from regular conscious contact with the natural world. “The Spiritual Canticle,” composed by Saint John of the Cross is a love poem to G-d, and inseparably to his fellow humans and the sacred natural world. Praying to his Beloved (Christ, G-d), Saint John sings: My Beloved, the mountains, and lonely wooded valleys, strange islands, and resounding rivers, the whistling of love-stirring breezes…80

Saint John goes on to explicate this stanza: “These mountains are what my Beloved is to me. …These valleys are what my Beloved is to me.” 81 Mountains, woods, valleys, islands, rivers, breezes: via his contemplative sensibility, Saint John knows these to be the embodiment of his Beloved, G-d, here becoming flesh in and as familiar participants in his local ecocommunity (and through his relationship with them). In meeting his Beloved in these various natural presences, his love is stirred deeply. This last point is crucial. Notice that, welcomed by Saint John’s contemplative heart, the mountains are mountains and not “merely” mountains, but G-d appearing as these precious mountains and these

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

69

mountains appearing as (this precious form of) G-d. Saint John’s love is stirred because he feels his Beloved appealing to him, calling him to love in response. The mystics often speak of loving G-d. Yet their love flows from something more primary: G-d’s prior (or eternal) love for them and, inseparably, G-d’s summons for them to be loving (and even to be love itself). Consider the words of the 13th century mystic Mechthild of Magdeburg, along with my bracketed commentary: Lord, you are constantly lovesick for me. [G-d loves me and longs for my love.] That you have clearly shown personally. You have written me into the book of the Godhead… [I know directly G-d loves me because G-d brought me into being, me personally and uniquely, into “the book” of G-d’s very being] Ah, allow me, dear One, to pour balsam upon you.82 [Ah, dear G-d, let me love you….]

In the secular modern-turning-postmodern world, it may not be easy to hear G-d’s call to love. However, since, with the mystics, we are affirming that nature is the very presencing of G-d (or life if you prefer), and since, today, the natural world is clearly wounded and clearly asking for our love and understanding (by way of symptoms such as mass extinction, loss of biodiversity, and global warming), then, from a contemplative perspective, we see nature’s plight and hear nature’s appeal as an appeal from G-d to love G-d. Or, from what first appears to be a different perspective, we feel immense gratitude that nature (or the cosmos) has brought us into being–in fact, is now bringing us into being–and we thereby hear nature calling upon us to love and serve. Felt and known deeply, these two perspectives are interchangeable. It all comes down to love. Like Saint John, Merton offers a heartfelt testimony on the hallowed quality of the natural world: The forms and individual characters of living and growing things, of inanimate beings, of animals and flowers and all nature, constitute their holiness in the sight of God… The special clumsy beauty of this particular colt on this April day in this field under these clouds is a holiness consecrated to God by His own creative wisdom and it declares the glory of God… The little yellow flowers that nobody notices on the edge of that road are saints looking up into the face of God… The great, gashed, halfnaked mountain is another of God’s saints. There is no other like him. He is alone in his own character; nothing else in the world ever did or ever will imitate God in quite the same way. That is his sanctity.83

70

Chapter Four

Merton begins by honoring the holiness of “all nature.” However, he goes on to celebrate the sanctity of particular beings and presences of nature, uniquely singular others who he is actually encountering around his hermitage: “this particular colt on this April day in this field under these clouds.” These are Merton’s neighbors. In his depiction we can feel the warmth he has for these fellow participants in his local eco-community. He clearly loves and cherishes them, and loves G-d by loving them, inseparably so. In this love he includes not just those with special beauty or grandeur, but those that are ordinary (flowers that usually go unnoticed) and those that are suffering (a living mountain that was likely strip-mined for coal, made naked by clear cutting, gashed by machines). In our relations with nature, in our care for our common home, it is not enough to love the Earth abstractly and from a distance. The mystics say the same about our love for G-d. In the words of Blake: “He who would do good to another, must do it in Minute Particulars.”84 Likewise, “He who would see the Divinity must see him in his Children…in friendship and love… so he who wishes to see a Vision; a perfect Whole Must see it in its Minute Particulars.”85 Whether we are putting out seeds for cardinals and chickadees, or removing invasive plants from our local woods, or working to prevent the multiple maladies caused by fracking: oneness with G-d and loving G-d and loving our neighbor and loving nature are identical and indistinguishable. One afternoon Merton was awestruck by “lots of pretty little myrtle warblers… playing and diving for insects” right over his head. He celebrates the details of their presencing: “quick flight,” “hissings and chirpings,” “yellow spot on their back.” Of this encounter, he remarks beautifully: “Sense of total kinship with them as if they and I were of the same nature, and as if that nature were nothing but love. And what else but love keeps us all together in being?”86 Remember that the mystics teach that G-d is love, and that G-d cannot be known or loved objectively or conceptually. G-d is not an object, separate from us, that we can know or love. And no concept of G-d, even the most exquisite, is G-d. Rather, the mystics know and love G-d experientially, by realizing that their very being (and so too everyone’s) is a distinctive presencing of G-d. They know G-d by consciously being a uniquely tangible expression of G-d, and they love G-d by loving other uniquely tangible manifestations of G-d: that myrtle warbler, that homeless and hungry man, that forest threatened with clear-cutting, etc. And their responsive existence, their life of calland-response, flows from this realization. In living contemplatively, mystics appreciate that the particular others who are calling for their care, and to whom they are responding with a smile (for the warbler) or food

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

71

(for the man) or ecological activism (for the forest)–they know these others are not really other than or separate from G-d, nor other than or separate from their own deepest self.

The Ethical Call of Interdependence I would like to revisit a major theme shared by Christian mysticism and transpersonal psychology, while adding a complementary perspective from contemporary ecological research. One crucial transpersonal realization is that we are participating in, and in fact are inseparable manifestations of, a sacred reality–one that is infinitely deeper than our supposedly separate self, one that we are called to love and serve. With this realization, the human ego and the human species are displaced from their self-presumed centrality. Correlatively, a key component of this experiential discovery is the corresponding insight that everything else is also inextricably involved in the same great transpersonal reality. In Christian terms, this reality is called G-d, in whom “we live and move and have our being,” as Saint Paul famously proclaimed.87 To be aware of this, from a spiritual perspective, is to consciously welcome G-d’s love, love that is ceaselessly bringing us and everything into being now and now and now.... Experienced deeply, this is known to be the ultimate grace: namely, that we actually are at all! And this evokes a felt-sense of gratitude along with the inspiration to serve others. With these ideas in mind, recall Saint Teresa’s humble acknowledgement. Even after years of contemplative prayer, she says, it is not obvious that we are loving G-d. But “it is obvious whether or not we are loving each other.” 88 For many of us today, it is far from obvious that we are participating in the infinite reality of G-d. But it is obvious that we are participating in the vast and deep reality of this animate Earth.89 Conscious contact with nature is one of the most accessible and poignant ways that we can release our contracted identity as a separate self, and realize our transpersonal participation in a life that is infinitely grander than us, a life that truly is us, a life that we depend upon and that correspondingly depends on us. Encounters with nature are especially auspicious for such breakthroughs. We tend to cling most tightly to our previously consolidated egoic identity (or false self) when we are feeling threatened by someone else who is holding equally tightly to their reified egoic self-sense. However, nature does not function in a statically self-centered, egoic way (but in a dynamic, co-creative, interrelationally flowing, non- or omni-centered way). While we do need to be mindful of real dangers in nature, nature does not have

72

Chapter Four

an ego that it is trying to defend or bolster. Nature can hurt us, but nature has no personal intention to hurt us personally. Appreciating this, we can let go of our often chronic feeling that we need to defend or bolster our narrow, ego-centered, self-sufficient identity. It is no accident that countless revered spiritual teachers underwent breakthrough experiences in the natural world: Moses with the burning bush; the Buddha under the bodhi tree and morning star; Christ in the wild desert; Muhammad on the mountain. Ever since Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published their revolutionary research in 1858, we humans have struggled to come to terms with the significance of the fact that we too are evolving animals, in all our glory and folly. Some still try to deny this truth. Nevertheless, scientific evidence has made it clear that our species–and each of us as individuals–emerged and continues to emerge as a distinctive manifestation of this living Earth, in kindred relation with all that is living. This was an ecological awakening for humankind. We are still working to make it a psycho-spiritual awakening. Further, ecological research demonstrates that our shared Earth home functions in a participatory, interresponsive manner. Within specific bioregions, all individual organisms are dependent on one another and so, too, upon the dynamic, integrated existence of the ecosphere as a whole. (This is one meaning of the “integrity of creation.”) By definition, ecology is the science of interrelationships within natural communities: relationships between individual organisms that are inseparable from relational networks of organisms that are inseparable from the elemental presences of air, earth, fire, and water–with all of these together comprising and being comprised by the dynamic, interresponsive, interdependent functioning of the local (and larger) Earth. Crucially, we humans live and move and have our being in participatory interresponsiveness with non-human beings and presences; and, equally crucially, through this participation humans (co)creatively contribute to the flourishing (or not) of nature’s communal interdependence. Appreciative awareness of Earth’s interresponsive reality resonates quite profoundly with timeless mystical understanding. Indeed, Eckhart proclaims that “All creatures are interdependent.”90 And as Pope Francis says, “It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected.”91 The Pope’s insistence is especially salient because modern Western culture continues to place excessive value on independence, autonomy, mastery, and control. To be sure, there are powerful forces operating that keep this paradigm fixed in place. But things in this precarious world may well be turning, turning that is through the great work of so many. For example, nearly fifty years ago Martin Luther King, Jr. gave an

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

73

extraordinary “Christmas Sermon on Peace.” Disturbed by the violence of racial injustice and the Vietnam War, he made a passionate appeal for an alternative path. His eloquent words are directly applicable to our relations with nature today: Now let me suggest first that if we are to have peace on Earth, our loyalties must... transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation [and our species, not to mention our individual self]; and this means we must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone, [no species can live alone] and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in this world... we must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish as fools. Yes, as nations and individuals, we are interdependent... It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality. Did you ever stop to think that you can’t leave for your job in the morning without being dependent on most of the world? You get up in the morning and go to the bathroom and reach of for the sponge, and that’s handed to you by a Pacific islander. You reach for a bar of soap, and that’s given to you by the hands of a Frenchman. And then you go to the kitchen to drink your coffee for the morning, and that’s poured into your cup by a South American. And maybe you want tea: that’s poured into your cup by a Chinese. Or maybe your desirous of having cocoa for breakfast, and that’s poured into your cup by a West African. And then you reach for your toast, and that’s given to you at the hands of an Englishspeaking farmer, not to mention the baker. And before you’re finished eating breakfast in the morning, you’ve depended on more than half of the entire world. This is the way our universe is structured, this is its interrelated quality. We aren’t going to have peace on Earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality (bracketed gloss added).92

Having a direct felt-sense of ‘the interrelated structure of all reality’ helps us transcend our exclusive identification with our supposedly separate and sovereign self and species. Since, as Dr. King says and as our neighborhood eco-community vividly demonstrates, all reality is interdependent, then there is really no such thing as a separate species or separate self, independent of others. There can only be a species-inrelation-with-other-species, a self-in-relation-with-other-beings-and-presences. When I appreciate this, consciously and intimately, I know that I can never really be autonomous and self-sufficient. Rather, I know that I and all others together are living and moving and being in this holy world. But how we are doing this is the key. It is not enough just to know that we are

Chapter Four

74

inherently with each other. Our real summons is to offer our daily living for each other, that is, in the service of one another.

Deep Calls to Deep, Deep Responds to Deep Let us take one more step as we near the end of this study. Although I am devoted to caring for the so-called “environment,” I have often thought that this common term is misleading–a symptom, even, of human estrangement from the rest of nature. “Environ” connotes something that surrounds, encircles, encloses. The larger natural world does do that with humans, but the intimacy of our communion is obscured if we settle for only that sense. Because we are (an expression of) nature, our relationship with nature is more intimate than intimate. To paraphrase Saint Augustine, nature is closer to me than I (as a conventional ego) am to myself. Pope Francis makes a similar point: “When we speak of the ‘environment,’ what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live.”93 Here we are presented with a wonderful eco-psycho-spiritual mystery. Human beings are natural beings and spiritual beings, as well, inseparably so. And the beings and presences of nature are simultaneously natural and spiritual ones. Thus, when humans interrelate with the natural world, this is one form in which nature is interrelating with nature. Experienced through contemplative eyes–through mystical ears, skin, nose, tongue, heart-mind–this is equally spirit interrelating with spirit. Stretching the metaphor of “self”–true self, that is–this is nature responding to itself, spirit responding to itself. The mystics know that such intimacy is transpiring all the time. It can’t really be otherwise. We usually aren’t aware of this, but we can be. This is what we mean by the transformation of consciousness and culture. The poet Wendell Berry puts it so urgently: There are no unsacred places; there are only sacred places and desecrated places.94

The living mystical tradition gives us paths to bring this sacramental realization into daily awareness. These paths are articulated in spiritual literature (like we’ve explored here) and contemplative practices (which I emphasized but did not discuss). Following these paths, I would like to mention something that has been implicit throughout our study but can best be named now. Dr. King spoke of “the interrelated structure of all reality,”95 and I claimed that the shared

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

75

Earth community exists by way of call-and-response. In my view, our ecopsychological peril is due to the fact that we typically hear these calls from a relatively superficial stance, by way of our supposedly separate and sovereign self. From this contracted and confused perspective, we are driven primarily by fear and greed, and our relations clearly suffer. At the outset of this essay, Thomas Berry urged us to revere the sacramental quality of the natural world. But to perceive these depths we must perceive from our depths. Described the other way around, we must confide ourselves into the deep call of the Earth, allowing infinite and sacred depths of the natural world to reach, touch, and move our own infinite and sacred depths. Psalm 42:7 conveys this beautifully: “Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls.” When we really love our neighbor, we know that our neighbor’s being goes infinitely deep. Correlatively, when knowing and loving another in their infinite depths, the self we are loving from–our true self, let us say–goes infinitely deep, way beyond our superficial ego. G-d summons us to love, so the mystics say, to love our neighbor inseparably from loving our G-d. And our neighbors include “Brother Sun,” “Sister Moon,” “Brother Wind,” “Sister Water,” “Brother Fire,” “Sister Bodily Death,” “Sister Mother Earth,” as Saint Francis of Assisi sings96–in truth all our relations in the shared Earth community. The mystics attest that nature is the embodiment of G-d, the Word become flesh, G-d appearing, say, as a glowing maple tree, a river polluted by commercial toxins, ivory-billed woodpeckers on the verge of extinction, a thriving bioregion in some small protected territory, ancient mountains being annihilated for coal, a glorious orange oriole outside our window, or this one precious over-heated planet. In every encounter with the natural world, there is the potential for our depths to consciously feel a real summons from the depths of life, and both depths are divine. Whether G-d presents as beauty or suffering (in human form or otherwise), we are called to reply with understanding and love. How we treat nature is how we treat G-d, and our children, and our self, since none of these are separate. As evidenced by the mystics’ testimony, and by actual experience, an engaged contemplative life awakens us to a sacramental world that functions by way of ceaseless calls-and-responses. And we awaken in order to compassionately serve this glorious and wounded world. Therefore, in the transformative spirit of Christian mysticism and transpersonal ecopsychology, may we turn breakdown into breakthrough. May we contemplatively cleanse our doors of perception, allow the infinite, deep, and holy nature of our fellows touch our own corresponding depths, letting our understanding and love flow forth for all our neighbors

76

Chapter Four

without exclusion, those familiar and nearby, those unfamiliar and far away, our two legged partners (assuredly so) and (inseparably) our fourlegged, winged, scaled, rooted, leafy, airy, rocky, fiery, and watery ones, as well.

Notes 1

David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous (New York: Random House, 1996). Whenever I cite particular encounters in nature, or distinctive participants therein, please bring to mind your own special versions, such as ones you have experienced directly. 3 Thomas Berry, The Great Work (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999), 3. 4 Berry quoted in Kathleen Deignan, ed., When the Trees Say Nothing. Thomas Merton. Writings on Nature (Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books, 2003), 18-19. 5 Berry, The Great Work, 19. 6 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2015), §217. 7 Pope Francis, LS, §219. 8 To keep the interdependent nature of the Earth community in mind, I use the word “beings” for animals and plants and “presences” for other (differently animate) natural forms, elemental presences, such as air, mountains, fire, rivers, etc. 9 Richard Louv, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from NatureDeficit Disorder, Updated and Expanded Edition (Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2008). 10 Louv, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, 10. 11 What is called meditation in common parlance and in Asian spirituality is called contemplation or contemplative prayer in the Christian mystical tradition. 12 Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone, Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We're in Without Going Crazy (Novato, CA: New World Library, 2012). 13 As an orienting generalization, I will refer to “the” Christian mystical tradition or “the” mystics. There are real differences across various mystics, of course, but these are too complex to discuss here. 14 I will address various spiritual texts. But more truly these texts have addressed me, spoken to me, and sponsored fresh experience. I hope they will call to you, as well. 15 Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 2347. 16 Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (New York: Broadview, 2012), (original work published 1927); and Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, transl. J. Strachey (New York: Norton, 1961), (original work published 1930). 17 For example, see Fischer, Laubscher, and Brooke (2016). Other human science approaches include existential, phenomenological, psychoanalytic, Jungian, 2

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

77

humanistic, social constructionist, deconstructionist, and feminist psychology. The list could easily be extended. 18 For example, see Abram (1996); Adams (2006), (2014); and Fisher (2013). 19 For example, see Ferrer (2002); Friedman and Hartelius (2013); and Wilber (2000). 20 Harris L. Friedman and Glenn Hartelius, eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 14. 21 See Finley (2004). 22 Pope Francis, LS, §233. 23 Pope Francis, LS, §233. 24 My contemplative method was guided by lectio divina (divine or sacred reading). This classic Christian practice involves meditatively reading texts not for information, but for transformation. (I’m sure my reading was also influenced by my Zen practice.) In this study, my lectio work was inseparable from hermeneutic phenomenology. A phenomenological approach fostered a careful attunement to the lived experiences described in the various texts, thereby grounding mystical testimony in everyday life. A hermeneutic approach allowed me to consider and present a perspective, and then (repeatedly) circle back to the idea (and related ones) so as to elaborate further. This revisiting of themes is intentional, in hopes of carrying the conversation further. 25 After several years of bringing “life” to mind (and heart) when I heard the word G-d, I was happy to discover these resonant expressions. In a nondual prayer, Saint Augustine attests that “we are made by You, Lord, to whom ‘being’ and ‘life’ are not two separate things, since infinite Being is identical with infinite Life” (Augustine 2006, 8). And Eckhart remarks, “God’s isness is my life” (Eckhart 1980, 90). And Saint Teresa sings of G-d, “Oh life of my life!” (Teresa of Avila 2008, 271). 26 Freud, The Future of an Illusion; and Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents. 27 John of the Cross, The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, transl. K. Kavanaugh and O. Rodriguez (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1991), 472, (original work late 1500s). 28 Meister Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, ed. M. Fox (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1980), 215, (original works c. late 1200s to early 1300s). 29 Pope Francis, LS, §225. 30 Freud, The Future of an Illusion; and Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents. More accurately, such projects are not primarily centered on humankind, and certainly not on the well-being of all humans. Rather they are centered merely on the few individuals and groups with economic and political privilege, wealth, and power. Compared to elite groups, far more ecological exploitation and degradation occurs in poor and otherwise underprivileged communities. Ecological justice and social justice are deeply intertwined. 31 William Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, newly revised edition, ed. D.V. Erdman (New York: Anchor Doubleday, 1988), 489. 32 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 45.

78 33

Chapter Four

Berry, The Great Work, 159. Galatians 2:19-20. 35 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 702. 36 Louis Jacobson, “Yes, Donald Trump Did Call Climate Change a Chinese Hoax,” Politifact, June 3, 2016, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/ jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/#. 37 Gerry Mullany, “World’s 8 Richest Have as Much Wealth as Bottom Half, Oxfam Says,” The New York Times, January 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealthoxfam.html?_r=0. 38 Pope Francis, LS, §56. 39 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 39. 40 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 3. 41 Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation (New York: New Directions, 1961), 21. 42 Robert Michael Pyle, “Cosmic convergence,” Orion, 24, no. 3 (2005): 69. 43 Berry, The Great Work, 4. 44 Stanley Krippner in Friedman and Hartelius, eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology, xvii. (Bracketed Gloss Added.) 45 John 10:30 and 38. 46 John 17:20-23. 47 1 Corinthians 2:16. 48 Philippians 2:5. 49 Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 218. 50 Marguerite Porete, The Mirror of Simple Souls, transl. E. Babinsky (New York: Paulist Press, 1993), 104-107, (original work published c. 1290s). Let me pause to honor both the immense tragedy and inspiration carried by these words. Porete wrote this passage in the 1290s, during a time the inquisition was actively burning supposed heretics at the stake, especially women with mystical sensibilities. Porete stayed true to her realization, even though she was accused of heresy and was burned alive in 1310. It is said that Porete remained completely peaceful during that terrible event, bringing tears to witnesses of the execution (Sells 1994). She speaks of becoming fire itself, love itself. Equally, it seems to me, she became peace itself, “the peace of God, that surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). What a profound testimony to the transformative power of a contemplative life. 51 Thomas Merton, The Sign of Jonas (New York: Harvest, 1953), 361-362. 52 James Finley, Christian Meditation (San Francisco: Harper, 2004), 51. 53 Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 198. 54 Eckhart cited in Robert Aitken, The Mind of Clover (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984), 113. 55 Augustine, Confessions, 2nd edition, transl. F.J. Sheed (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2006), 3, (original work c. 400). 56 Teresa of Avila, The Book of My Life, transl. M. Starr (Boston: New Seeds, 2008), 225, (original work 1567). 34

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough 57

79

Finley, Christian Meditation, 28. John of the Cross, The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, 163. 59 Finley, Christian Meditation, 161. 60 Finley, Christian Meditation, 160. 61 I do not mean to conflate G-d and nature, or reduce G-d to (biological) nature. It does depend on the ways these words are used, however, because I’m definitely not reducing nature to mere biology either. 62 Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 21. 63 Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, transl. D. A. Cress (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1998), 35, (original work published 1637). 64 Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 35. 65 While difficult to say, according to the mystics, it is really not all that difficult to experience (although we often overlook the experience). 66 John 4:8. 67 Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18. 68 Mark 12:28-31. 69 Teresa of Avila, The Book of My Life, 140. 70 John 1:1 and 14. 71 We could equally say that the whole world is the love of G-d, or the awareness or spirit or being of G-d. But here we will stay with a fleshy, earthy metaphor, and imagine or intuit G-d embodied. We may more easily sense our love for a tangible body (even an infinite one) than, say, love for spirit or being or love for an abstract notion of “God.” 72 Helmut Koester and Thomas O. Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas,” in The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. J. M. Robinson (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984), 126. 73 John 14:7. 74 John 8:58. Here Christ intimately re-appropriates, and makes personal, the great revelation given to Moses. “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:13-14). 75 Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 58. 76 Sally McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology, no. 11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 19, 132. 77 Matthew 25:40. 78 Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 139. 79 Christ says to love our neighbors as our self. He does not say like our self. This sounds odd, but from a transpersonal perspective we understand: our real self or true being infinitely transcends our supposedly separate body-mind, permeating and being permeated by all our fellows in the larger world, and ultimately resting in and as God. 80 John of the Cross, The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, 473. 58

80

Chapter Four

81

John of the Cross, The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, 527. (Emphasis added.) Pope Francis celebrates this same passage near the end of Laudato’ Si. 82 Mechthild of Magdeburg, The Flowing Light of the Godhead (New York: Paulist Press, 1998), 108, (original work 1250-1280). 83 Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 30-31. 84 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 205. 85 Blake, The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake, 251. 86 Merton in Deignan, ed., When the Trees Say Nothing. Thomas Merton. Writings on Nature, 110. 87 Acts 17:28. He was apparently paraphrasing Epimenides, an ancient Greek poetphilosopher. 88 Teresa of Avila, The Book of My Life, 140. 89 It is obvious, too, that we are participating in the infinitely vast (natural and spiritual) reality of the cosmos. But for our present purposes we will stay grounded in our local planet, this animate Earth. 90 Eckhart, Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation, 196. 91 Pope Francis, LS, §138. 92 (King, 1967/1986, pp. 253-254, bracketed gloss added) Martin Luther King Jr., “A Christmas Sermon on Peace,” in A Testament of Hope. The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. J. M. Washington (New York: Harper Collins, 1986), 253-254, (original sermon delivered on Christmas Eve, 1967). 93 (LS p. 67-68, italics added). 94 Wendell Berry, New Collected Poems (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press, 2012), 354. 95 King Jr., “A Christmas Sermon on Peace,” 254. 96 Regis J. Armstrong and Ignatius C. Brady, Francis and Clare. The Complete Works (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 38-39.

Literature Abram, David. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Random House. Adams, Will W. 2006. “The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, Ecopsychology, and the Crisis of Extinction: On Annihilating and Nurturing Other Beings, Relationships, and Ourselves.” The Humanistic Psychologist, 34, no. 2: 111-133. —. 2014. “Intimate Responsivity as Essence-Calling-Path-Fruition: Ecopsychological Ethics via Zen Buddhist Phenomenology.” In, D. Vakoch, F. Castrillon, eds., Ecopsychology, Phenomenology, and the Environment: The Experience of Nature (New York: Springer). Aitken, Robert. 1984. The Mind of Clover. San Francisco: North Point Press.

Ecological Breakdown and Psycho-Spiritual Breakthrough

81

Armstrong, Regis J., Ignatius C. Brady. 1982. Francis and Clare. The Complete Works. New York: Paulist Press. Augustine, Saint. 2006. Confessions. 2nd Edition. Translated by F.J. Sheed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work c. 400). Berry, Thomas. 1999. The Great Work. New York: Three Rivers Press. Berry, Wendell. 2012. New Collected Poems. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press. Blake, William 1988. The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake. Newly Revised Edition. Edited by D.V. Erdman. New York: Anchor Doubleday. Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II. 1971. New York: Oxford University Press. Deignan, Kathleen, ed. 2003. When the Trees Say Nothing. Thomas Merton. Writings on Nature. Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books. Descartes, Rene. 1998. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by D.A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1637). Eckhart, Meister. 1980. Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation. Edited by M. Fox. Garden City, NY: Image Books. (Original works c. late 1200s to early 1300s). Ferrer, Jorge N. 2002. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory. A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Finley, James. 2004. Christian Meditation. San Francisco: Harper. Fischer, Constance T., Leswin Laubscher, Roger Brooke. 2016. The Qualitative Vision for Psychology. Invitation to a Human Science Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Fisher, Andy. 2013. Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the Service of Life. 2nd Edition. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Freud, Sigmund. 2012. The Future of an Illusion. New York: Broadview. (Original work published 1927). —. 1961. Civilization and its Discontents. Translated by J. Strachey. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1930). Friedman, Harris L., Glenn Hartelius, eds. 2013. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Jacobson, Louis. 2016. “Yes, Donald Trump Did Call Climate Change a Chinese Hoax.” Politifact. June 3. See,http://www.politifact.com/trutho-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-didcall-climate-change-chinese-h/#.

82

Chapter Four

John of the Cross. 1991. The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross. Translated by K. Kavanaugh, O. Rodriguez. Washington, DC: ICS Publications. (Original work late 1500s). King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1986. “A Christmas Sermon on Peace.” In, J.M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope. The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Harper Collins, 253254. (Original sermon delivered on Christmas Eve, 1967). Koester, Helmut, Thomas O. Lambdin. 1984. “The Gospel of Thomas.” In, J. M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper and Row), 126. Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Updated and Expanded Edition. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Macy, Joanna, Chris Johnstone. 2012. Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We're in Without Going Crazy. Novato, CA: New World Library. McFague, Sally. 1993. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. No. 11. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Mechthild of Magdeburg. 1998. The Flowing Light of the Godhead. New York: Paulist Press. (Original work 1250-1280). Merton, Thomas. 1961. New Seeds of Contemplation. New York: New Directions. —. 1953. The Sign of Jonas. New York: Harvest. Mullany, Gerry. 2017. “World’s 8 Richest Have as Much Wealth as Bottom Half, Oxfam Says.” The New York Times (January 16). See, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealthoxfam.html?_r=1. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. Porete, Marguerite. 1993. The Mirror of Simple Souls. Translated by E. Babinsky. New York: Paulist Press. (Original work published c. 1290s). Pyle, Robert Michael. 2005. “Cosmic convergence.” Orion, 24, no. 3: 6869. Sells, Michael A. 1994. The Mystical Languages of Unsaying. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Teresa of Avila. 2008. The Book of My Life. Translated by M. Starr. Boston: New Seeds. (Original work 1567). Wilber, Ken. 2000. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. The Spirit of Evolution. 2nd Edition. Boston: Shambhala.

CHAPTER FIVE EMBRACING A HUMAN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE: THE MANDATE FOR MOVING BEYOND EMPATHY AND RAISING LEVELS OF COMPASSION LISA LOPEZ LEVERS AND NATALIE A. DROZDA

Introduction The body of science that has identified anthropogenic climate change and its complex array of effects is undeniable.1 While some may argue that variations in the Earth’s weather patterns are natural occurrences, the preponderance of scientific evidence has shown that climate change is real, and an exacerbation of climate change due to human behavior has been apparent and has elicited unprecedented changes and detrimental outcomes.2 In fact, the term “Anthropocene” has been popularized, although not yet officially sanctioned by the relevant science academies, in reference to the current epoch of human influence upon the geological and eco-systemic changes on the planet Earth.3 The harmful impact that humans have had on the environment, with particular emphasis on rising carbon dioxide levels due to the use of fossil fuels, has been well documented.4 Additionally, the reciprocal negative impact of climate change on human health and wellbeing, as well as on the health and wellbeing of other animal and plant species, also has been well chronicled.5 According to an IPCC Synthesis Report, the science “…confirms that human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans.”6

84

Chapter Five

An overwhelming corpus of evidence concerning the veracity of global anthropogenic climate change has arisen from the physical sciences, over time, increasing particularly since the 1970s; however, social and behavioral scientists only more recently have entered the discourse. Reports by the International Social Science Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and by the Executive Office of the President and the National Science and Technology Council, for example, have emphasized the utility of social and behavioral sciences in addressing critical social problems.7 Specific to climate change, the ISSC and UNESCO social science report “…highlights knowledge divides–not just within the sciences, but also between the sciences and the social transformations required to achieve sustainable development.” The report further has stressed that this “…gap between what we know about the interconnectedness and fragility of our planetary system and what we are actually doing about it is alarming. And it is deepening.”8 While identifying existing challenges, Balstad has asserted a “widely acknowledged need for social science contributions to climate and environment research.”9 A growing body of academic work, mostly within-discipline rather than interdisciplinary, but nonetheless representing the voices of multiple social and behavioral science disciplines, has emerged concerning the current climate crisis.10 In fact, some of the multidisciplinary social and behavioral science literatures have suggested that human emotions, including empathy and compassion, may play a key role in communicating the exigency for mitigating prosocial climate change interventions.11 The purpose of this paper, then, has been to explore and translate, against the backdrop of scientific evidence and within the context of the social and behavioral sciences, how the specific psychological constructs of empathy and compassion might serve some consequential basis for mitigating moral intuitions regarding personal and collective responsibility for climate change. An additional aim has been to examine current multi-, cross-, inter-, and transdisciplinary scholarship and to encourage more collaborative work in this important social and behavioral science arena. We have proposed an ecological framework for understanding the multifaceted, permeating, and transactional effects of climate change on humans and humans on the environment, while highlighting the importance of empathy and compassion in relation to prosocial behaviors toward others and toward the environment. In the major sections of this paper, we have offered the following: (1) a description of the human ecological model; (2) an examination of human responses to climate change and how empathy and especially compassion might mitigate their more deleterious results; (3) an exploration of the

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

85

implications of social and behavioral science contributions; and (4) a plan for moving forward.

Human Ecology The study of human ecology represents multi-, cross-, inter-, and transdisciplinary perspectives pertaining to how human beings relate to their multiple natural, social, and built environments. We believe that it is essential to ground the present discussion of climate change, empathy, and compassion in an ecological and systemic framework. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of human development serves this enterprise well.12 In this systemic model (see Figure 1 below), the ontogenic system (the individual, along with all of his or her personal characteristics and attributes) is nested within larger units of social influence, from the most proximal microsystem (family, peers, personal service providers, etc.), to the mesosytem, which is comprised of bridges between the microsystem and the exosytem (extended family, family friends, broader social services, mass media, etc.), and finally, to the most distal set of social influences, the macrosystem (cultural attitudes, beliefs, and values). The entire interconnection of systems is embedded within the chronosystem, which represents both the sociohistorical era and the time of personal life events; within this dimension of the model, the continuity and change mechanisms of the systemic levels may extend for generations. Essential to this ecological framework, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model13 has been the first to describe risk factors (potential disruption to normal development) and protective or compensatory factors (potential buffering against risk factors), relative to both the individual and the multiple environments that affect the individual. The dynamic of reciprocity (represented by the arrows in the figure, which also denote the potential for risk and protective factors across social and environmental systems) also has been inherent in the model; just as the environment and social systems within the environment may have an impact upon the individual, the individual reciprocally may have an impact on the environment and its various social systems. Likewise, risk factors and protective or compensatory factors may be implicated by the individual upon the environment or by the environment upon the individual. In the remaining parts of this section, we have examined climate change in light of issues related to human ecology, consumerism, reciprocity, and resilience issues.

86

Chapter Five

Figure 1: Broonfenbrenner’s Bioecological B Model M of Humaan Developmentt

Human Ecology E and d Climate C Change The expplicated moddel above caan be usefull in consideering the connections between hum man responsee and climatee change. Briefly, risk and protecctive or com mpensatory factors f are useful consttructs in understandinng the personal and social effects e of clim mate change, as a well as in determiniing constructiive mitigation ns. Reciprocall positive and d negative effects of climate changee, on and by humans, mayy be mapped out, and thus the innfluences on human heallth and wellb lbeing may be b better understood. In referenncing Bronfeenbrenner’s work on ecological e systems,14 itt is worth empphasizing how w the interconnnectedness of humans and the environment, nam mely, particular actions or inactions, tho ough their effects mayy not be feltt immediately y, have the potential to alter the environment and subsequuently alter hum man existencee as we know it. The unpprecedented nature of an nthropocentricc climate ch hange in particular iss unsettling, but b the absencce of immediiate effects sh hould not lull us into sstagnation. Time lapses maay occur betweeen causes an nd effects, especially inn relation to human h impact on the envirronment.15 We W are not arguing heree that humanss are the only y cause of clim mate change; however,

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

87

robust research supports the understanding that human behavior has exacerbated climate change exponentially. It is equally important to emphasize here that humans currently have a unique opportunity to address climate change, hopefully slow it, and, if possible, eventually work to reverse the damage that has been done. As the evidence presented by the physical sciences becomes clearer regarding climate change, the urgency to comprehend its association with human behaviors, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, values, and interrelationships becomes more crucial. And by extension, understanding the very nature of prosocial and antisocial behaviors, within this context, also becomes pivotal. One such prosocial/antisocial set of tensions, which both is relevant to climate change and holds ecological implications, involves consumerism.

Consumerism and Climate Change An exploration of consumerism offers an opportunity for exploring social and behavioral science insights and challenges related to climate change. In a robust review of the relevant literature, Shwom and Lorenzen purport that in order to work against climate change, via reducing greenhouse gas consumption, we first must work to understand not only the link between green-house gas consumption and climate change, but also how to alter consumption, which entails a better understanding of the mindset and behaviors of the consumer.16 It is worth noting that all consumers do not consume at an equal rate. For example, individuals in more developed countries are reported to consume more energy (e.g. oil), as much as 60 times more, than individuals in less-developed countries;17 power and politics seem to obscure the situation. However, for present purposes, it is important to look a bit more deeply at the consumer. Shwom and Lorenzen’s literature review yields four relevant perspectives for understanding the consumer: the homo economicus, the predictably irrational consumer, the locked-in consumer, and the socially organized consumer.18 The homo economicus consumer is self-interested and wishes to maximize utility, or pleasure, and is unlikely to change his or her consumption habits unless it saves money; the irrational consumer also strives to maximize utility, but cognitive, emotional, and social factors contribute to some understanding of his or her behavior. Cognitive factors may include, for example, a perception of the consequences of consuming something, the biases and heuristics that people reference when making decisions, and the “invisibility” of energy, or the notion that many people do not think about the energy they consume.19 In short, the locked-in consumer “emphasizes how social and technological systems

88

Chapter Five

interact with and shape people’s options or paths for consumption;” the behavior of the socially organized consumer is marked by habit, “with brief moments of deliberation and change.”20 Shwom and Lorenzen emphasize that consuming is a socialized process, while acknowledging some conflicts in the literature regarding whether social change is more likely to take place on a systems level or an individual level.21 Put another way, where should interventions be targeted to yield the most substantial change? While the homo economicus and predictably irrational models of consumerism analyze the individual, the locked-in and socially organized typologies look at context and social routines, with the latter proposing policy solutions that incorporate green living and different forms of social organization. The locked-in consumer perspective acknowledges that institutions and structures constrain an individual’s choices regarding consumption. To illustrate this point, “few consumers have the time and financial resources to build a home to energy-efficient specifications and are instead subject to the market and what has already been built by real estate developers.”22 Finally, from the social organization perspective, consumption is derived from social interactions and structural conditions. Included in this perspective is the discussion of lifestyles and how they contribute to one’s identity, personal narrative, and patterns of consumption.23 This identity construct can be a tremendously powerful notion, and perhaps even a useful motivator, that is, that the material things with which one surrounds oneself actually say something about an individual as a person. Taken together, the four perspectives offered by Shwom and Lorenzen provide useful information when attempting a better understanding of what drives consumer habits and the potential for change. Notably, the authors point out that the homo economicus and the irrational consumers are the most frequently referenced perspectives in the larger body of social and behavioral science literatures.24 This has major implications, as these perspectives focus heavily on the individual rather than taking into account the context in which people function, thus negating structural and policy influences on behaviors. There may be a way to hold individual and systemic views about consumers as not mutually exclusive or competing, and Bronfenbrenner’s model can be useful toward this end.25 Again, the reciprocal and transactional nature of the individual’s effect on the environment, and vice versa, should not be minimized, because to focus on one without the other dismisses the embeddedness of the individual in his or her context. For example, change may need to occur at all levels of the system in order for there to be a systemic impact. Underscoring this idea, simply providing more information to consumers is not likely to

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

89

change their habits.26 This points to a needed shift in the popular mindset of viewing consumers primarily on an individual level, namely, a shift toward incorporating the different parts of the environment within which people function, including micro, exo, meso, and macro levels of the human context, as referenced in Bronfenbrenner’s model.27 Such a new and holistic understanding of the consumer within his or her context may be a more useful paradigm from which to operate when working toward mitigating the pressing issue of climate change.

Reciprocity and Climate Change The discussion of consumers, with regard to their positionality within ecological systems, highlights the need to look at individuals within their environmental contexts and the reciprocal nature of this interrelationship. Research involving the complex interaction between humans and natural systems emphasizes the importance of reciprocity. Liu et al. reviewed multiple studies that highlight not only the need for the integration of social and natural sciences when attempting to understand coupled human and natural systems better, but also the unique dynamics between human and natural systems.28 Similarly, Grimm et al. reviewed the urban ecology literature, integrating research from the social and natural sciences to illuminate environmental issues in rapidly growing cities.29 Such information can be applied to the discussion of human impact on climate change and its reciprocal nature. Liu et al. have synthesized the ecological and research literatures in a way that provides rich information about the interconnectedness of humans and the natural systems within which we function, thus emphasizing interactions between the two.30 Parallel with Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem, Liu et al. note that “Legacy effects are impacts of prior human-nature couplings on later conditions,” which can vary from decades to centuries.31 The authors further indicate that “the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of human-nature couplings may not be immediately observable or predictable because of time lags between the human-nature interactions and the appearance of ecological and socioeconomic consequences.”32 Time, timing, and the passage of time are pivotal to this discussion. The notion of not being able to predict change, due to time lapses between cause and effect, may be exceedingly unsettling on the global scale concerning climate change. In other words, humans are altering the environment, but the full effects are not necessarily immediately felt. On a smaller scale, Liu et al. present the following example: “In Wisconsin,

90

Chapter Five

ecosystem conditions affect tourism, which is the mainstay of the economy, but economic development and ecosystem exploitation from tourism often degrade the qualities that attract tourists.”33 Following this example to its logical conclusion, without intervention, tourism may decline over time, as the very enterprise that was once of value has been damaged by human action and inaction. This example is analogous to what has been happening to the planet due to climate change, albeit on a slower timetable. Both the ocean and the human body can continue to sustain life, despite having a certain magnitude of pollutants introduced, but only to a particular level of toxicity. There is a threshold at which current functioning is no longer sustainable, and the whole system either compensates, or decompensates until it fails, which brings us to the construct of resilience.

Resilience and Climate Change Liu et al. have emphasized that in coupled human and natural systems, human intervention is a cornerstone in maintaining resilience, or the “capability to retain similar structures and functioning after disturbances for continuous development.”34 In other words, human action is needed for the continued functioning of the system in general, but also if the system is to remain familiar. There is a threshold or breaking point in any system, at which the stress placed upon the system is no longer sustainable. Following Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystemic level,35 and given that the comprehensive effects of climate change may not be available to us immediately, the situation becomes more urgent to act intentionally toward mitigation. Teahan, Levers, and Tarvydas have pointed to connections between climate change and disaster preparedness, discussing the proactive need for building and enhancing social-ecological resilience in the face of climate-change-related trauma and disaster.36 Rodin’s notion of a “resilience dividend” has emphasized the need to lay groundwork for assisting disrupted communities to transform into communities that selfregulate resilience.37 In the face of climate-change disasters, we need to facilitate the new normal as one of resilience.38 The construct of resilience may offer guidance for intervention, at multiple levels, aimed at mitigating the anthropocentric impacts of climate change.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

91

Human Response to Climate Change Burgeoning multi- and cross-disciplinary literatures have emerged, beginning to describe how humans are responding to the issue of climate change. One salient strand relates to moral decision making39 and emotional response.40 For example, Markowitz and Shariff have suggested that “Enhancing moral intuitions about climate change may motivate greater support for ameliorative actions and policies.”41 Another principal strand concerns the use of social marketing, as well as other motivational activities and media coverage, and how such strategies may backfire instead of actually promoting prosocial behavior toward the environment,42 especially regarding social norms and moral licensing.43 In this section, we examine relevant threads of the social and behavioral science literatures, with an aim toward distilling pertinent links that may relate empathy and compassion to climate change.

Social and Behavioral Sciences Viewing climate change through the lens of the social and behavioral sciences has become important precisely because of the anthropocentric dimensions of climate and environmental changes–human beings, human behavior, and human systems are intricately involved in recent trajectories of climate change. Social and behavioral sciences connect the cultural, social, psychological, and existential underpinnings of humanity with historical, educational, legal, ethical, political, economic, and spiritual systems of human conduct and human communication. In the remaining parts of this section, we have provided brief discussions of some of the more salient social and behavioral science implications concerning climate change, focusing on the following: economic, psychological, social learning, moral and ethical, moral licensing, criminal justice, security, media and communication, public health and public policy, ideological, and popular implications. Economic Implications: In a Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission publication, the authors avowed that the “Effects of climate change on health will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.”44 Unfortunately, the poorest populations also have been among the least equipped to handle climate change and often have been hit the hardest;45 many of the most deleterious effects of climate change have been seen in the developing world. And as discussed previously, effects may be unpredictable and not immediately felt.46

Chapter Five

92

Environmental political theorists have suggested that the stakes are high for a distribution of burden-to-pay for climate change.47 While a full discussion of such political-economic theories is beyond the scope of this paper, the literature on these theories has offered food for thought in considering why certain high-income actors may have vested interests in perpetrating and continuing the denial hoax or other power-based positions of misinformation concerning climate change.48 Or, as cast by Pope Francis in Laudato Si’, “…economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.”49 These words seem prescient in the face of a recently reported gag order on the US Environmental Protection Agency.50 According to Markowitz and Shariff, “Unlike financial fraud or terrorist attacks, climate change does not register, emotionally, as a wrong that demands to be righted….many, even those who believe that climate change is a problem, may feel complacent in delaying immediate… action…”51 Jamieson cited a quote that has been attributed to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, declaring climate change as “an act of aggression by the rich against the poor.”52 Jamieson additionally has proffered that the data seemed to be in concordance, stating that “Most of the emitting is done by the rich countries of the North, but most of the climate-change related dying is done in the poor countries of the South.”53 This has been underscored by research suggesting that more affluent individuals in developed nations consume more than those in underdeveloped areas of the world.54 Psychological and Counseling Implications: The fields of psychology and professional counseling have made contributions to the growing social and behavioral science literature concerning climate change in areas such as environmental sustainability,55 psychological harm,56 loss and grief associated with climate degradation,57 and trauma associated with climateinduced disaster.58 Additionally, Tarvydas, Levers, and Teahen have linked the need for updates in professional ethical thinking to instances of climate-change-related trauma and disaster.59 Perhaps most compelling to the current discussion has been Markowitz and Shariff’s explication of the psychology of moral judgement and climate change. Markowitz and Shariff have claimed that the issue of climate change simply does not register with most people as a moral imperative. In their article, they postulate the following “six psychological challenges posed by climate change to the human moral judgment system:” x

Abstractness and cognitive complexity (The abstract nature of climate change makes it non-intuitive and cognitively effortful to grasp);

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change x x x x x

93

The blamelessness of unintentional action (The human moral judgment system is finely tuned to react to intentional transgressions); Guilty bias (Anthropogenic climate change provokes self-defensive biases); Uncertainty breeds wishful thinking (The lack of definitive prognoses results in unreasonable optimism); Moral tribalism (The politicization of climate change fosters ideological polarization); and, Long time horizons and faraway places (Out-group victims fall by the wayside)60

Following discussion of each of their postulations, Markowitz and Shariff have offered strategies that those communicating about climate change can use to enhance understandings of the associated moral imperatives. These six strategies include what the authors describe as using existing moral values, focusing on costs rather than benefits to future generations, motivating with “carrots not sticks,” realizing that extrinsic motivators (e.g. climate change as “good business”) may backfire, expanding group identity, and highlighting positive social norms.61 Social Learning Implications: In the context of urban water resource management, Pahl-Wostl and Hare have argued that social learning by observation of others alone is too narrow. They have advocated for a broader approach, one that incorporates active participation, interdependence, system complexity, and perspective taking.62 Efforts in the United Kingdom have identified relational understandings of adaptive capacity to climate change within organizations as a key to productive change.63 Anticipatory learning has been marked as a principal element in shaping ideas about adaptation and resilience related to climate change.64 Adger et al. have suggested social limitations to climate change adaptation, bringing the matter back to cultural and social constructions as well as to values and ethics.65 Moral and Ethical Implications: Psychologists, particularly those engaged in moral psychology and ecopsychology, have identified moral intuitions and ethical responses related to climate change.66 Other social and behavioral scientists involved in environmental and ecological studies also have discussed the related moral and social justice implications.67 Markowitz and Shariff have noted that “Communicators have framed climate change as an issue of national security, public and personal health, economic wellbeing and, of course, environmental sustainability…[and more recently]…as a moral issue.”68 By extension, Roeser has articulated

94

Chapter Five

the potential role for emotions in engaging the public on ethical matters concerning climate change.69 Moral Licensing Implications: Best-selling author, Malcolm Gladwell, has brought new currency to the term “moral licensing” in recent podcasts.70 Moral licensing is a subconscious psychological dynamic by which humans may justify and allow themselves to get away with essentially bad, or at least counterproductive, behavior. Due to increased confidence and a sense of security in one’s self-concept, an individual then tends to be less concerned with the consequences of questionable or immoral behavior. An example of moral licensing that commonly has been used for illustrative purposes involves the dieter who, feeling so virtuous due to a strenuous gym workout, then justifies eating a large, even unhealthy, meal.71 The construct of moral licensing or self-licensing has applicability in the arena of environmental behavior and resource conservation.72 As an example, in a Washington Post article about “going green,” Rosenwald has reported the following: We drink Diet Coke–with Quarter Pounders and fries at McDonald’s. We go to the gym–and ride the elevator to the second floor. We install tankless water heaters–then take longer showers. We drive SUVs to see Al Gore's speeches on global warming.73

A typical response involving moral licensing, according to Tiefenbeck et al., has been “feeling entitled to a self-indulgent behavior that one would not permit oneself without first having done a positive action.”74 This has been particularly poignant, because the self-indulgent action may offset, or cancel out, the initial positive action. Allcott has examined how, in some energy conservation programs aimed at constructing proenvironment social norms and reinforcing consumers’ lessening energy use, the effects of decreased energy usage decayed over time.75 In a separate research trial related to durable goods and energy efficiency, households subsequently increased clothes washing, following receipt of free high-efficiency clothes washers.76 The subliminal take away, in these instances, seemed to reverberate with the following sensibility: “I have ‘earned’ extra energy consumption, because I used energy-efficient products.” This obviously represents illogical thinking, but it has been illustrative of the kind of justifications used in moral licensing. The possible impact of the subconscious phenomenon of moral licensing on human responses to climate change potentially may be enormous. While grounded in psychological principles of human behavior, moral licensing has implications for disciplines like ethics and bioethics and certainly relates to an array of other social and behavioral science

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

95

interests. In fact, Tiefenbeck et al. have asserted the following: “Recent contributions in consumer research and policy, marketing, and social psychology journals provide evidence of moral licensing in various behavioral domains including purchasing decisions, nutrition, racism, and sexism.”77 Indeed, moral licensing likely has affected a wide range of behaviors and warrants further investigation. Criminal Justice Implications: The research literature has revealed positive correlations between climate change and crime, in general, as well as rising trends in certain crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, and vehicle theft.78 Criminology scholars have stressed the need for a global focus on redefining crime in connection with climate change.79 Ranson has asserted that “…weather has a strong causal effect on the incidence of criminal activity. Across all categories of offenses, higher temperatures lead to higher crime rates.”80 Likewise, the cross-disciplinary literature has revealed complex connections between climate change and other types of aggression. The criminal justice literature has begun to illuminate the reciprocal nature of anthropogenic climate change, that is, as humans have had an impact on the environment, resulting changes in climate have had an effect on human behavior. Security Implications: The United Nations-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent reports, as well as in its Synthesis Report, has declared climate change to be a major political issue on the international agenda.81 Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, for example, has contended that “Climate change is today being recast as a security threat, rather than being just an environmental issue.”82 Indeed, environmental issues have vast and permeating implications. This has been echoed by the academician and investigative journalist, Christian Parenti, who has authored a book casting the links between climate change and social unrest in various regions of the world as a “new geography of violence.”83 The effects of climate change have been documented assiduously throughout the scientific literature, thus illuminating the following trends: civil and armed conflicts;84 security threats;85 increased aggression;86 natural resource conflicts;87 food insecurity;88 water insecurity;89 population distribution, mobility, and migration;90 and the unequivocal need for adaptation.91 Similar to what is found in the criminal justice literature, local and global security implications amplify the reciprocity between anthropogenic climate change and human beings. Media and Communication Implications: The relationship among media representations, communication, rhetoric, and climate change are complex;92 therefore, a full or even adequate discussion is beyond the

96

Chapter Five

scope of this paper. In short, the reality has been that communication campaigns aimed at encouraging pro-environmental behaviors, and thus mitigating the anthropogenic impact on climate change, have not been entirely successful. Lu and Schuldt have suggested that “the lack of widespread public support on climate policy may be due, in part, to ineffective communication efforts that fail to engage and resonate with individuals of diverse backgrounds.”93 While many of the climate change communication mechanisms have focused on cognitive framing of what are thought to be persuasive messages, more recent research has begun to focus on the role of emotions in such communications and how emotions may motivate humans more effectively toward change.94 It also is worth noting that, if individuals personally have not felt the effects of climate change, they may not perceive them to be immediately threatening or even “real.” According to Lu and Schuldt “overly dire messages about the consequences of climate change can potentially backfire, by increasing skepticism concerning the existence of climate change.”95 Truelove et al. have stressed that we have a limited understanding of the behavioral spillover associated with climate change interventions. Spillover effects are unanticipated behaviors that are not targeted by, but nonetheless may result from, an intervention–in other words, unintended consequences.96 Truelove et al. have contended that an adequate knowledge of spillover effects is essential for policy “…as growing concern over anthropogenic climate change and the limited success of comprehensive national and international policy measures have generated a renewed interest in strategies that promote efficiency and conservation through behavior modification.”97 The veracity of the science regarding the anthropogenic impact of climate change has been beyond reproach; however, the issues related to how humans respond, especially to media campaigns aimed at behavioral changes concerning energy consumption, have been more tenuous.98 Research conducted in Sweden, for example, analyzed the visual media representations of emotions (fear, hope, guilt, compassion, and nostalgia) attached to climate change; depending on the nature of the depictions, such communication either could enhance public engagement or draw attention away from climate change.99 Similarly, Corner and Randall have identified limitations of social marketing and the potential for such communication to end in unintended and counterproductive responses.100 In fact, evidence has suggested that many people do not possess a sense of urgency about the climate and that they are reluctant to adapt their lifestyles in relevant ways.101 Finally, while many campaigns have assumed

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

97

that targeting economic advantages will result in pro-environment behavioral change, research has suggested that more persuasive messages include appeals to morally good conduct and maintaining a favorable view of self.102 Bolderdijk et al. offer a succinct summary of this issue: “It is critical to have an accurate understanding of factors that promote or stifle persuasion in the environmental domain, as ill-constructed messages can do more harm than good.”103 Public Health and Public Policy Implications: In many ways, climate change has loomed large as a public health issue, and at the same time, the destruction of the environment has been minimized politically.104 More information to the consumer, along with monetary incentives, may not be enough to change consumer habits. Perhaps more top-down approaches need to be constructed, as well as developing social and technological innovations to address concerns, whereby individuals organize themselves into intentional and active communities.105 Shwom and Lorenzen have recommended consideration of all understandings of consumers in respect to mitigating climate change, while accounting for the interconnectedness between production and consumption.106 Essentially, both the individual and larger systemic structures, like policies and institutions, need to be evaluated and addressed. The public policy issues are complex; many environmental and human factors must be examined while conducting this important work.107 Public health and public policy concerns represent an important intersectionality of most, if not all, of the relevant issues pertaining to anthropogenic climate change and human responses to the environment. Every aspect of the plethora of health-related, social, cultural, emotional, and existential issues needs to be taken into consideration, and to do less would create the potential for chilling effects on humanity and on the planet. Yet, the views of the scientific community have not been translated adequately into cogent concerns for the public at large. This has been disastrous in ways that are directly detrimental to the environment. One example that illuminates this lack of public concern is Markowitz’s study of 922 undergraduate students regarding climate change as an ethical issue. While 45% of the students opined that “climate change represents a moral or ethical issue; a full quarter of the students said it was not an ethical issue and roughly 30% were unsure.”108 Public health policy needs to be concerned with what appears, in many quarters, to be a lack of empathy and compassion regarding environmental issues.109 Ideological Implications: Zia and Todd have evaluated the effects of ideology on public understandings of climate change science, stating that “Public knowledge of climate science that cuts across ideological divides

98

Chapter Five

is crucial to public action toward addressing these impacts.”110 The study found that as ideology shifts from liberal to conservative, citizens’ concern regarding climate change decreases; those with higher levels of college education and science literacy tend to have greater concern for the environment. Lu and Schuldt noted that such a partisan divide “threatens to undermine policy initiatives that the world’s leading scientists believe will be critical if humanity is to avert the most severe warming projections and their negative impacts.”111 Such ideological schisms have been disheartening, to say the least, and interpretation of the facts regarding climate change must not be altered to account for personal or in-group biases. Baldwin and Lammers have noted that political polarization regarding climate change can have disastrous results on society, deepening already existing divisions on the political spectrum. Their research has postulated differences between conservatives’ and liberals’ temporal focus on climate comparisons, finding that conservatives focus more on the past and liberals more on the future. Baldwin and Lammers further have shown that conservatives are more positively affected by past-focused environmental comparisons and suggest communication strategies that use psychological processes, such as temporal comparison, to bridge ideological divisions concerning climate change more efficaciously.112 “Popular Sentiment” Implications: At the risk of stepping beyond the boundaries of academic scholarship, and because this is such a powerful issue at such a pivotal time in our history, we have taken the liberty to include a quote, from a recent cable-based news-satire program, which we believe captures a real and authentic strand of the public’s response to climate change. In a segment about time travel on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, “correspondents” Desi Lydic and Jordan Klepper had the following exchange: Desi: …Because nobody believes peoples’ warnings in the present. Jordan: Yeah, it’s like how you can tell people all about global warming, but until they’re brushing their teeth with their own urine, they’re not really gonna give a [expletive].

We believe that this brief exchange speaks volumes about one segment of the public’s uncritical–or just unaware–denial response to climate change. Indeed, we conjecture that there may be a prevalent antiintellectual cynicism at play, at least in the US, by which people maintain an “innocent” or naïve posture, in the face of factual information, perhaps at least partly because they have not yet seen or felt the effects of climate change personally. Furthermore, people may distance themselves from a

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

99

proactive stance regarding climate change, as they may not see themselves as directly responsible; such distancing recurs back to the abstract nature of climate change, as discussed by Markowitz and Shariff.113

Empathy and Compassion Considering the reports explicated above from the social and behavioral science literatures, along with their decisive implications for the planet Earth and all of her inhabitants (human, fauna, and flora), the role of empathy and the mandate to raise levels of compassion become more apparent. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “empathy” is commonly thought of as “the ability to share someone else’s feelings.”114 Similarly, compassion is widely regarded as the “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.”115 One can experience empathy without necessarily experiencing compassion, but to be compassionate seems to necessitate some general empathic feelings as a precursor. Another way of casting this is that both empathy and compassion require the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, but compassion requires the additional step of wanting to engage with the feelings of another, and if the feeling is distressing, to assist in its alleviation. However, there is some controversy in the recent psychological literature regarding the utility and efficacy of the construct of empathy.116 Bloom promotes what he terms “rational compassion,” especially as it relates to potential policy development, over more personalized projections of empathy, which he believes often are defined by the empathizer’s tendency to “feel” more deeply, but perhaps uncritically, for in-group members, at the expense of out-group members.117 Similarly, in the neuroscience literature, Klimecki et al. state that “Although empathy is crucial for successful social interactions, excessive sharing of others’ negative emotions may be maladaptive and constitute a source of burnout.”118 We take the above cautions seriously in our discussion of empathy; the philosophical nature of the controversy, especially its moral-judgment and altruistic aspects, certainly has nuanced implications in the discourse on anthropogenic climate change. Yet we also understand that in the quotidian parlance of humanitarian concern, the commonly held notion of empathy as being capable of understanding the feelings or situation of another, particularly related to the effects of climate change under discussion here, does not, in and of itself, have an immediately negative connotation. However, taking the controversy to its logical extension, there are some nuances of the critique of empathy that have important

100

Chapter Five

implications for the communication of climate change issues. For all of these reasons, we believe that discussions of both empathy and compassion are important here; however, we argue for the relevance of moving beyond a basic and personalized empathy toward embracing compassion as a mechanism for communicating the most important messages concerning anthropogenic climate change. Incidentally, professor of psychology, Scott D. Churchill, has reflected on moments of what he terms “empathic seeing” in his investigations of interspecies communication with primates.119 Other primatologists also challenge assumptions about the primacy of human emotion and cognition.120 We argue here that both empathy and compassion certainly extend beyond human relationships to include the environment and all living organisms. We also argue, borrowing from the technology of professional clinical counseling, that empathy and compassion are teachable/learnable skills.121 Concepts regarding empathy and compassion date back to their origins in Greek and Roman cultures, respectively; however, their scientific examination only began in the 20th century.122 While these two terms interconnect and have some overlap, they may elicit, accordingly, different responses. As discussed above, the controversy concerning empathy has emerged in the psychological literature, suggesting that perhaps empathy is not as socially productive or yielding as compassion.123 Bloom addresses this by asserting the following: Without empathy, we are better able to grasp the importance of vaccinating children and responding to climate change. These acts impose costs on real people in the here and now for the sake of abstract future benefits, so tackling them may require overriding empathetic responses that favor the comfort and wellbeing of individuals today. We can rethink humanitarian aid and the criminal justice system, choosing to draw on a reasoned, even counter-empathetic, analysis of moral obligation and likely consequences.124

We believe that the controversy concerning empathy as a poor guide for social and public health policy is highly relevant here. While not wishing to side-step this important philosophical debate, we favor engaging accepted meanings ascribed to empathy and compassion for the purpose of exploring their utility in mediating anthropogenic climate change; however, we continue this discussion with mindfulness about the potential problems associated with empathy and policy decisions. Each construct, empathy and compassion, is described briefly below, with an emphasis on its social and behavioral science perspectives, the related neuroscience, and links to the climate.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

101

Empathy While there is a myriad of definitions of empathy, descriptions often encompass a person’s ability to understand the experience and emotions of another. Put another way, empathy can be defined as “the ability to vicariously experience and to understand the affect of other people.”125 Empathy has two different components: understanding the affective state of another, as well as the cognitive processes associated with empathy that involve perspective taking.126 However, some scholars only view empathy as related to affective states.127 A salient aspect of empathy is perspective taking, which arguably requires some cognitive capabilities and complexities. An important distinction between empathy and other constructs relates to a person’s concern for others. Empathic concern, including the constructs of sympathy and compassion, is associated with alleviating suffering, but is not synonymous with empathy, because it does not necessarily entail vicarious experience; this sets sympathy and compassion apart from affective empathy.128 Once again, we see the capability of understanding the feelings and mindset of another as central to empathy, which arguably goes far beyond simply “feeling bad” for someone. Social and Behavioral Science Perspectives: Within the social and behavioral sciences, empathy emerges as a construct with experiential and affective utility. Research in this area often focuses on an individual’s capacity to feel empathy for another individual; however, there is arguably less research that investigates the greater difficulty humans have in experiencing empathy for those perceived as “other” or as part of an “outgroup.”129 Vanman’s review of the literature illuminates how people are more likely to have empathy for in-group members than out-group members and how the trait of empathy is related to seeing others as human.130 The latter part of the previous sentence is worth re-emphasizing: recognizing the inherent value in another human being is related to empathy. There may be risk of dehumanizing others when one views an out-group as “other,” especially to the extent that one does not or cannot empathize. The implications of the gap in the literature mentioned above, relating empathy-for-other to climate change, are likely not yet fully understood but may vastly permeate our understanding of this important matter. Recurring to Bloom’s recent discussion of empathy, it may be that collective or “tribal” expressions of empathy that lead to favoring in-group over out-group entities can have disastrous implications for climatechange policy development.131

102

Chapter Five

As stated above, emotions are a cornerstone of empathy, and recent research suggests that they are related to whether or not a person decides to help another. People are more likely to empathize with and help a sad and needy person rather than an angry or disgusted needy person.132 This may have immense implications in regard to natural disasters or climatechange-related phenomena; for example, if a person needs help, he or she may be less likely to receive it if expressing anger about the current situation. This finding seems to suggest that people are more likely to help others in need, but the result actually is highly conditional and may be more or less logical, depending on the circumstance. If members of a Pacific Islander population, for example, are angry about how climate change is forcing them to leave their homes, it is unfortunate to think that they may be less likely to receive help due to their very justified emotions. This link to behavior is crucial, as empathy seems to go beyond merely caring for other people; it is a part of a person’s decision-making process to help. Relatedly, empathic responses to the difficulties experienced by others actually may result in empathic distress.133 Neuroscience: As a result of modern technology, scientists actually have been able to observe individuals’ experiences of empathy in the brain. Neuroscience has offered physiological explanations about what happens in the brain when a person experiences empathy, suggesting that there are structural components to the construct. In other words, ample neuroscientific evidence has argued that vicarious experience occurs and can be located in the brain. Lockwood’s review of the literature has indicated that “the observation of others experiences activates similar neural regions to one’s own experiences, which was interpreted as a neural marker of empathy.”134 Poignantly, it has seemed that the brain activates in such a way that another’s experience becomes one’s own on a physical level. Even more importantly, perhaps, has been the suggestion that a person’s empathic ability may be increased with certain stimulation, or in a sense, empathy might be learnable.135 Neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to form new connections throughout a person’s lifetime, has allowed for new ways of relating to others. Georgi et al. have created a model in which a person’s empathic abilities, which are related to genes, brain maturity, and attachment experiences have been influenced by socio-emotional stimulation and challenges.136 Researchers have found that social interactions could increase empathic abilities and lead to learning empathy.137 Understanding the adaptability of the human brain has been encouraging, and perhaps it even could be possible for individuals to increase their empathic abilities toward people perceived as “other,” for instance.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

103

Link to Climate (micro- to macro-level): As explored above, the dominant discourse of empathy often focuses on an individual’s reactions to other individuals, sometimes to groups of people, but even less often to the environment. This is a significant deficit in the literature, given that empathy is related to prosocial behavior, and as explicated, in an earlier section above, people have a reciprocal relationship with their environment.138 Perhaps it is the abstract nature of climate change, as well as time lapses in effects, that contribute to the lack of collective action. Relatedly, recent research has indicated that empathy actually may play a lesser role regarding prosocial behavior than was previously thought, and that concern and perspective taking may be more potent motivators toward moral action.139 However, it is worth noting, at this point, that perspective taking is sometimes included in definitions of empathy, as previously discussed. The research of Jordan, Amir, and Bloom underscores an interesting and important point about perspective taking, namely, that “feeling what others feel [empathy] is psychologically distinct from caring about what others feel [concern] … caring about what others feel is a much stronger motivator of prosocial thoughts and actions than feeling what others feel.”140 This is a salient find, because simply having the ability to feel what others feel does not necessarily compel one to take action; however, it also may be argued that in order to care [have concern], one first must have some access to an understanding of what another is dealing with. Taken together, perhaps working toward having empathic concern for others and the environment may work toward mitigation of climate change, because it would include cognitive and affective components (e.g. perspective taking as well as feelings). In this way, increasing one’s perspective-taking ability may be a necessary foundational piece not only to raising awareness of the condition of others (micro level) and how circumstances may influence systemic structures (macro level), but also to serve as a key component in the decision if, when, and how to take action.

Compassion In the Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, Keltner and Goetz define compassion as “the emotion one experiences when feeling concern for another’s suffering and desiring to enhance that individual’s welfare.”141 Similar to empathy, the construct of compassion includes the vicarious experience of another person’s pain and suffering, but it moves beyond the vicarious to include sympathetic and caring responses. In many ways, empathy is a pathway toward compassion, but at the same time, the

104

Chapter Five

emotion and experience of compassion can build further empathy, so the concepts are somewhat synchronistic in this regard. Keltner and Goetz state that compassion “…is different from empathy, which refers to the mirroring or understanding of another’s response; from pity, which refers to feelings of concern for someone weaker than the self; and from agape, which refers to the love of humanity.”142 Compassion is a helping behavior that stems from an altruistic emotion concerning another person or group or groups of people, that is, “the other.” Compassion is similar to Batson’s concept of empathic concern, which is an “other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone in need.”143 It is this particular turn of the construct that emphasizes its importance in the anthropocentric climate change discourse. Compassion is one mechanism through which an individual can connect with other beings and the environment in prosocial ways and expressing a positive emotional valence regarding shared involvement in mitigating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Social and Behavioral Science Perspectives: The concept of compassion is a hallmark of many, if not most, codes of ethical practices and religious traditions; it is also an important construct in the social and behavioral sciences, especially pertaining to discussions of emotion and moral conduct. Theorists discuss compassion as both a helping behavior and an emotion with creative potential for prioritizing the needs of others.144 Keltner and Goetz specifically note that compassion “…produces a distinct orientation to others…[and] amplifies the sense of common humanity.”145 It is precisely this recognition of the shared condition of humanity, along with a desire to assist in alleviating the suffering of others, which marks compassion as potentially instrumental in communicating the urgency of anthropogenic climate change effects and constructing creative pathways toward environmental sustainability. According to Lu and Schuldt, “Because of its approach tendency, compassion has the potential to enhance social engagement with others and reduce psychological distance…which may be essential for reducing the public’s tendency to construe climate change in psychologically distant terms.”146 Considered a prosocial emotion, compassion, like empathy, can be taught and learned. Research has shown that training for compassion, in laboratory experiments, increases helping rates toward strangers.147 The amount of time practicing compassion has predicted the type of helping behavior displayed by participants, “…namely pure altruistic helping as opposed to reciprocity-based helping. This indicates that compassion training especially increases prosocial motivation rather than just norm-

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

105

adherence.”148 Psychological understandings of the compassion-related prosocial distinction between self and other are becoming more pronounced, and they are becoming increasingly more supported in the related neuroscience research regarding compassion. Neuroscience: Early neuroscience investigations of empathy and compassion have focused on brain plasticity and the activation of neural networks.149 Neuroscience researchers have identified the basic neural mechanisms that allow for sharing feelings with others.150 Singer and Klimecki have stated that “the magnitude of the empathy-related signal in the anterior insula predicted the extent to which participants later engaged in altruistic helping behavior.”151 According to Singer and Klimecki, more recent studies have yielded findings to indicate “that a short term compassion training of several days can foster positive feelings and related brain activations, even when persons are exposed to the distress of others.”152 Additional studies showed neural differences between empathy training and compassion training, indicating “the important distinction between empathy and compassion, both on a psychological and neurological level.”153 Exposure to others’ suffering and pain has led to empathic distress and even negative health outcomes, whereas, compassionate responses arise from other-oriented sensibilities, thus activating more prosocial reactions. Singer and Klimecki have described the implications of their findings in the following way: Given the potentially detrimental effects of empathic distress, the finding of existing plasticity of adaptive social emotions is encouraging, especially as compassion training not only promotes prosocial behavior, but also augments positive affect and resilience, which in turn fosters better coping with stressful situations.154

Research by Klimecki et al. has supported earlier studies, reporting that “the observed activation pattern underlying the training of compassion accords with neural correlates of love, affiliation, and positive affect.”155 The study has offered further evidence of neural plasticity that was promoted by the compassion training.156 The results of the investigation have suggested that the effects of compassion benefit both “the person who experiences it (through strengthening positive affect) and the recipient of compassion (through fostering prosocial motivation).”157 In subsequent research, Klimecki et al. have aimed to “dissociate empathy and compassion and to investigate related plasticity on the neural and experiential level.”158 They have reported that compassion training reversed and counteracted the negative affect, which had been induced by

106

Chapter Five

empathy training, by increasing positive affect.159 The researchers have reported that their results “suggest that empathy and compassion indeed rely on antagonistic affective systems and that even short-term training of compassion has the potential to counteract empathic distress.”160 The neuroscience of compassion is very new; however, recent brain research and a better understanding of brain architecture offer openings for rethinking strategies for motivating people to adopt more and better environmentally friendly behaviors. It may be that programs teaching, encouraging, and promoting compassion can serve the dual purpose of inducing prosocial environmental behaviors and building personal and community resilience. Link to Climate (micro- to macro-level, with reciprocity): According to Lu and Schuldt, scholars have been advocating for increased investigation of emotions with a positive valence. They state that “the positive emotion of compassion is especially relevant to the context of climate change communication” and that developing compassion for climate change victims can serve as a support mechanism in designing and advocating mitigation policy.161 So it is the individual, on the micro-level, who serves as actor in having compassion for the “other,” the other who may exist within the individual’s proximal level, or within any of the other ecological systemic levels, including the most distal level. Concomitantly, the individual actor needs support from multiple levels of social influence to enact meaningful personal compassionate action regarding the environment and others who may be suffering as a result of anthropogenic climate change. In this sense, the individual and his or her multiple environments become highly synergistic, and the issue of compassion becomes one of reciprocity. Lu and Schuldt note that compassion, as a prosocial emotion, is “readily applicable to climate change communication because in order to mitigate negative effects of climate change, individuals need to be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of others.”162 They further suggest the following three mediating factors as underlying mechanisms for compassion: (1) a subjective feeling of compassion, (2) a perception between self and suffering other, and (3) a perception that the suffering other can be assisted–what they term as “action efficacy.”163 Following Truelove et al.’s notion of a “spillover effect,”164 it may be that more efficacious communication regarding anthropogenic climate change shifts from an empathic ethos of sympathy to a more socially proactive emphasis on compassionate concern for others and the environment. With compassion positioned more prominently in the climate change discourse, along with greater sensitivity across ecological systemic levels, perhaps

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

107

we can create a greater sense of what Wolf, Brown, and Conway frame as ecological citizenship.165

Implications of Social and Behavioral Science Contributions The intricacies of the overlapping yet dissociated constructs of empathy and compassion have utility when deconstructing the current discourse surrounding anthropogenic climate change. This is especially true in trying to understand the wide-ranging lack of action and in attempting to foster more prosocial mindsets and behaviors. Research has indicated that empathy, compassion, and prosocial behaviors are connected, even by proxy constructs, such as perspective taking and spillover effect, for example. Cultivating a better understanding of the mindsets of individuals can work toward the goals of organizing collective efforts to foster desired prosocial change and of building greater individual and community resilience concerning climate change matters. Hopefully the information provided here can incite future research that delves deeper into an understanding of how people feel and how they are compelled to act when confronted with large, and arguably abstract, environmental issues. It likely would behoove the social and behavioral sciences to consider more extensive multi-, cross-, inter-, and transdisciplinary work to address the timely issues related to climate change, because such cohesion is needed to bridge the divide of human versus environmental research. Arguably, as it has been demonstrated above, humans are integral parts of their multiple environments and thus have reciprocal relationships therein. Logically, it follows that the research regarding humans and the environment should not treat these as separate entities when trying to achieve a better understanding of large-scale climate issues. The need is great for viewing the anthropogenic climate change discourse through an ecological systems theoretical framework. Such an ecological approach assists in understanding some of the problems associated with human inaction in the face of human-induced climate change. Problems identified throughout this paper have real implications for anthropogenic climate change–problems that we are only at the cusp of understanding in relationship to climate change–problems that are both intra- and interpersonal, like complacency and delay,166 consumerism,167 inability to make moral and ethical judgments,168 lack of perspective taking,169 moral licensing,170 and spillover effects.171 These problem sets give rise to many questions about interactions and transactions between human beings and the environment. We need to begin to identify the most

108

Chapter Five

pertinent questions so that systemic solutions can be found to sustain the environment and humanity. In many ways, within the context of climate change and human ecology, the systemic intersections of a lack of compassion-for-other with any of the psychosocial constructs discussed in earlier parts of this paper (e.g. consumerism, moral licensing, ideology, etc.), could interact to create additional environment-related risk factors. Conversely, by promoting a systemic ethos of greater compassion, individuals and their larger communities could enhance existing, and even create additional, protective or compensatory factors that could mitigate human-induced aspects of climate change, thus building foundations for increased positive reciprocity between human actions and changing environments. Such systemic solutions not only have the potential to bridge current problems to more sustainable adaptation, but they also offer a pathway that can lead to enhanced resilience. To illuminate this issue, we borrow a quote from Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values: If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.172

Strengthening our understandings of the systemic implications of anthropogenic climate change can accomplish much, including increased resilience in the face of environmental adaptation. One mechanism for achieving heightened systemic sensibilities is to embrace greater compassion as a response to the changes that are taking place. Omitting discussions about empathy and compassion from the discourse on climate change would be remiss, as research has demonstrated that both of these constructs are related to perspective taking and prosocial behavior, to arguably varying degrees. Further effort should be made to move beyond personal empathy and to promote compassion on systemic levels. More research needs to be conducted in order to understand how people might conceptualize feeling empathic or compassionate in regard to environmental issues like anthropogenic climate change. Such information would aid in better directing intentional efforts, not only to promote awareness, but to instill the very real and much needed sense of urgency to act.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

109

Way Forward In the major sections of this paper above, we have offered the following discussions: a description of the human ecological model and its utility in considering anthropogenic climate change; an examination of human responses to climate change and how empathy, and especially compassion, might mitigate the more deleterious results of climate change; and an exploration of the implications of social and behavioral science contributions. These discussions have necessitated arriving at some plan for moving forward. While we cannot pretend to have captured, or indeed to fully understand, the entire spectrum of social and behavioral contributions regarding what must done to curb the worst effects of climate change, we have tried to at least have distilled some of the most salient issues from the previous discussions. The current rapidity of climate change is not merely a function of geological evolution; humans have contributed greatly to the present condition of the planet. In a conjoint ISSC and UNESCO publication, the organizations stated the following: It was the geologists who first proposed to call our current age the “Anthropocene”–an age in which human activity is the major force shaping the planetary system. With roots in scientific understanding, the idea is essentially social and human. At its core, it is a call to action, to better understand the world, to choose the future we want and to shape global dynamics in this direction.173

So an essential first step in moving forward is to identify the most efficacious ways to help everyone understand that anthropogenic climate change is real, its impact is great, and it is happening at an alarming rate. Climate change is not an Al Gore bogey man, as seems to be the interpretation of some. Unnaturally rapid and intense climate change is ongoing; we humans are causing much, if not most, of it; and the underlying dynamics associated with related delay and denial are largely social and behavioral in nature. A second essential step, for social and behavioral scientists who are interested in climate change, is to identify the most pressing human-induced problems and persist in finding systemic solutions aimed at mitigating attitudes and behaviors that affect the environment in negative ways. While we cannot be certain of the exact effects of climate change due to time lapses in cause and effect, we can be certain that without mitigation, eventually everyone will be affected. Because simply raising awareness and increasing the information to which people have access may not be enough to incite change, perhaps before a call-to-action is

110

Chapter Five

heeded, a paradigm shift needs to occur. Such a paradigm shift is one of inclusion and entails integrating both individual and systemic understandings of consumers into conversations about and actions aimed at mitigating climate change. It also can harness the power of the media and their abilities to evoke situation-appropriate emotion, to raise consciousness, and to inspire constructive and rational action. At all levels, we need to be very mindful of the types of communication and information that are displayed to the public regarding climate change, because in order for change to occur, more needs to happen than simply sharing the facts. Promoting perspective taking, and by extension, cognitive complexity–while acknowledging the emotional components of moral decision making–are integral pieces of this shift away from a lack of cohesion and toward collective empathy and compassion. Unfortunately, climate change has gained momentum in a negative direction and with deleterious effects. We hope that this paper can act as a catalyst for further research, discussion, and action, so that humanity can prepare for the systemic repercussions of anthropogenic climate change, and that hopefully, there is still time to stop or slow further damage. While much important research has been and is being done regarding the current state of our environment and related constructs of human behavior, a lacunae exists in the literature, especially surrounding the marriage of person and environment. An integration of compatible theoretical perspectives needs to be forged to address the current disconnect and fragmentation of the natural and social science literature regarding climate change. So not only are we proposing a call to action, but a call to inclusion of all related disciplines, which entails intentional concerted efforts, more organized and structured ongoing communication, and greater synthesis of findings. This then could result in acquiring a more comprehensive understanding of the social and behavioral implications of anthropogenic climate change and how to address the ensuing problem sets in more efficacious ways. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a one-time effort, but that rather, it requires ongoing lines of communication, across disciplines and with systemic sensibilities, to ensure a comprehensive approach. Such action first necessitates that more extensive translational research be conducted, so that the various disciplines can understand one another’s languages and contributions. This then calls for more multi-, cross-, inter-, and transdisciplinary collaborations. We cannot possibly know the answers if we do not know the questions, and some of the most profound questions, perhaps yet to emerge and be framed, actually may cross disciplinary boundaries.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

111

Human response to anthropogenic climate change is a complex and reciprocal process. Empathy and compassion have great potential to serve as positive mediators in the process of human response to climate change. Moving beyond empathy and embracing the mandate for increased compassion may be an important part of moving human response to anthropogenic climate change forward in prosocial and productive ways, ways that are resilience building and transformational toward self, toward other humans, toward other inhabitants of the planet, and toward the entire collective environment.

Notes 1

For example, see Crimmins et al. (2016); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007), (2013), (2014); IPCC Core Writing Team, Pachauri, and Meyer (2014); and Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe (2014). 2 For example, see Crimmins et al. (2016); IPCC (2007); IPCC Core Writing Team et al. (2014); and Melillo et al. (2014). 3 Ezra M. Markowitz and Azim F. Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4 (2012): 243-247; Joseph Stromberg, “What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 2013, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropoceneand-are-we-in-it-164801414/. 4 For example, see IPCC Core Writing Team et al. (2014) and Melillo et al. (2014). 5 For example, see Costello et al. (2009); Crimmins et al. (2016); and Durant et al. (2017). 6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri and Leo A. Meyer, eds., Climate change 2014: Synthesis report, contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2014, pg. v, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5 _FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. 7 International Social Science Council (ISSC) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides,” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, 2010, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf; International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments,” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, 2013, http://www.worldsocialscience.org/documents/wss-report-2013- full-text.pdf; and Executive Office of the President and National Science and Technology Council, “Social and behavioral sciences team: 2015 annual report,” September 2015, https://sbst.gov/download/2015%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 8 ISSC and UNESCO, “World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, 3. 9 Roberta Balstad, “The Interdisciplinary Challenges of Climate Change Research,” in World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides, International Social

112

Chapter Five

Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing: 2010), 210, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf. 10 For example, see APA (2009). 11 For example, see Lu and Schuldt (2016) and Markowitz and Shariff (2012). 12 Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979); Urie Bronfenbrenner, On Making Human Beings Human (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1981); and Urie Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” in Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development, edited by Urie Bronfenbrenner (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 3-15. 13 Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Bronfenbrenner, On Making Human Beings Human; and Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15. 14 Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Bronfenbrenner, On Making Human Beings Human; and Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15. 15 Jianguo Liu, Thomas Dietz, Stephen R. Carpenter, Marina Alberti, Carl Folke, Emilio Moran, Alice N. Pell et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” Science 317, 5844 (2007): 1513-1516. 16 Rachael Shwom and Janet A. Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3, no. 5 (2012): 379-395. 17 Jeffrey Chow, Raymond J. Kopp, and Paul R. Portney, “Energy Resources and Global Development,” Science 302, no. 5650 (2012): 1528-1531; and Dale Jamieson, "Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice," Science and Engineering Ethics 16, no. 3 (2010): 431-445. 18 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379-395. 19 Elizabeth Shove, “Revealing the Invisible: Sociology, Energy and the Environment,” in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by Michael R. Redclift and Graham Woodgate (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 1997), 216-229; Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211 (1981): 453-458. 20 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 386-387. 21 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379-395. 22 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 386. 23 Anthony Giddens, A Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991); Nancy B. Grimm, Stanley H. Faeth, Nancy E. Golubiewski, Charles L. Redman, Jianguo Wu, Xuemei Bai, and John M. Briggs, “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities,” Science 319, no. 5864 (2008): 756-760; and Naomi Klein, This Changes

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

113

Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Reprint edition (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015). 24 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379-395. 25 Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Bronfenbrenner, On Making Human Beings Human; and Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15. 26 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379-395. 27 Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Bronfenbrenner, On Making Human Beings Human; and Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15. 28 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1513-1516. 29 Grimm et al., “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities,” 756-760. 30 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1513-1516. 31 Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15; and Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1515. 32 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1515. 33 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1513. 34 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1515. 35 Bronfenbrenner, “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development,” 3-15. 36 Peter Teahan, Lisa Lopez Levers, and Vilia Tarvydas, “Disaster, Climate Change, and Public Health: Building Social-ecological Resilience,” in The Urgency of Climate Change: Pivotal Perspectives, edited by Gerard Magill and Kiarash Aramesh (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2017), 133-160. 37 Judith Rodin, The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong (New York: Public Affairs, 2014). 38 Debbie V. S. Kasper, “Ecological Habitus: Toward a Better Understanding of Socioecological Relations,” Organization and Environment 22, no. 3 (2009): 311326; Janet A. Lorenzen, “Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change,” in Sociological Forum vol. 27, no. 1 (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2012), 94-116; Rodin, The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong; and Teahan, Levers, and Tarvydas, “Disaster, Climate Change, and Public Health: Building Social-ecological Resilience,” 133-160. 39 For example, see Bolderdijk et al. (2012); Markowitz (2012); and Markowitz and Shariff (2012). 40 For example, see Höijer (2010); Randall (2009); and Roeser (2012). 41 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 243. 42 For example, see Bolderdijk et al. (2012); Boykoff and Roberts (2007); Corner and Randall (2011); Höijer (2010); and Truelove et al. (2014). 43 For example, see Allcott (2009) and Tiefenbeck et al. (2013). 44 Anthony Costello, Mustafa Abbas, Adriana Allen, Sarah Ball, Sarah Bell, Sarah, Richard Bellamy, Sharon Friel et al., “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change,” Lancet 373, no. 9676 (2009): 1693.

114 45

Chapter Five

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, Kasper Gian- Plattner, Melinda M. B. Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung, Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex, and Pauline M. Midgley, eds.], (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013), http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. 46 Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” 1513-1516. 47 For example, see Page (2008). 48 For example, see Dimitrov (2010) for an insider’s view on what he considers the international political failures of the Copenhagen Accord. 49 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015), §54. 50 Coral Davenport, “Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications,” The New York Times, January 25, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-haltcommunications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html. 51 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 243. 52 Jamieson, "Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice," 438. 53 Jamieson, "Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice," 438. 54 Chow, Kopp, and Portney, “Energy Resources and Global Development,” 15281531. 55 For example, see Clayton, Litchfield, and Geller (2013) and Swim et al. (2011). 56 For example, see Doherty and Clayton (2011). 57 For example, see Randall (2009). 58 For example, see Tarvydas, Levers, and Teahen (2017). 59 Vilia Tarvydas, Lisa Lopez Levers, and P. Teahen, “Ethics Narratives from Lived Experiences of Disaster and Trauma Counselors,” in Disaster Mental Health Counseling: A Guide to Preparing and Responding, fourth edition, edited by J. Webber and J. B. Mascari (Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association Foundation: in press-a); Vilia Tarvydas, Lisa Lopez Levers, and P. Teahen, “Ethical Guidelines for Mass Trauma and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies,” Journal of Counseling and Development (2017). 60 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 244. (The preceding challenges and their explanations were drawn from Table 1 on page 244.) 61 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 245. 62 Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Matt Hare, “Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management,” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14, no. 3 (2004): 193-206. 63 Mark Pelling, Chris High, John A. Dearing, and Denise Smith, “Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Within Organisations,” Environment and Planning A 40, no. 4 (2008): 867–884.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change 64

115

Petra Tschakert and Kathleen Ann Dietrich, “Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” Ecology and Society 15, no. 2 (2010). 65 W. Neil Adger, Suraje Dessai, Marisa Goulden, Mike Hulme, Irene Lorenzoni, Donald R. Nelson, Lars Otto Naess, Johanna Wolf, and Anita Wreford, “Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?,” Climatic Change 93, no. 3 (2009): 335-354. 66 For example, see Gifford (2011) and Stoll-Kleeman, O’Riodan, and Jaeger (2001). 67 For example, see Jamieson (2009); Kellert and Speth (2009); Markowitz (2012); and Markowitz and Shariff (2012). 68 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 243. 69 Sabine Roeser, “Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions,” Risk Analysis 32, no. 6 (2012): 1033-1040. 70 Malcolm T. Gladwell, “Malcolm Gladwell on racism, Trump, and the moral licensing phenomenon,” YouTube, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjf8b_LLZ6g. 71 Malcolm T. Gladwell, “Malcolm Gladwell on racism, Trump, and the moral licensing phenomenon,” YouTube, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjf8b_LLZ6g. 72 For example, see Shwom and Lorenzen (2012) and Tiefenbeck et al. (2013). 73 Michael S. Rosenwald, “Why Going Green Won’t Make You Better or Save You,” The Washington Post, July 18, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html. 74 Verena Tiefenbeck, Thorsten Staake, Kurt Roth, and Olga Sachs, “For Better or for Worse? Empirical Evidence of Moral Licensing in a Behavioral Energy Conservation Campaign,” Energy Policy 57 (2013): 160. 75 Hunt Allcott, “Social Norms and Energy Conservation,” Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; A Joint Center of the Department of Economics, MIT Energy Initiative, and Sloan School of Management, (October 2009), http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2009-014.pdf. 76 Lucas W. Davis, “Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy And Water: Evidence from a Field Trial,” RAND Journal of Economics 39, no. 2 (2008): 530-546. 77 Tiefenbeck et al., “For Better or for Worse? Empirical Evidence of Moral Licensing in a Behavioral Energy Conservation Campaign,” 160. 78 For example, see Boikanyo and Levers (2017); Brunsdon et al. (2009); Bushman, Wang, and Anderson (2005); Cohn (1990); Horrocks and Menclova (2011); and Ranson (2014) and (2012). 79 For example, see Cohn (1990); Horrocks and Menclova (2011); and White (2012), (2013), (2014a), and (2014b). 80 Matthew Ranson, “Crime, Weather, and Climate Change,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 67 (2014): 287. 81 For example, see IPCC (2007), (2014) and IPCC Core Writing Team et al. (2014).

116 82

Chapter Five

Wario R. Adano and Fatuma Daudi, “Links between Climate Change, Conflict and Governance in Africa,” Institute for Security Studies Papers 2012, no. 234. (2012), 1, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper_234.pdf. 83 Christian Parenti, Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence (New York: Nation Books, 2011). 84 For example, see Hendrix and Glaser (2007); Hsiang, Burke, and Miguel (2013); Adano and Daudi (2012); Müller et al. (2016); Raleigh and Urdal (2007); and Reuveny (2007). 85 For example, see Adano and Daudi (2012). 86 For example, see Hsiang, Burke, and Miguel (2013) and Adano and Daudi (2012). 87 For example, see Mwiturubani et al. (2010). 88 For example, see Batisani (2010). 89 For example, see Bakker (2012); Ludwig et al. (2011); Sullivan (2002); and Wutich and Ragsdale (2008). 90 For example, see Müller et al. (2016); Raleigh, Jordan, and Salehyan (2008); Reuveny (2007); and Tacoli (2009). 91 For example, see Thomas et al. (2005) and UN (2013). 92 For example, see Bolderdijk et al. (2012); Boykoff and Roberts (2007); Höijer (2010); and Roeser (2012). 93 Hang Lu and Jonathon P. Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support For Mitigation Policy,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45 (2016): 192. 94 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support For Mitigation Policy,” 192-200. 95 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support For Mitigation Policy,” 193. 96 Heather Barnes Truelove, Amanda R. Carrico, Elke U. Weber, and Kaitlin Toner Raimi, “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework,” Global Environmental Change 29 (2014): 127-138. 97 Truelove et al., “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework,” 127. 98 For example, see Boykoff and Roberts (2007). 99 Birgitta Höijer, “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change,” Public Understanding of Science 19 (2010): 717– 731. 100 Adam Corner and Alex Randall, “Selling Climate Change? The Limitations of Social Marketing as a Strategy for Climate Change Public Engagement,” Global Environmental Change 21, no. 3 (2011): 1005-1014. 101 Roeser, “Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions,” 1033-1040. 102 J. W. Bolderdijk, Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K., and Postmes, T, “Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Nature Climate Change,” Nature Climate Change 3, no. 4 (2013): 413-416.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change 103

117

Bolderdijk et al., “Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Nature Climate Change,” 414-415. 104 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379–395. 105 Graham Meltzer, Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model (Victoria: Trafford on Demand Publishing, 2005); and Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379–395. 106 Shwom and Lorenzen, “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges,” 379–395. 107 Andrew Haines, R. S. Kovats, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, and Carlos Corvalan, “Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability, and Mitigation,” Lancet 367, no. 9528 (2006): 2101-2109; and Mark E. Keim, “Building Human Resilience: The Role of Public Health Preparedness and Response as an Adaptation to Climate Change,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, no. 5 (2008): 508-516. 108 Ezra M. Markowitz, “Is Climate Change an Ethical Issue? Examining Young Adults’ Beliefs About Climate and Morality,” Climate Change 114, no. 3-4 (2012): 479. 109 For example, see Lu and Schuldt (2016). 110 Asim Zia and Anne Marie Todd, “Evaluating the Effects of Ideology on Public Understanding of Climate Change Science: How to Improve Communication Across Ideological Divides?,” Public Understanding of Science 19 (2010): 758. 111 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support For Mitigation Policy,” 192. 112 Matthew Baldwin and Joris Lammers, “Past-focused Environmental Comparisons Promote Proenvironmental Outcomes for Conservatives,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 52 (2016): 14953–14957. 113 Markowitz and Shariff, “Climate Change and Moral Judgement,” 243-247. 114 Merriam-Webster, “Definition of Empathy,” Learner’s Dictionary, 2016b, para. 2, http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/empathy. 115 Merriam-Webster, “Definition of Compassion,” 2016a, para. 1, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion. 116 For example, see Batson (2009) and Bloom (2016). 117 Paul Bloom, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (New York: Ecco/Harper Collins, 2016). 118 Olga M. Klimecki, Susanne Leiberg, Matthieu Ricard, and Tania Singer, “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9, no. 6 (2013): 873. 119 Scott D. Churchill, “Encountering the Animal Other: Reflections on Moments of Empathic Seeing,” The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 6, no. Special Edition 1 (2006): 1-13. 120 For example, see de Waal (2009). 121 For example, see Batson (2009); Georgi Petermann and Schipper (2014); Klimecki et al. (2012); Klimecki et al. (2013); and Singer and Klimecki (2014).

118 122

Chapter Five

Tania Singer and Olga M. Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” Current Biology, 24, no. 18 (2014): R875-R878. 123 For example, see Batson (2009) and Bloom (2016). 124 Paul Bloom, Forum: Against Empathy, Boston Review, September 10, 2014, http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy. 125 Patricia L. Lockwood, “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition,” Behavioural Brain Research 311 (2016): 255. 126 Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith, “The Neural Basis of Mentalizing,” Neuron 50, no. 4 (2006): 531-534; Lockwood, “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition,” 255-266; and Tania Singer and Claus Lamm, “The Social Neuroscience of Empathy,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1156, no. 1 (2009): 81-96. 127 Tania Singer, “The Neuronal Basis and Ontogeny of Empathy and Mind Reading: Review of Literature and Implications for Future Research,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6 (2006): 855-863. 128 Lockwood, “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition,” 255-266; and Singer and Lamm, “The Social Neuroscience of Empathy,” 81-96. 129 Eric J. Vanman, "The Role of Empathy in Intergroup Relations," Current Opinion in Psychology 11 (2016): 59-63; and John F. Dovidio, James D. Johnson, Samule L Gaertner, Adam R. Pearson, Tamar Saguy, Tamar, and Leslie AshburnNardo, “Empathy and Intergroup Relations,” in Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature, edited by Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver (Washington DC: APA Press: 2010), 393-408. 130 Vanman, "The Role of Empathy in Intergroup Relations," 59-63. 131 Bloom, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. 132 Claudia Sassenrath, Stefan Pfattheicher, and Johannes Keller, “I Might Ease Your Pain, But Only If You’re Sad: The Impact of the Empathized Emotion in the Empathy-Helping Association,” Motivation and Emotion (2016): 1-11. 133 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R875-R878. 134 Lockwood, “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition,” 260. 135 Erik Georgi, Franz Petermann, and Marc Schipper, "Are Empathic Abilities Learnable? Implications for Social Neuroscientific Research from Psychometric Assessments," Social Neuroscience 9, no. 1 (2014): 74-81. 136 Georgi, Petermann, and Schipper, "Are Empathic Abilities Learnable? Implications for Social Neuroscientific Research from Psychometric Assessments," 74-81. 137 Georgi, Petermann, and Schipper, "Are Empathic Abilities Learnable? Implications for Social Neuroscientific Research from Psychometric Assessments," 74-81. 138 C. Daniel Batson, “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena,” in The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, edited by Jean Decety and W. Ickes (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 3-15; and Singer and Lamm, “The Social Neuroscience of Empathy,” 81-96.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change 139

119

Matthew R. Jordan, Dorsa Amir, and Paul Bloom, "Are Empathy and Concern Psychologically Distinct?," Emotion 16, no. 8 (2016): 1115. 140 Jordan, Amir, and Bloom, “Are Empathy and Concern Psychologically Distinct?," 1115. 141 Dacher Keltner and Jennifer L. Goetz, “Compassion,” in Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007), 159. 142 Keltner and Goetz, “Compassion,” 159. 143 C. Daniel Batson, Altruism in Humans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 11. 144 For example, see Keltner and Goetz (2007); Parenti (2012); Roeser (2012); and Singer and Klimeck (2014). 145 Keltner and Goetz, “Compassion,” 160. 146 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support For Mitigation Policy,” 193. 147 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R875-R878. 148 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R876. 149 For example, see Klimecki et al. (2012); Klimecki et al. (2013); and Singer and Klimecki (2014). 150 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R875-R878. 151 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R876. 152 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R877. 153 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R877-R878. 154 Singer and Klimecki, “Empathy and Compassion,” R878. 155 Olga M. Klimecki, Susanne Leiberg, Claus Lamm, and Tania Singer, “Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training,” Cerebral Cortex 23, no. 7 (2013): 1559. 156 Klimecki et al., “Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training,” 1552-1561. 157 Klimecki et al., “Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training,” 1560. 158 Klimecki et al., “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training,” 877. 159 Klimecki et al., “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training,” 873-879. 160 Klimecki et al., “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training,” 878. 161 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support for Mitigation Policy,” 193. 162 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support for Mitigation Policy,” 193. 163 Lu and Schuldt, “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support for Mitigation Policy,” 193-194. 164 Truelove et al., “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework,” 127-138.

120

Chapter Five

165

Johanna Wolf, Katrina Brown, and Declan Conway, “Ecological Citizenship and Climate Change: Perceptions and Practice,” Environmental Politics 18, no. 4 (2009): 503-521. 166 For example, see Jamieson (2009). 167 For example, see Klein (2015) and Shwom and Lorenzen (2012). 168 For example, see Markowitz and Shariff (2012). 169 For example, see Pelling et al. (2008). 170 For example, see Tiefenbeck et al. (2013). 171 For example, see Truelove et al. (2014). 172 Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (New York, NY: HarperTorch, 2006), 122. 173 ISSC and UNESCO, “World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments,” 3.

Literature Adano, Wario R., Fatuma Daudi. 2012. “Links between Climate Change, Conflict and Governance in Africa.” Institute for Security Studies Papers 2012, no. 234. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper_234.pdf. Adger, W. Neil, et al. 2009. “Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?” Climatic Change 93, no. 3: 335-354. Allcott, Hunt. 2009. “Social Norms and Energy Conservation.” Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; A Joint Center of the Department of Economics, MIT Energy Initiative, and Sloan School of Management. (October). See, http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2009-014.pdf. American Psychological Association (APA). 2009. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multifaceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. See, http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-changebooklet.pdf. Baldwin, Matthew, Joris Lammers. 2016. “Past-focused Environmental Comparisons Promote Proenvironmental Outcomes for Conservatives.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 52: 14953– 14957. Balstad, Roberta. 2010. “The Interdisciplinary Challenges of Climate Change Research.” In, International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides (Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing), 210-212. See, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

121

Batisani, Nnyaladzi. 2010. “Dynamics of Cultivated Land and Its Association with Rainfall Variability in Botswana Implications for Food Security Under Climate Change.” In, Donald Anthony Mwiturubani, et al, eds., Climate Change and Natural Resources Conflicts in Africa, (Institute for Security Studies Monographs), no. 170, 205-219. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono170.pdf. Batson, C. Daniel. 2011. Altruism in Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2009. “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena.” In, Jean Decety, W. Ickes, eds., The Social Neuroscience of Empathy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 3-15. Bloom, Paul. 2016. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. New York: Ecco/Harper Collins. —. 2014. “Forum: Against Empathy.” Boston Review (September 10). See, http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy. Boikanyo, Mogakolodi Nelson, Lisa Lopez Levers. 2017. “The Effects of Climate Change on Water Insecurity in Botswana: Links to the Criminal Justice System.” In, Gerard Magill and Kiarash Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017), 434-449. Bolderdijk, J. W., et al. 2013. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Nature Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3, no. 4: 413-416. Boykoff, Max, J. Timmons Roberts. 2007. “Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses.” United Nations Development Programme ~ Human Development Report 2007/2008 ~ Background Paper. See, http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/files/2010/02/Media_Coverage_of_Clima te_Change.pdf. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 2004. “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development.” In, Urie Bronfenbrenner, ed., Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 3-15. —. 1981. On Making Human Beings Human. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. —. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brunsdon, Chris, et al. 2009. “The Influence of Weather on Local Geographical Patterns of Police Calls for Service.” Environmental Planning B: Planning and Design 36, no. 5: 906–926.

122

Chapter Five

Bushman, Brad J., Morgan C. Wang, Craig A. Anderson. 2005. “Is the Curve Relating Temperature to Aggression Linear or Curvilinear?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 62–66. Chow, Jeffrey, Raymond J. Kopp, Paul R. Portney. 2012. “Energy Resources and Global Development.” Science 302, no. 5650: 15281531. Churchill, Scott D. 2006. “Encountering the Animal Other: Reflections on Moments of Empathic Seeing.” The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 6, no. Special Edition 1: 1-13. Clayton, Susan, Carla Litchfield, E. Scott Geller. 2013. “Psychological Science, Conservation, and Environmental Sustainability.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, no. 7: 377-382. Cohn, Ellen G. 1990. “Weather and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 30, no. 1: 51–64. Corner, Adam, Alex Randall. 2011. “Selling Climate Change? The Limitations of Social Marketing as a Strategy for Climate Change Public Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 21, no. 3: 10051014. Costello, Anthony, et al. 2009. “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change.” Lancet 373, no. 9676: 1693-1733. Crimmins, Allison, et al. 2016. “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.” Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC, USA. See, https://health2016.globalchange.gov. Davenport, Coral. 2017. “Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications.” The New York Times (January 25). See, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-toldto-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html. Davis, Lucas W. 2008. “Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy And Water: Evidence from a Field Trial.” RAND Journal of Economics 39, no. 2: 530-546. de Waal, Frans. 2009. The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. New York: Broadway Books. Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2010. “Inside UN Climate Change Negotiations: The Copenhagen Conference.” Review of Policy Research 27, no. 6: 795-822. Doherty, Thomas Joseph, Susan Clayton. 2011. “The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 265–276. Dovidio, John F., et al. 2010. “Empathy and Intergroup Relations.” In, Mario Mikulincer, Phillip R. Shaver, eds., Prosocial Motives,

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

123

Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature (Washington DC: APA Press), 393-408. Durant, Sarah M., et al. 2017. “The Global Decline of Cheetah Acinonyx Jubatus and What it Means for Conservation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 3: 528-533. Executive Office of the President and National Science and Technology Council. 2015. “Social and behavioral sciences team: 2015 annual report.” (September). See, https://sbst.gov/download/2015%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Frith, Chris D., Uta Frith. 2006. “The Neural Basis of Mentalizing.” Neuron 50, no. 4: 531-534. Georgi, Erik, Franz Petermann, Marc Schipper. 2014. "Are Empathic Abilities Learnable? Implications for Social Neuroscientific Research from Psychometric Assessments." Social Neuroscience 9, no. 1: 74-81. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. A Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gifford, Robert. 2011. “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 290-302. Gladwell, Malcolm T. 2016. “Malcolm Gladwell on racism, Trump, and the moral licensing phenomenon.” YouTube. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjf8b_LLZ6g. Grimm, Nancy B., et al. 2008. “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities.” Science 319, no. 5864: 756-760. Haines, Andrew, et al. 2006. “Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability, and Mitigation.” Lancet 367, no. 9528: 21012109. Hendrix, Cullen S., Sarah M. Glaser. 2007. “Trends and Triggers: Climate Change and Civil Conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 695-715. Höijer, Birgitta. 2010. “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 19: 717–731. Horrocks, James, Andrea Menclova. 2011. “The Effects of Weather on Crime.” New Zealand Economic Papers 45, no. 3: 231–254. Hsiang, Solomon M., Marshall Burke, Edward Miguel. 2013. “Quantifying the Influence of climate on Human Conflict.” Science 341, no. 6151: 1235367-1—1235367-14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Leo A. Meyer, eds. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III

124

Chapter Five

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. See, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_ FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.” Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Thomas F. Stocker, et al, eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. See, http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL _FINAL.pdf. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger, eds. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland. See, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_ report.pdf. International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2013. “World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments.” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. See, http://www.worldsocialscience.org/documents/wss-report-2013-fulltext.pdf. International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2010. “World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides.” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. See, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf. Jamieson, Dale. 2010. "Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice." Science and Engineering Ethics 16, no. 3: 431-445. Jordan, Matthew R., Dorsa Amir, Paul Bloom. 2016. "Are Empathy and Concern Psychologically Distinct?" Emotion 16, no. 8: 1115. Kasper, Debbie V. S. 2009. “Ecological Habitus: Toward a Better Understanding of Socioecological Relations.” Organization and Environment 22, no. 3: 311-326. Keim, Mark E. 2008. “Building Human Resilience: The Role of Public Health Preparedness and Response as an Adaptation to Climate Change.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, no. 5: 508516.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

125

Kellert, Stephen R., James Gustave Speth, eds. 2009. The Coming Transformation: Values to Sustain Human and Natural Communities. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. See, https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SPE-Soc050.pdf. Keltner, Dacher, Jennifer L. Goetz. 2007. “Compassion.” In, Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs, eds., Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 159-161. Klein, Naomi. 2015. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Reprint edition. New York: Simon and Schuster. Klimecki, Olga M., et al. 2013. “Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training.” Cerebral Cortex 23, no. 7: 1552-1561. Klimecki, Olga M., et al. 2013. “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9, no. 6: 873-879. Liu, Jianguo, et al. 2007. “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems.” Science 317, 5844: 1513-1516. Lockwood, Patricia L. 2016. “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition.” Behavioural Brain Research 311: 255-266. Lorenzen, Janet A. 2012. “Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change.” Sociological Forum vol. 27, no. 1: 94-116. Lu, Hang, Jonathon P. Schuldt. 2016. “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support for Mitigation Policy.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 192-200. Ludwig, Ralf, et al. 2011. “Towards an Inter-disciplinary Research Agenda on Climate Change, Water and Security in Southern Europe and Neighboring Countries.” Environmental Science and Policy 14, no. 7: 794-803. Markowitz, Ezra M. 2012. “Is Climate Change an Ethical Issue? Examining Young Adults’ Beliefs About Climate and Morality.” Climate Change 114, no. 3-4: 479-495. Markowitz, Ezra M., Azim F. Shariff. 2012. “Climate Change and Moral Judgement.” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4: 243-247. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese C. Richmond, G. W. Yohe, eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCR). See,

126

Chapter Five

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impa cts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf. Meltzer, Graham. 2005. Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model. Victoria: Trafford on Demand Publishing. Merriam-Webster. 2016a. “Definition of Compassion.” See, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion. —. 2016b. “Definition of Empathy.” Learner’s Dictionary. See, http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/empathy. Müller, Marc Francois, et al. 2016. “Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Land Use and Transboundary Freshwater Resources.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 52: 14932–14937. Mwiturubani, Donald Anthony, et al, eds. 2010. Climate Change and Natural Resources Conflicts in Africa. Institute for Security Studies Monographs 2010, no. 170. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono170.pdf. Page, Edward A. 2008. “Distributing the Burdens of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 17, no. 4: 556-575. Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, Matt Hare. 2004. “Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14, no. 3: 193-206. Parenti, Christian. 2011. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation Books. Pelling, Mark, et al. 2008. “Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Within Organisations.” Environment and Planning A 40, no. 4: 867– 884. Pirsig, Robert. 2006. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. New York, NY: HarperTorch. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Raleigh, Clionadh, Lisa Jordan, Idean Salehyan. 2008. "Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Migration and Conflict." World Bank Group for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change workshop, Washington, DC. See, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Re sources/SDCCWorkingPaper_MigrationandConflict.pdf. Raleigh, Clionadh, Henrik Urdal. 2007. “Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Armed Conflict.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 674694. Randall, Rosemary. 2009. “Loss and Climate Change: The Cost of Parallel Narratives.” Ecopsychology 1, no. 3: 118-129.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

127

Ranson, Matthew. 2014. “Crime, Weather, and Climate Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 67: 274-302. Ranson, Matthew. 2012. “Crime, Weather, and Climate Change.” Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series No. 8, Harvard Kennedy School. See, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67660/1243450/version /1/file/ranson_2012-8.FINAL.pdf. Reuveny, Rafael. 2007. “Climate Change-induced Migration and Violent Conflict.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 656-673. Rodin, Judith. 2014. The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. New York: Public Affairs. Roeser, Sabine. 2012. “Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions.” Risk Analysis 32, no. 6: 10331040. Rosenwald, Michael S. 2010. “Why Going Green Won’t Make You Better or Save You.” The Washington Post. July 18. See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html. Sassenrath, Claudia, Stefan Pfattheicher, Johannes Keller. 2016. “I Might Ease Your Pain, But Only If You’re Sad: The Impact of the Empathized Emotion in the Empathy-Helping Association.” Motivation and Emotion, 1-11. Shove, Elizabeth. 1997. “Revealing the Invisible: Sociology, Energy and the Environment.” In, Michael R. Redclift, Graham Woodgate, eds., The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 1997), 216-229. Shwom, Rachael, Janet A. Lorenzen. 2012. “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3, no. 5: 379–395. Singer, Tania. 2006. “The Neuronal Basis and Ontogeny of Empathy and Mind Reading: Review of Literature and Implications for Future Research.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6: 855863. Singer, Tania, Olga M. Klimecki. 2014. “Empathy and Compassion.” Current Biology, 24, no. 18: R875-R878. Singer, Tania, Claus Lamm. 2009. “The Social Neuroscience of Empathy.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1156, no. 1: 81-96. Stoll-Kleeman, Susanne, Tim O’Riodan, Carlo C. Jaeger. 2001. “The Psychology of Denial Concerning Climate Change Mitigation

128

Chapter Five

Measures: Evidence from Swiss Focus Groups.” Global Environmental Change 11, no. 2: 107-117. Stromberg, Joseph. 2013. “What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?” Smithsonian Magazine (January). See, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-theanthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/. Sullivan, Caroline A. 2012. “Calculating a Water Poverty Index.” World Development 30, no. 7: 1195-1210. Swim, Janet K., et al. 2011. “Psychology’s Contributions to Understanding and Addressing Global Climate Change.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 241–250. Tacoli, Cecilia. 2009. “Crisis or Adaptation? Migration and Climate Change in a Context of High Mobility.” Environment and Urbanization 21, no. 2: 513–525. Tarvydas, Vilia, Lisa Lopez Levers, P. Teahen. (In Press). “Ethics Narratives from Lived Experiences of Disaster and Trauma Counselors.” In, J. Webber, J. B. Mascari, eds., Disaster Mental Health Counseling: A Guide to Preparing and Responding, 4th ed. (Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association Foundation). Tarvydas, Vilia, Lisa Lopez Levers, P. Teahen. 2017. “Ethical Guidelines for Mass Trauma and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies.” Journal of Counseling and Development 95: 260-268. Teahan, Peter, Lisa Lopez Levers, Vilia Tarvydas 2017. “Disaster, Climate Change, and Public Health: Building Social-ecological Resilience.” In, Gerard Magill, Kiarash Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 133-160. Thomas, David, et al. 2005. “ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to Climate Change Amongst Natural Resource-dependent Societies in the Developing World: Across the Southern African Climate Gradient.” Tyndall Centre Technical Report, No. 35 (November). See, http://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Thomas,%20D.,%20Osbahr,%20 H.,%20Twyman,%20C.,%20Adger,%20W.%20N.%20and%20Hewits on,%20B.,%20(2005)%20ADAPTIVE%20-%20Adaptations%20to %20climate%20change%20amongst%20natural%20resourcedependant%20societies%20in%20the%20developing%20world%20(tr 35).pdf. Tiefenbeck,Verena, et al. 2013. “For Better or for Worse? Empirical Evidence of Moral Licensing in a Behavioral Energy Conservation Campaign.” Energy Policy 57: 160–171.

A Human Ecological Approach to Anthropogenic Climate Change

129

Truelove, Heather Barnes, et al. 2014. “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework.” Global Environmental Change 29: 127-138. Tschakert, Petra, Kathleen Ann Dietrich. 2010. “Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience.” Ecology and Society 15: no. 2. Tversky, Amos, Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211: 453-458. United Nations. 2013. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Vanman, Eric J. 2016. "The Role of Empathy in Intergroup Relations." Current Opinion in Psychology 11: 59-63. White, Rob. 2014a. “Eco-justice and Problem-solving Approaches to Environmental Crime and Victimisation.” In, Toine Spapens, Marieke Kluin, Rob White, eds., Environmental Crime and Its Victims (Surrey, England: Ashgate), 87-102. White, Rob. 2014b. “Green Criminology.” In, Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd, eds., Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1976-1984 (New York: Springer). White, Rob. 2013. “Environmental Crime and Problem-solving Courts.” Crime, Law and Social Change 59, no. 3: 267-278. White, Rob, ed. 2012. Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective. New York: Springer. Wolf, Johanna, Katrina Brown, Declan Conway. 2009. “Ecological Citizenship and Climate Change: Perceptions and Practice.” Environmental Politics 18, no. 4: 503-521. Wutich, Amber, Kathleen Ragsdale. 2008. “Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress: Coping with Supply, Access, and Seasonal Variability of Water in a Bolivian Squatter Settlement.” Social Science and Medicine 67, no. 12: 2116–2125. Zia, Asim, Anne Marie Todd. 2010. “Evaluating the Effects of Ideology on Public Understanding of Climate Change Science: How to Improve Communication Across Ideological Divides?” Public Understanding of Science 19: 743–761.

IV. RELIGION AND ETHICS

CHAPTER SIX THE THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF LAUDATO SI’: TRACING THE INTERPLAY OF THEOLOGY, SCIENCE, AND ECOLOGY1 CELIA DEANE-DRUMMOND

Introduction “Our Common Home,” the rallying cry of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’, is a stance that begins where the people are: observations of the world around us.2 His intention to reach out to everyone is likely to succeed, because his particular style of ministry emblems the kind of person that he invites his followers to become. Here, for the first time in the last few centuries, is a pope who refuses to be shielded by batteries of bodyguards; who takes homeless people off the street to share a meal with him on his birthday; who brings Muslim refugees back to the Vatican; who refuses the grandeur of his office; and who opts to live in shared accommodation. When he speaks, therefore, about the need for a simpler lifestyle, this sounds–and is–authentic, as it comes out of his own lived practice. Ecology is a relatively new science, first introduced by German biologist and philosopher E. H. Haeckel (1834-1919).3 The term is derived from the Greek word for home (oîkos) and so strikes an explicit resonance with Laudato Si’. The meaning of ecology in the narrower, biological sense refers to the interrelationship between different organisms and their natural environment, otherwise described as “niche.” Nonetheless, the language of ecology in a theological context means more than simply our home, or even biological interrelationships; rather, it bears complex and multifaceted social and political connotations. Ecology can refer to the environmental, climate, or conservation sciences, the more explicit science of ecology,4 or it can even signify political or economic “green” agendas that lurk in the background of such empirical changes. The first and most

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

133

basic message of the encyclical is that our common home is becoming unfit not just for human dwelling, especially for the poorest communities in the world, but also for multiple other creatures, as well. I am going to focus in this chapter on Pope Francis’ proposal for a new way of thinking about our humanity that he argues is in need of an ecological conversion. His message is, therefore, about a renewed theological anthropology. This analysis will also touch on the cultural movement away from compulsive habits that he believes have dangerously gripped those people with power living in modern civilization, and more specifically, human attachments to consumerism and what he terms the “technological paradigm.” I should add at the outset that the interpretation of Pope Francis that I will elaborate below both dwells on his text, and also takes it further than this through a particular interpretation or hermeneutical approach that is especially conscious of the significance of this encyclical for how to think about humanity and our place in the cosmos.5 Indeed, the theme of Protecting Our Common Home presupposes that human beings do indeed have the capability of that protection, even if the extent of the climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, and multiple instances of breakdown make it clear that human beings have so far failed in this mission. The first part of the encyclical lays out the ecological devastation now wrought on Earth that ecotheologians and environmentalists have been pointing out for nearly half a century. Overall, his treatment of the scientific literature from a scientific perspective is balanced, coming down firmly on the side of those who support climate change, with adherence to the consensual view of the vast majority of scientists that human influence is primarily responsible for the sharp rise in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.6 Further, the idea of the integrity of creation implies that it is crucial to unravel how complex relationships between human beings and all creatures in a web of creation have become distorted and broken from what could be a healthier, flourishing system. The web of creation, too, implies a Creator, so theologically understanding humanity’s place in relation to the gift of creation given to us through God’s acts in the history of the world in its making means that a theocentric perspective is in view in speaking of the integrity of creation.

Taking the First Step: Ecological Conversion For Pope Francis, “the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion,”7 and that call is one that builds on the work of Pope John Paul II. So, in a pastoral letter written in 2003 addressed to the

134

Chapter Six

Bishops and leaders of the Church, Pastores Gregis, Pope John Paul II claims that: There is a need for ecological conversion, to which Bishops themselves can contribute by their teaching about the correct relationship of human beings with nature. Seen in the light of the doctrine of God the Father, the maker of Heaven and Earth, this relationship is one of “stewardship”: human beings are set at the center of creation as stewards of the Creator.8

It is interesting to note here that this text points to a particular interpretation of a well-functioning anthropology, namely, “a correct relationship” between human beings and the rest of the natural world. This implies that “nature” is distinct from “human beings” and that this distinction is God-given. So, that mandate is one that is premised on an understanding of God as Creator and maker of Heaven and Earth. The call, then, following ecological conversion is that of proper stewardship of creation, inspired directly by Genesis 1.28. Human beings are also portrayed as at the center of creation, even if this presumed superiority is qualified somewhat by the idea of stewardship. Pope John Paul II collaborated with Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and their joint letter on environmental responsibility published in June 2002 was one of the most significant statements on ecological conversion. What they pressed for was metanoia, an inner change of heart. Further, it was a change of heart both inspired by and attentive to conversion to Christ: A solution at the economic and technological level can be found only if we undergo, in the most radical way, an inner change of heart, which can lead to a change in lifestyle and of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. A genuine conversion in Christ will enable us to change the way we think and act.9

The themes of proper stewardship, attention to anthropology embedded in the Genesis text, right relationships among God, humanity, and the natural world, and keen awareness of the need for radical change and ecological sin are all present in Laudato Si’. There are some critical differences, however, that are important to flag up. The first difference is that ecological conversion is explicitly and more deliberately addressed to all of humanity. Secondly, there is much more focus on the scientific aspects of the discussion of what that conversion entails that his predecessors only touched on tangentially and somewhat superficially. While the details of that science could have been even more nuanced in

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

135

places, the basic message is clear; Pope Francis wants all people to be receptive to his message, and he attempts to achieve that by drawing in the first instance on scientific accounts of environmental change, including climate change, however politically charged that might sound to some. Thirdly, the idea of human beings at the center of our world is avoided, conscious of the dangers of an inappropriate anthropocentrism. So, “when human beings place themselves at the center, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.”10 He is certainly rather bolder compared with his predecessors in his resistance to unwarranted anthropocentrism. 11 However, this does not mean he advocates a biocentric view, or that he entirely gives up on the traditional Catholic idea of the central place of humanity, since he also affirms the Rio declaration of sustainable development that puts human beings at the center. 12 This wavering of perspective in relation to anthropocentrism comes up in other instances in the encyclical. Pope Francis’ more explicit attention to the Earth and its creatures channeled through a meditation on Francis of Assisi in the leading paragraphs represents a shift in favor of giving those creatures a higher status and intrinsic value, even if the notion that the Earth has some sort of agency is also buried in some of the earlier encyclicals.13 But just as he wavers with respect to anthropocentrism, so he wavers in his leaning towards a biocentric view. 14 Hence, there are flowery and perhaps figurative statements on Mother Earth at the beginning of Laudato Si’, but he also uses the more instrumental scientific language of “ecosystemic services” to describe the contribution of other creatures to our common home.15 The link between ecological conversion and the specific and qualified sense of human uniqueness comes out particularly clearly in the following: By developing our individual, God-given capacities, an ecological conversion can inspire us to greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems and in offering ourselves to God “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable” (Rom 12:1). We do not understand our superiority as a reason for personal glory or irresponsible dominion, but rather as a different capacity which, in its turn, entails a serious responsibility stemming from our faith.16

The point is that he has started to qualify anthropocentrism where it leads to what amounts to improper ends, namely, thoughtless habits of overconsumption. But he refuses to surrender the traditional Catholic idea of human uniqueness and specific human responsibilities, particularly for the poorest of the poor and oppressed peoples. The idea that ecological conversion is also a conversion to Christ is one that he soft-peddles at the

136

Chapter Six

start of his encyclical, so that it only becomes more explicit towards the end of the document. I consider this a deliberate strategy on his part to be more inclusive of other positions and starting points, rather than any weakening of his own beliefs in Christ or his own commitment to the centrality of faith in Christ for a Christian believer.

A Cultural Revolution Ecological conversion implies not just individual change, but collective change, as well. So, “the ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is also a community conversion.”17 Hence, he targets certain groups, such as the media, as bearing a particular responsibility. There is urgency and verve to his writing so that he does not mince his words, or try to wrap it up in a way that will make his message more palatable. He contends, then, that the media “at times…shield us from direct contact with the pain, the fears, and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experiences.”18 So, he points to the root of the problems identified, that are both physical, such as turning the Earth into a “pile of filth,”19 and ethical, such as a common indifference to the needs of the poorest and most oppressed peoples in the global community.20 Lurking in the background of this encyclical is a critique not simply of particular rival political parties, in the US context Republican and Democrat, but a wider critique of how the acceptance of destructive cultural values undermines the very possibility of democracy as such. A lack of sensitivity to the struggles of others and the plight of environmental refugees “points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.”21 So, he concludes: It is time to acknowledge that light-hearted superficiality has done us no good. When the foundations of social life are corroded, what ensues are battles over conflicting interests, new forms of violence and brutality, and obstacles to the growth of a genuine culture of care for the environment.22

The US Presidential election in 2016 epitomized just such a failure in democracy: the mechanical process of the democratic system may have been in place, but political and social virtues were either absent or suppressed and in their place were crude vices of indifference and even forms of social violence.23 Behind that ethical indifference towards those in dire poverty or on the margins of society there is another kind of attachment that Pope Francis believes bedevils humanity in a way that is becoming much more

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

137

widespread in the global economy, and that is an attachment to technologies, social media, and other forms of interaction that allow us to avoid human contact, and so become distanced from the needs of others. Modern societies have become obsessed with technologies, so “humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object.” 24 While he does not use the language of idolatry, this is implied. This calls for a special kind of compassion and solidarity. Moving towards such a practice is more like a cultural revolution 25 that turns away from an overdependence on technology and a narrowing towards concern for human interests alone.26 This movement from attachment to detachment and what could be termed the freedom of indifference is one familiar for those practices in Jesuit spirituality influenced by the spiritual exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. While I will return to this again in the section on ecological virtues, it is worth noting that “Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack.”27 Pope Francis is, however, extending that invitation not just to individuals, but to the community in a cultural revolution. What he presses for is new habits to be developed at a societal level and not just the individual level. He also resists the idea that just concentrating on fixing material needs of environmental decay or depletion of natural resources is enough. Along with spirituality there needs to be a new lifestyle and educational program that collectively resists “the assault of the technocratic paradigm.”28

New Environmental Strategies for the Common Good But his resistance to the technocratic paradigm should not be viewed as hostility towards all the sciences. It is conservationists, ecologists, and anthropologists, though, who will perhaps find the most power in what he has to say here, calling on them to do more research, find better ways of using energy, and protecting life in all its diversity. It is interesting, in this respect, to compare his stance with Leonardo Boff, who is often widely claimed as having an important influence on the encyclical. Boff, unlike Pope Francis, was sharply critical of conservation efforts as such,

138

Chapter Six

believing that they were part and parcel of Western escapist tendencies that refused to address structural problems. 29 Pope Francis, by contrast, sees no reason to reject genuine efforts at conservation of vulnerable species or the patient work of ecologists. But he is critical of those who create safe ecological havens in urban environments, ignoring the poorest people on their doorstep. 30 His overall message that we and all other creatures are caught up in the common problem of our own making will strike chords with those who have been working in this area ever since Rachel Carson published her Silent Spring in the early 1960s.31 But will this be a watershed document in the same way that Silent Spring was for that generation? Will it really wake up those who are slumbering in their own worlds, too caught up with an obsession with consumerism to notice what is happening around them? The difference, of course, compared with environmentalists like Carson is that for Pope Francis an underlying faith in Christ and hope in the divine providence of God as Creator gives a special reason for his firm belief that another world is possible. And it is, I suggest, timely in that the last half-century has tried and repeatedly failed to find any way to move out of the trajectory of unlimited progress that has locked in industrialist, capitalist societies bent on exploitative forms of profit for so many generations. No wonder environmental philosophers such as Dale Jamieson resort to either a gloomy pessimism of locally negotiated agreements in Reason in a Dark Time, or attempts at story making in his subsequent Love in the Anthropocene.32 But Pope Francis is pressing all the time for a holistic approach to complex problems, rather than separating humanistic from environmental concerns. So, “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.”33 It is worth pausing for a moment to consider why he has put so much stress on cultural transformation as the motor for other forms of transformation. One reason may be the kind of liberation theology that he enlists, that is, a liberation theology “of the people” influenced heavily by an Argentinian variant of liberation theology. This theology stresses not just social-cultural change, but is also open to the insights of the social sciences and philosophy. 34 My own view is that the socio-economic transformation of the more dominant liberation theology stream is still present in the encyclical, but precisely how the economic transformation might take place is left underdeveloped. Liberation theologian Leonardo Boff’s engagement with ecology is also a significant influence, but Pope

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

139

Francis does not go as far as the kind of biocentrism that eventually characterizes Boff’s writing.35

Theological Threads Supporting Ecological Virtues Pope Francis, in keeping with the patron saint of ecology, Francis of Assisi, is not content just to be a prophet of doom, but provides concrete suggestions about how to act, in what could be called ways of becoming an authentic humanity, that arise following ecological conversion, along with a specific theological vision of an alternative. Ecological conversion is not an add-on for those who believe such issues are important, but essential for “an ‘ecological conversion,’ whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”36 He refuses, correctly in my view, to split apart care for the natural world from care for the most deprived and marginalized members of the global human community. Like all great encyclicals, this one draws on the magisterial teaching of his predecessors, but now includes Catholic social thought emerging from the global church and especially the Latin American context, and then parses out this rich tapestry of ecological vices and virtues through his own particular charisma, one inspired by the life and teaching of Saint Francis of Assisi. What I intend to do now is to look behind the tapestry to see the theological threads that inform his theological anthropology in this document. Some of these threads are recognizable theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Others are virtues more specifically relevant to ecology: temperance and humility. I intend to include those broader virtues of peacemaking, justice, and wisdom subsequently, as they arise out of the framework suggested here. Further, while praise is a theological practice, gift, glory, and joy are more like theological states of being, ontological states, in which such human practices are situated. The first theological thread is one taken directly from the title itself– praise. Thanks and praise to the Creator of all life, including the life of humanity. The first principle and foundation of Ignatian spirituality37 is that the human person is created to praise, reverence, and serve God. But Pope Francis moderates this by linking it with Franciscan ideas that celebrate all life, thus combining the Ignatian tradition of creatures being present to help humans achieve their end, a Franciscan recognition of all creatures praising God for their own sake, and not just in service of humanity. This celebration of life finds common ground with ecologists

140

Chapter Six

detailing human impacts on natural ecologies through environmental science, including but not exclusively limited to climate change. The difference between scientists’ interpretation of the Earth and this papal statement is that Pope Francis is also prepared to give the Earth, our common home, a sense of agency. The first words of the encyclical are ones of praise: “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us.38

The point is that humanity’s ability to praise God is one that is in concert with the praise of all creatures; we are not alone. But this ability to praise can be suppressed by ecological vices. Following biblical teaching in the New Testament letter to the Romans (8.22), the whole Earth groans in travail.39 “This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her.” 40 In effect the praise has now been silenced and replaced by groaning in travail. And that groaning is also in common with the most impoverished and marginalized people on the Earth, including environmental refugees, who have no legal status in would-be host nations. He creates, then, a narrative of intense human interaction with the Earth, where humans, instead of acting responsibly, now exist in a relationship of violence with the Earth, with each other, and with God. In theological language, this amounts to sin.41 The language of war replaces that of peace, but now it is war against the Earth that underpins the breakdown in human relationships, forces environmental migration, and perpetuates all kinds of injustices. The second theological thread is the acknowledgment of creation as Gift, and the accompanying ecological vice is humanity’s abuse of the Gift of the Earth, and the Gift of Life. So: Nature is usually seen as a system which can be studied, understood and controlled, whereas creation can only be understood as a gift from the outstretched hand of the Father of all, and as a reality illuminated by the love which calls us together into universal communion.42

The third thread is the theological virtue of love: love that combines with acts of compassion and mercy towards each other and towards other creatures that flows from the love of God as Creator of the world. God

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

141

creates not so much through power but through love. Hence: Creation is the order of love. God’s love is the fundamental moving force in all created things. …Even the fleeting life of the least of beings is the object of his love, and in its few seconds of existence, God enfolds it with his affection. ….Consequently we can ascend from created things ‘to the greatness of God and to his loving mercy’.43

There is a natural theology here, with the works of creation pointing to the love of God as maker of all that is, so “the entire material universe speaks of God’s love, his boundless affection for us. Soil, water, mountains, everything is, as it were, a caress of God.”44 The specific and loving act of God in creating humanity is, as one might expect, highlighted, so “the Bible teaches us that every man and woman is created out of love and made in God’s image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1.26). This shows the immense dignity of each person…”45 But as those made in the image of God, humanity is capable of imitating that love, and this means that we are made not only to love God, “all sound spirituality entails both welcoming divine love and adoration, confident in the Lord because of his infinite power,”46 but also our neighbor, “for all our limitations, gestures of generosity, solidarity and care cannot but help well up within us, since we were made for love.”47 And yet the more expansive love of God for all creation also inspires in humanity an imitation of Christ, a fuller love for all creatures, “human beings, endowed with intelligence and love and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.”48 The reasoning behind loving both our neighbor and all of creation also follows from knowledge of interconnectedness and interdependence, “because all creatures are connected, each must be cherished with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another.”49 The social consequences of this reach wider than individuals to that of social networks and interconnections, “everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.”50 Love is also one of the primary motivations for action and is bound up with the virtue of justice and peacemaking: Believers themselves must constantly feel challenged to live in a way consonant with their faith and not to contradict it by their actions. They need to be encouraged to be ever open to God’s grace and to draw constantly from their deepest convictions about love, justice and peace.51

142

Chapter Six

Saint Francis of Assisi was a saint who demonstrated that love in a real way, and “just as happens when we fall in love with someone, whenever he would gaze at the sun, the moon or the smallest of animals, he burst into song, drawing all other creatures into his praise.”52 Such love will provide a basis for a check on human freedom that when it becomes a vice assumes it is limitless, and it is love that inspires awe and wonder of the beauty of the natural world. Love also provides a basis for resisting the vice of what Pope Francis calls “irrational confidence in progress.”53 The hope, then, that another world is possible is a theological virtue embedded in this encyclical, and such hope-filled messages may be met with vices such as cynicism or even skepticism in a world wedded to the technologies of their own making. Above all, “hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, that we can always do something to solve our problems.”54 Hope differs from optimism, since optimism assumes that everything will work out for the best. Hope has faith that God will be present even in the midst of difficulty, darkness, and the possibility of the end. “All it takes is one good person to restore hope.”55 The common good is the goal that Pope Francis wishes to instill on all people, whether Catholic or not, understood as the good for all and the good for each, including other creatures. Hope, too, extends to the poorest nations of the world in light of the global inequities that prevail and the lack of authentic relationships. This means that richer nations have a specific and differential responsibility to act so that poorer nations are able to build ecologically responsible governance. The fifth theological thread, although rather less obvious, is glory: premised first on the idea of interdependence as “a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature.” 56 Living things are valuable to God and express God’s glory.57 Together with our obligation to use the Earth’s goods responsibly, we are called to recognize that other living beings have a value of their own in God’s eyes: “by their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.”58

Bubbling beneath the surface is the theological virtue of faith, so “faith allows us to interpret the meaning and the mysterious beauty of what is unfolding.”59 This also refers back to the framing of the encyclical as a whole on the role of faith, so “faith convictions can offer Christians, and some other believers as well, ample motivation to care for nature and for the most vulnerable of their brothers and sisters.”60

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

143

Behind the hope of glory is the quiet presence of the Holy Spirit, even in the midst of the present difficulties, so “something new can always emerge.”61 The seventh thread is that of joy: one that pervades all creatures, bringing forth a natural revelation.62 Joy is not equivalent to the happiness that comes with possession, but its mirror image. Joy comes in human living that takes its serenity from moderation rather than a grasping for more, so it is, in ecological terms, related to the cardinal virtue of temperance. Accordingly: Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that ‘less is more’ Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and a capacity to be happy with little.63

This, then, is a liberating faith, but one that is a core aspect of Pope Francis’ approach and presupposes a different model of progress than the secular one of unlimited growth. Next is humility, so: Sobriety and humility were not favorably regarded in the last century. And yet, when there is a general breakdown in the exercise of a certain virtue in personal and social life, it ends up causing a number of imbalances, including environmental ones. That is why it is no longer enough to speak only of the integrity of ecosystems. We have to dare to speak of the integrity of human life, of the need to promote and unify all the great values. Once we lose our humility, and become enthralled with the possibility of limitless mastery over everything, we inevitably end up harming society and the environment.64

Pope Francis joins humility with temperance in a way that is reflected in the classic tradition of the virtue of humility in the work of Thomas Aquinas.65 It is also important to recognize the ecological virtue of wisdom that, together with the theological virtue of love, helps build an alternative community that is so vitally needed. Wisdom arises in communion between persons. It is the counterfoil for the technocratic paradigm: True wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons, is not acquired by a mere accumulation of data

144

Chapter Six which eventually leads to overload and confusion, a sort of mental pollution.66

At the same time, wisdom is inclusive of those sciences that assist in developing the common good, so “if we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it.”67 Wisdom is also mirrored in the natural wisdom present in creation as such, and the recognition of that wisdom gives humanity a specific responsibility. So, “by virtue of our unique dignity and gift of intelligence, we are called to respect creation and its inherent laws, for ‘the Lord by wisdom founded the Earth’ (Prov 3.19). ….Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness.”68 Human wisdom also leads to recognition that humanity has, in the past and the present, not recognized those natural treasures of creaturely wisdom: If a mistaken understanding of our own principles has at times led us to justify mistreating nature, to exercise tyranny over creation, to engage in war, injustice and acts of violence, we believers should acknowledge that by doing so we were not faithful to the treasures of wisdom which we have been called to protect and preserve.69

The ecological state of peace is expressed in an integral ecology, echoing the ideal of the Sabbath drawn from the Bible, the Sabbath being the crown of creation. Integral ecology, which is the capstone of Pope Francis’ practical proposal for change, could be said to be a form of wisdom, in so far as it deals with the interrelationship of everything with everything else, weaving together a social and natural ecology.

Integral Ecology Pope John Paul II preferred the term “human ecology,” as adopted by Pope Benedict XVI, who also used the term “social ecology” or even “authentic development,” but it is my contention that undergirding the shift to an expanded notion of integral ecology are theological virtues that provide the deepest motivation for ecological conversion. Christians really have no choice if they want to claim authenticity: “what they all need is an ‘ecological conversion,’ whereby the effects of

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

145

their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them.”70 Although Pope Francis avoids the term natural law, his basic theological orientation in Laudato Si’ and elsewhere in his writing is consistent with it, insofar as the common good is a prominent theme and insofar as he consistently gives primacy to the human person, even while insisting that human responsibility to the natural world is part of what it means to be both human and a Christian disciple. The common good presupposes what he terms “social peace” that means the demands of distributive justice are met: 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.71

Policies that will flow from such an approach are those that take on board such an integrated and holistic view of the human person, entangled with others and richly embedded in the natural world. Even if Christian believers prefer to use the language of glory rather than beauty, and sin rather than violence, the message is intended to be a universal one, namely towards a common good, one that should be recognizable by all. He therefore gives lines of approach and action (chapter 5) rather than spelling out the details, though he is prepared to be tough on some issues. For example, “technology based on the use of highly polluting fuels– especially coal, but also oil, and to a lesser degree gas–needs to be progressively replaced without delay.”72 He does, however, admit to the possibility of choosing “the lesser of two evils” in order to find short-term solutions. What this might mean in practice in all situations is harder to discern, but he urges a much greater sense of urgency in addressing the issues. But he wants to start small, to start with the relationships that make up our daily lives, and build from here. So, drawing inspiration from Saint Therese of Lisieux: An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break with the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms.73

146

Chapter Six

Rather than political revolution, Pope Francis speaks of covenantal relationships, 74 which are bonds that need to be nurtured through educational programs of justice and peace. So, “environmental education should facilitate making the leap towards the transcendent, which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning.”75 Integral ecology is premised on a stress on relationships that come up throughout the encyclical and the need to engage in dialogue: premised on an understanding of the importance of faith relating to reason. That dialogue includes openness to other religions traditions, the breakdown of misunderstandings between the sciences, and the mutual benefit of theology and science working together rather than in isolation. So dialogue between religions is “for the sake of protecting nature, defending the poor, and building networks of respect and fraternity.”76 Sciences need to be open to insights from other scientific fields, since specialization means that “each can tend to be enclosed in its own language” 77 and science needs reminding of its own limits.78 All such exercises in dialogue demand “patience, self-discipline and generosity.”79 The message of the encyclical ends in an ecclesial tone, bringing in a richly Eucharistic and cosmic understanding of the sacraments as a way of fostering what it means to be human in a way that echoes the thought of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; so citing Pope Benedict XVI, the “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself.” 80 “In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life.”81 The basis for right relationships between creatures, including human beings, is not so much political as Trinitarian, grounded in the pattern of mutual love of the three persons. In keeping with his predecessors, he gives Mary, the mother of God, the special place of caring not just for broken humanity but the wounded world. So, “just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power.”82 This is not the end, for she remains, along with Christ, an icon of hope, so “transfigured, she now lives with Jesus, and all creatures sing of her fairness.”83 Above all, he puts forward a theological vision of the whole that is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching, reinforcing strong and traditional Catholic anthropology, such as the dignity of the human being, faith in God as Creator, and hope in Christ who renews all things. He ends the encyclical with a reminder of the value of the family and the hope that,

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

147

though mortal, humanity, along with all creatures, will one day share in the Sabbath of celebratory inclusiveness. Eternal life, then, the hope for which the human heart longs, is one of transfiguration, liberation from the bonds of sin and death.84 And it is joy that will accompany the struggle in this life, not the superficial joy of consumerist pleasures, but the deep joy of knowing that we will one day dwell in the presence of the eternal God, who is Lord of all life.85 Are such theological threads sufficient to convince his readers and undertake the kind of cultural revolution and ecological conversion that he believes are the next step? Certainly, for the Catholic Church and even beyond, my hope is that this will be a wakeup call to act, a new way of understanding that ecology is not separate from Christian discipleship or an extra responsibility, but central to its mission. Feminist scholars will undoubtedly worry about the gendered reference to God, the somewhat stereotypical portrait of women in relation to men, especially when exemplified in an idealized version of Mary, and the lack of proper attention to the social scientific analysis of the gendered nature of the impact of environmental injustice. It is a pity that the disproportionate suffering of women in particular in poor regions of the world was not given the attention it deserved.86 Pope Francis may have deliberately used traditional language in order to satisfy more conservative members of the Christian community. The shift away from anthropocentrism is obvious for all to see. The stakes are high, since the poorest regions of the world are waiting in expectation to see how the world might act. While Pope Francis may not have the philosophical sophistication of his predecessor, his wisdom and intelligence is expressed in paying attention to the heart as well as the mind: a deliberate strategy of praxis, so following our ability to see what the case is, make judgments about what to do, and then act accordingly.

Sublime Communion In common with Denis Edwards, I agree that a summation of the theological vision of the encyclical is one of sublime communion among God, humanity, and all creatures.87 Humanity is not alone, but is called to be part of a universal communion with others. But this sublime communion is set in the context of the wisdom literature. It is, therefore, a deep call to a profound wisdom. But it is more than simply a theology of nature, for it points to a different way of being human, a new theological anthropology.

148

Chapter Six The created things of this world are not free of ownership: “For they are yours, O Lord, who love the living” (Wis 11:26). This is the basis of our conviction that, as part of the universe, called into being by one Father, all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect.88

This occasion for recognition of the glory of God should not detract from an earthy realism and greater attention to human beings that I believe is also present, but rather allow us to face such difficulties with courage, and see hints at the possibility of such communion now, even if its fullest expression can only be realized in the future. So Pope Francis insists that even in the context of awareness of the sublimity of all things and even their expression in terms of the Trinity, which he borrows from Thomas Aquinas, the ethical priority must be to the poorest and most deprived peoples of the world: Certainly, we should be concerned lest other living beings be treated irresponsibly. But we should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst, whereby we continue to tolerate some considering themselves more worthy than others.89

His reference to “Mother Earth” should not, therefore, be thought of as any kind of leaning towards divinization, but in as much as he stays tuned to the theology of the people, he recognizes that their spirituality and insights of other religious traditions and cultures have something to contribute to the discussion. To sum up. This bold encyclical shows lines of continuity and discontinuity with previous papal statements. It represents a significant shift of what have been somewhat peripheral concerns about the natural world to the center, including how to understand what it means to be human. So, that shift includes a stress on the entangled relationships between humanity and nature. At the same time, in as much as Pope Francis is still firmly grounded in priority of the poorest members of the human community it is in keeping with traditional Roman Catholic social thought. This is a multidisciplinary liberation theology that is targeted at the liberation of the vices of the materially rich caught up in habits of consumption and fascination with new technologies. In keeping with traditional Catholic views on the family, it is somewhat stereotypical in its understanding of the role of men and women as complementary. His analysis, though largely gender blind, succeeds in avoiding hot button political issues. But above all he wants his listeners to be inspired to

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

149

change their hearts and minds, to see and recognize what is at stake, and to appreciate that a new way of living and being is possible. The practice of praise and awareness of the gift of creation leads into the virtues of faith, hope, love, and humility. And in company with justice, wisdom, and peacemaking, there dawns a true glory that is experienced existentially as a profound joy. This gives a true meaning to cultural revolution and ecological conversion that is so desperately needed in the face of such enormous social and political challenges. His message may be upbeat, but that positive emphasis may be the only way to encourage deeper and more lasting change. If we rip out the theological threads from this encyclical, we are left with a worn carpet that lacks the vibrancy that flows from a lifetime of prayer and contemplation. So it is appropriate that the afterword to this encyclical is itself a prayer, and a dedication to pray for the Earth, an anthropology rooted in liturgy, so that we come to recognize more fully how human lives are intricately linked with those of other creatures and each other. And his prayer of praise to the Father, Son, and Spirit undoubtedly came from his own pen, rather than that of his advisors. It is reminiscent, too, of the prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi, in speaking of the need for all humanity to become channels of love and peace in the world. His message remains upbeat but not, I suggest, overly romantic: “Let us sing as we go. May our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope.”90 It is fitting, then, to end now with the very final words in this encyclical as the last word, a cry from the heart: “O Lord, seize us with your power and your light, help us to protect all life, to prepare for a better future, for the coming of your kingdom of justice, peace, love and beauty: Praise be to you! Amen.”91

Notes 

1 This chapter is a revised version of a lecture delivered to a conference at Duquesne University entitled Protecting our Common Home: Scientific Contributions & Religious Perspectives on September 29th, 2016. This lecture was a substantially revised version of a public lecture entitled “In Praise of Creatures: Pope Francis’ Message of Hope for a Fragile Earth,” delivered on January 8th, 2016 at Carey College, Auckland, New Zealand. This lecture is forthcoming in Deane-Drummond, Celia, “In Praise of Creatures: Pope Francis’ Message of Hope for a Fragile Earth” in, Nicola Hoggan Creegan and Andrew Shepherd, eds., Ecology and Hope (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017). 2 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2015).

150

Chapter Six



3

See discussion in McIntosh, Robert, The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 1–26. McIntosh’s historical analysis makes clear how difficult it is to develop a theoretical basis for ecology given the various phenomena it tries to explain, and therefore the standard criteria for science used by philosophers and physics does not apply all that readily to ecology. 4 For a discussion of the distinction between environmental sciences and ecology, see Deane-Drummond, Celia, “Theology and the Environmental Sciences,” in, Oliver D. Crisp, Gavin D’Costa, Mervyn Davies, and Peter Hampson, eds., Christianity and the Disciplines: The Transformation of the University (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2012), 71–84. 5 In the background here is the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who, in Truth and Method, insisted that the interpreter comes to a text with particular historical consciousness, and so may go push this text beyond what the original author had in mind. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, G. Barden and J. Cumming, eds. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1975). For further, somewhat dense, commentary on the contemporary significance of Gadamer’s hermeneutical method see Dunne, Joseph, Back to the Rough Ground: Practical Judgment and the Lure of Technique (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997). The contemporary lure of techne embedded in post-Enlightenment science analyzed by Dunne is more philosophically nuanced compared with Pope Francis’ attention to popular cultural analysis, but the latter’s allusion to the need for wisdom points in the same direction. 6 For further discussion of the scientific aspects of Laudato Si’ see DeaneDrummond, Celia, “Laudato Si’ and the Natural Sciences: An Assessment of Possibilities and Limits,” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 392-415. 7 Pope Francis, LS, §217. 8 Pope John Paul II, Pastores Gregis (London: Catholic Truth Society, 2003), §70. 9 Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics, June 10, 2002, Vatican Website, accessed November 29, 2016, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/june/documents/hf _jp-ii_spe_20020610_venice-declaration_en.html. 10 Pope Francis, LS, §122. 11 Pope Francis, LS, §115. 12 Pope Francis, LS, §167. 13 See further discussion in Deane-Drummond, Celia, “Joining the Dance: Catholic Social Teaching and Ecology,” New Blackfriars 93, no. 1044 (2012): 193-212. 14 In this respect he is very different from the liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, whose works he reportedly read in the lead up to the encyclical, and who was quite explicitly biocentric in his approach. 15 Pope Francis, LS, §25. 16 Pope Francis, LS, §220. 17 Pope Francis, LS, §219. 18 Pope Francis, LS, §47. 19 Pope Francis, LS, §21.

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

151



20

Pope Francis, LS, §25. Pope Francis, LS, §26. 22 Pope Francis, LS, §229. 23 This election took place in November 2016, nearly eighteen months after the encyclical was released. 24 Pope Francis, LS, §106. 25 Pope Francis, LS, §114. 26 Pope Francis, LS, §115. 27 Pope Francis, LS, §222. 28 Pope Francis, LS, §111. 29 Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995), 13. 30 Pope Francis, LS, §45. 31 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962). 32 Dale Jamieson and Bonnie Nadzam, Love in the Anthropocene (New York: OR Books, 2015); Dale Jamieson, Reason in a Dark Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 33 Pope Francis, LS, §141. 34 Juan Carlos Scannone, “Pope Francis and the Theology of the People,” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 118–35. 35 Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation; Boff, Leonardo, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997). 36 Pope Francis, LS, §217. 37 Ignatius of Loyola, “The First Week: Principle and Foundation,” in, George E. Ganss, ed., Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1991), §23, 130. 38 Pope Francis, LS, §1. 39 Pope Francis, LS, §2 40 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 41 Pope Francis, LS, §66. 42 Pope Francis, LS, §76. 43 Pope Francis, LS, §77. 44 Pope Francis, LS, §84. 45 Pope Francis, LS, §65. 46 Pope Francis, LS, §73. 47 Pope Francis, LS, §58. 48 Pope Francis, LS, §83. 49 Pope Francis, LS, §42. 50 Pope Francis, LS, §92. 51 Pope Francis, LS, §200. 52 Pope Francis, LS, §11. 53 Pope Francis, LS, §19. 54 Pope Francis, LS, §61. 55 Pope Francis, LS, §71. 56 Pope Francis, LS, §67. 57 Pope Francis, LS, §69. 58 Pope Francis, LS, §69. 21

152

Chapter Six



59

Pope Francis, LS, §79. Pope Francis, LS, §64. 61 Pope Francis, LS, §80. 62 Pope Francis, LS, §85 63 Pope Francis, LS, §222. 64 Pope Francis, LS, §224. 65 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Volume 44, Well Tempered Passion (2a2ae 155-170), trans. Thomas Gilby (London: New Blackfriars, 1971), Qu. 161. 66 Pope Francis, LS, §47. 67 Pope Francis, LS, §63. 68 Pope Francis, LS, §69. 69 Pope Francis, LS, §200. 70 Pope Francis, LS, §217. 71 Pope Francis, LS, §157. 72 Pope Francis, LS, §165. 73 Pope Francis, LS, §230. 74 Pope Francis, LS, §209. 75 Pope Francis, LS, §210. 76 Pope Francis, LS, §201. 77 Pope Francis, LS, §201. 78 Pope Francis, LS, §199. 79 Pope Francis, LS, §201. 80 Pope Francis, LS, §236. 81 Pope Francis, LS, §236. 82 Pope Francis, LS, §241. 83 Pope Francis, LS, §241. 84 Pope Francis, LS, §243. 85 Pope Francis, LS, §245. 86 Pope Francis’ dismissal of population growth as a serious environmental problem is also somewhat unfortunate, given the logic of the finite carrying capacity of the planet, even if the rate of consumption by a few is just as or even more serious as a contributor to climate and environmental damage. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of “responsible procreation” in Caritas in Veritate in the paragraph dealing with population growth. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (London: Catholic Truth Society, 2009), §44). There is no discussion here or in Laudato Si’ of maternal mortality or circumstances contributing to it. In fact, the lack of social scientific analysis is disappointing, but again, this most likely reflects the interest of this encyclical on broader cultural issues and natural science. 87 Denis Edwards, “‘Sublime Communion’: The Theology of the Natural World in Laudato Si’,” Theological Studies 77, no. 2 (2016): 377-391. 88 Pope Francis, LS, §89. 89 Pope Francis, LS, §90. 90 Pope Francis, LS, §244. 91 Pope Francis, LS, §246. 60

The Theological Anthropology of Laudato Si’

153



Literature Aquinas, Thomas. 1971. Summa Theologiae, Volume 44, Well Tempered Passion (2a2ae 155-170). Translated by Thomas Gilby. London: New Blackfriars. Boff, Leonardo. 1997. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Maryknoll: Orbis. —. 1995. Ecology and Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Deane-Drummond, Celia. 2017. “In Praise of Creatures: Pope Francis’ Message of Hope for a Fragile Earth.” In, Nicola Hoggan Creegan, Andrew Shepherd, eds., Ecology and Hope (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock). —. 2016. “Laudato Si’ and the Natural Sciences: An Assessment of Possibilities and Limits.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 392-415. —. 2012. “Joining the Dance: Catholic Social Teaching and Ecology.” New Blackfriars 93, no. 1044: 193-212. —. 2012. “Theology and the Environmental Sciences.” In, Oliver D. Crisp, et al, eds., Christianity and the Disciplines: The Transformation of the University (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark), 71-84. Dunne, Joseph. 1997. Back to the Rough Ground: Practical Judgment and the Lure of Technique. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Edwards, Denis. 2016. “‘Sublime Communion’: The Theology of the Natural World in Laudato Si’.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 377-391. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. Edited by G. Barden and J. Cumming. London: Sheed and Ward. Ignatius of Loyola. 1991. “The First Week: Principle and Foundation.” In, George E. Ganss, ed., Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah: Paulist Press), §23, 130. Jamieson, Dale, Bonnie Nadzam. 2015. Love in the Anthropocene. New York: OR Books. Jamieson, Dale. 2014. Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McIntosh, Robert. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pope Benedict XVI. 2009. Caritas in Veritate. London: Catholic Truth Society. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor.

154

Chapter Six



Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. 2016. Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics. June 10, 2002. Vatican Website. (November 29). See,http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/jun e/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020610_venice-declaration_en.html. Pope John Paul II. 2003. Pastores Gregis. London: Catholic Truth Society. Scannone, Juan Carlos. 2016. “Pope Francis and the Theology of the People.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 118–35.

CHAPTER SEVEN THE MORAL VISION OF LAUDATO SI’: THE COSMIC COMMON GOOD AS A COMMON GROUND FOR INTERRELIGIOUS ECOLOGICAL ETHICS DANIEL P. SCHEID

Introduction: Seeking a Moral Vision for the Earth In the fall of 2016, a team of scientists from the European Southern Observatory announced a thrilling discovery: they identified an exoplanet only 4.2 light years away, surrounding a dwarf star named Proxima Centauri, the nearest star in the universe to our sun.1 Named “Proxima B,” this planet is the right distance from its star to support liquid water, and with an estimated mass of 1.3 times our own Earth, it might also have a similar atmosphere, and therefore potentially harbor life. This scientific advance has already elicited curiosity and wonder and has sparked the imagination: what might we encounter there? Could this be a place that humans inhabit at some point in the future? Beyond the scientific implications are major existential repercussions regarding humanity’s self-understanding in the universe, and in particular how humans view the goodness and value of the Earth. Immediately upon this discovery were projections, not only of what would be required technologically for a human to travel there, or of how difficult it might be to survive on Proxima B, but also deeper musings: are we alone in the universe, or will we ever encounter life elsewhere? Beyond asking whether Proxima B, or another planet, is a place humans could exist, such a discovery also raises a poignant and urgent question about the viability of humans on Earth: when will human beings have to venture to distant planets in order that the species and human civilization might endure? One

156

Chapter Seven

newspaper article announced the detection of Proxima B with the trenchant title, “This is where humans will move when we destroy Earth.”2 I want to use this discovery to propose a thought experiment: imagine that, within a few years, we manage to capture crisp and detailed images of Proxima B and that it is teeming with life! There’s thriving vegetation, creatures of all sorts and shapes, and ecosystems and landscapes of color, complexity, and beauty. How might humanity react? I think humanity would erupt in celebration: Earth is not alone in the universe! The power of life exists elsewhere than on Earth, perhaps in many places yet to discover. In our thought experiment, there is no indication of a species comparable to Homo sapiens, which exhibits signs of rational behavior. This is an adolescent Earth, a planet before mature intelligent life has emerged. Also, imagine that even with our advanced space technology, no human visitation is possible in the near future. Our interaction with Proxima B is limited strictly to observation and learning, to wonder and appreciation. How might such a discovery alter humanity’s perspective on who we are in the universe, or of our role on Earth? Do we look at the Earth, or the creatures who share our common home, any differently? Does Earth become less magical and wondrous, or even more so? Imagine further that a year after this Earth-shattering discovery (in the sense that it dramatically changes our view of Earth’s uniqueness), there is another: we witness an asteroid plummeting into Proxima B, one much more destructive than the asteroid that annihilated the dinosaurs on Earth, and it nearly guarantees the end of all life there. How do you react? No human being or any self-conscious life has been lost. But might we still see this as a tragedy, as a loss for us, and for the cosmos as a whole? Pondering the possibilities of life on Proxima B and other planets offers humanity an opportunity to reflect on the beauty and fragility of Earth, and of the meaning of humanity’s presence here. While such a thought experiment is useful, humanity has already been gifted with the chance to view Earth from space, to see it as a whole and to ponder its cosmic significance. The scientists and engineers who became our first space travelers, our astronauts and cosmonauts from countries around the world, report how seeing the Earth from afar leads almost inevitably to cherishing it and experiencing our human role on Earth differently.3 For many astronauts, circling Earth from space afforded them a new relationship to the planet and to their fellow human beings. Standing on the moon, Rusty Schweickart was struck with how small and fragile the Earth appeared, that it can be hidden with one’s thumb:

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

157

Then you realize that on that spot, that little blue and white thing, is everything that means anything to you–all of history and music and poetry and art and death and birth and love, tears, joy, games, all of it right there on that little spot that you can cover with your thumb. And you realize from that perspective that you’ve changed forever, that there is something new there, that the relationship is no longer what it was.4

Reminiscent of Carl Sagan’s reflection on the “pale blue dot,”5 Schweickart recognizes the astounding role Earth has played in hosting all human activities, and how precious it is because of that. Saudi Arabian astronaut Sultan bin Salman al-Saud, the first Muslim to “observe Islamic prayers and read the Quran in zero gravity,”6 describes how being in space led all the astronauts to view their place on Earth differently: “The first day we all pointed to our own countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day we were aware of only one Earth.”7 The boundaries that conventionally divide humanity according to various cultures, religions, and nations no longer hold ideological weight in space. Instead, viewing the Earth from space underscores the oneness of the planet and presumably of the one human family. For other astronauts, their experience in space led to a profound religious experience. American astronaut Edgar Mitchell describes in poetic terms his awe in beholding the Earth: Suddenly, from behind the rim of the moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth . . . home. … My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity.8

For Mitchell, the Earth is a jewel swimming in mystery and directly mediates for him an experience of the sacred. Gene Cernan, the last human being to walk on the moon in December, 1972, reports a similar revelation of the divine in perceiving the Earth: I stood in the blue darkness and looked in awe at the Earth from the lunar surface. What I saw was almost too beautiful to grasp. There was too much logic, too much purpose–it was just too beautiful to have happened by accident. It doesn’t matter how you choose to worship God… God has to exist to have created what I was privileged to see.9

Witnessing the Earth as a whole became an occasion for overwhelming beauty, and again became an avenue to a deeper reality.

158

Chapter Seven

Finally, viewing Earth from space led some astronauts to an immediate ecological revelation and ethical vocation: human presence on Earth is damaging the Earth’s biological systems, and human beings must respond. For German astronaut Sigmund Jähn, seeing the planet from space lent an urgency to protecting the Earth, and for all human beings: “Before I flew I was already aware of how small and vulnerable our planet is; but only when I saw it from space, in all its ineffable beauty and fragility, did I realize that human kind’s most urgent task is to cherish and preserve it for future generations.”10 Similarly, Soviet Russian cosmonaut Yuri Artyukhin observed, “It isn’t important in which sea or lake you observe a slick of pollution, or in the forests of which country a fire breaks out, or on which continent a hurricane arises. You are standing guard over the whole of our Earth.”11 To view the Earth, then, is to hear a summons to protect the whole of the planet. These astronauts’ privileged experience of a firsthand glimpse of Earth from space has yielded insights that the rest of us should now heed: the call to a new relationship to the Earth as a whole beyond national boundaries, and a new appreciation for its central place in human experience; a profound spiritual awareness of the sacredness of the Earth; a moral duty rooted in the beauty of the Earth and the observation of rampant, redefining humanity’s role as one of protecting the Earth. In all of them arises a sense of the vulnerability of this beautiful, glorious planet, and an urge to protect it. These scientist-poets suggest that a critical facet of protecting the Earth is how we see it: we need a moral vision, a sense of the Earth as our common home, as a place we belong to. A moral vision precedes the choices we make because how we envision the world shapes what we consider possible: “What we see sets the direction and limits of what we do; it generates certain choices rather than others; and it disposes us to respond in one way rather than another.”12 Moral vision implies a kind of moral imagination, an ability to bring “diverse experiences into a meaningful whole” and to fashion a coherent picture of the world.13 For this reason, we need to attend to the images that shape our moral imagination, and to the stories that transmit these images, before discussing moral principles or new ethical duties. Moral vision is not simply looking at something one has not seen before, but developing a new way of seeing. Richard Gula explains: Frequently [people do not understand] a simple point, not because they lack intelligence, but because their frame of vision has them looking in the wrong directions. A good example, or a well-told story, allows the listen to suspend prior judgment about the nature of reality and it frees one to let

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

159

images play together in a new way. … Moral conversion is a matter of repatterning the imagination so as to see dimensions of reality which were not available to us before. When we begin to see differently, we will begin to respond differently.14

A new vision makes new choices possible, leading us to become different kinds of people. These astronauts remind us that ecology, coming from the Greek “Oikos,” means the study of the household, or Home. None of us are likely to be gifted with the opportunity to view the Earth from space, but still, how might we learn to treasure the fragile and precious Earth? Where might we develop the kind of moral vision we need to see the Earth as our home in order that we might protect it?

Key Themes in Pope Francis’ “Gospel of Creation” in Laudato Si’ I propose that our Earth’s religious traditions can be fruitful sources for cultivating moral vision. Through stories, ideas, images, and practices, religious traditions strive to present a coherent picture of the world, and they can animate new choices and new ways of living on Earth. In the search for such a moral vision, I would like to begin from my own Catholic tradition, and from Pope Francis’ landmark encyclical, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home.15 The very first two paragraphs of Laudato Si’ provide a poignant contrast between two competing moral worldviews: on the one hand, there is a vision of Earth as sister and mother, which is how the eyes of faith ought to view the Earth; and on the other hand, the sciences provide us clear evidence that human beings are ruining the Earth, suggesting that the current regnant moral vision is severely deficient. These two paragraphs set up the dynamic for the entire document: a moral vision based on holism, interconnectedness, and relationality; or a way of seeing the world purely as an instrument for our convenience and pleasure. The first words of the encyclical–Laudato Si’, Mi Signore–come from St. Francis of Assisi and his poem, “The Canticle of the Creatures,” also known as “The Canticle of Brother Sun.”16 In doing this, Pope Francis selects St. Francis as an ideal model for a Christian approach to ecology. In his life, St. Francis united a concern for nature, a love for the poor, a commitment to peace, and boundless interior joy. Following St. Francis, Pope Francis sees the Earth, “our common home,” as “a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us.”17

160

Chapter Seven

Yet failing to see the Earth as our sister and mother has led to ecological degradation: “This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her.”18 Rather than seeing ourselves as siblings and children, we posture ourselves “as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.” Later in the document, Francis even offers the shocking image, “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”19 The Earth is “among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor,” all because humans have forgotten that we don’t merely live on Earth, but Earth courses through us: we are dust of the Earth, our bodies are made of the elements, we breathe Earth’s air, and Earth’s water sustains us.20 In chapter two of Laudato Si’, Pope Francis offers a more elaborate and sustained overview of the Christian understanding of the Earth and the cosmos entitled “The Gospel of Creation,” drawing on many facets of the Catholic tradition, including doctrines of creation, Christology, and eschatology. I want to highlight four themes that Pope Francis offers that together forge a coherent moral vision for the Earth: 1) the importance of perceiving a Creator; 2) God is present in creation, and so creation is an order of love; 3) all creatures are interconnected; and 4) the universe is best understood as a communion of creatures.

The Importance of Perceiving a Creator First, Pope Francis emphasizes the importance of perceiving the Creator. From a Catholic perspective, the trust in an all-powerful and all loving creator re-centers our focus away from solely human interests and from the temptation to view the Earth simply as something to be used. Creation has a broader meaning than “nature,” because the concept of creation points to God’s “loving plan in which every creature has its own value and significance.”21 We in the West usually understand “nature” as something outside of us, a system that can be “studied, understood and controlled.” Creation, on the other hand, is something we are a part of: it is “a gift from the outstretched hand of the Father of all.”22 Restoring a vision of the Creator offers a proper context for our relationship to other creatures, and therefore to the Earth as our home. “The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, all creatures are moving forward, with us and through us, towards a common point of arrival, which is God.”23 A belief in nature as God’s creation displaces humans as the center of the universe and re-centers our moral vision on a loving Creator. The principle of creation establishes an immediate connection to

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

161

nonhuman beings: they, like us, are fellow creatures who belong to a loving Father. Of course, not every person of good will believes in a Creator, or even the same Creator, and of course there are many who protect nature and nonhuman animals who are not guided by a religious tradition. Still, Pope Francis argues that we need both science and religion to develop our moral vision fully; he expresses the hope that “science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both.”24 Without dismissing or devaluing those who do not espouse a belief in a Creator, Francis does warn that a spirituality that ignores God as an all-powerful Creator is in danger of falling into a trap. A moral evaluation of the Earth without belief in a Creator may wind up worshiping earthly powers, or even encourage humans to usurp the place of God, “claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot.”25 For Francis, the belief in a Creator provides a helpful corrective to the confusion of anthropocentrism, the mistaken presumption that humanity stands at the center of moral value. Anthropocentrism has long been identified by environmentalists and eco-theologians as a major intellectual hurdle to sustainability.26 For decades, theologians have been explaining that human uniqueness and human dominion cannot mean total control over the Earth, and Francis confirms this: “We must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the Earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures.”27 He continues, “Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.”28 For Francis, the trust in a Creator, and cultivating the capacity to perceive the Creator in nature, is a valid and vital way of counteracting the tendency to place human interests above and in opposition to the interests of nonhuman creatures. Thus, it is the vision of the broader reality of the Creator that can awaken an ecological culture, an ecological conversion: “We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging, and of a future to be shared with everyone. This awareness can then become the basis for new convictions, attitudes and forms of life. A great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us, and it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal.”29 In fact, in some ways, the very idea of creation pulls us beyond limited terms like “nature” and “environment,” and it mitigates against the politically neuralgic debate of whether we protect the environment or human beings. The doctrine of creation centers on God, and understands the goodness of all creation, humans and nonhumans, because of this relationship to the Creator.

162

Chapter Seven

While the principle of perceiving the Creator in nature is important for the right moral vision of nature, it is also critical for reminding us that nature is vital to understanding the Creator. For one, creation reveals God; contemplating creation is a central means by which humanity learns something about who God is. Echoing ancient Catholic tradition, Francis declares that creation is a sacred scripture. Indeed, the “contemplation of creation allows us to discover in each thing a teaching which God wishes to hand on to us.”30 Even more than revealing the Creator, creation is a channel of God’s presence: “nature as a whole not only manifests God but is also a locus of his presence. The Spirit of life dwells in every living creature and calls us to enter into relationship with him. Discovering this presence leads us to cultivate the ‘ecological virtues.’”31 Perceiving the Creator in creation brings us in closer relationship to God, and it empowers us to cultivate the virtuous dispositions we need to live in new relationship to the Earth.

Creation as an Order of Love Second, Pope Francis affirms that the Creator is fully present in and through creation. We inhabit a sacramental universe, so each creature can become a channel through which we might meet the divine. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit who gives life, “dwells in every living creature and calls us to enter into relationship with him.”32 We encounter God not only through fellow human beings, but if we are properly attuned, through every creature. Most importantly, God’s presence in creation can best be characterized as a presence of love. For the Christian, God is Love, and so naturally, creation is steeped in the love of God: creation “is of the order of love. God’s love is the fundamental moving force in all created things.”33 Describing creation as the order of love gives us the broadest possible view of the depth of God’s love. “Every creature is thus the object of the Father’s tenderness, who gives it its place in the world. Even the fleeting life of the least of beings is the object of his love, and in its few seconds of existence, God enfolds it with his affection.”34 The God who is revealed and manifested through creation is revealed to be the inexhaustible fountain of Love, a Creator who loves all that exists.

All Creatures are Interconnected Third, Pope Francis argues for an integral ecology, a holistic view of creation. Over and over Pope Francis insists on a “broader vision of

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

163

reality,” to see the whole rather than just discrete parts, and to see humanity as part of this larger whole. One way he expresses this is through the word “interconnectedness.” Human beings belong, fundamentally and at our core, to the Earth and to the world around us. “It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. … 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.”35 Just as the concept of “creation” and the presence of a Creator stretches us to new understandings of nature, so too does integral ecology: there is no nature out there, apart from human society and human well-being. “We are part of nature,” Francis insists, “included in it and thus in constant interaction with it.”36 For this reason Francis calls on us all to begin seeing environmental and social problems together, not as isolated problems. These are not, Pope Francis says, “two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental.” We need to seek strategies that combat poverty and protect nature. “A true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor.”37 In a similar way, we must preserve not just biodiversity and important ecosystems but also important and endangered human cultural traditions, with a special respect for indigenous peoples.38 The principle of interconnectedness stresses that not only does each creature have its own connection to the Creator, but God intends for creatures to be connected to each other. In this way Francis emphasizes a holism to the entirety of creation: every creature is part of a greater whole, a web of relationships that extends out to the edges of the visible universe.

The Universe as a Communion of Creatures Finally, Pope Francis’ description of creation as an interconnected order of love culminates in seeing the universe as a communion of creatures. We perceive the universe as a kind of family, with fellow creatures as brothers and sisters. “Creation can only be understood as a gift from the outstretched hand of the Father of all, and as a reality illuminated by the love which calls us together into universal communion.”39 Each creature has been made for relationship: with its Creator, with countless other creatures, and finally to the entirety of creation itself. Indeed, Christians should expect a deeply interconnected world, patterned after a Creator who is in fact a Trinity. The Father, Francis

164

Chapter Seven

explains, is the source of all that exists, the foundation of love from which all creatures come. The Word unites himself not just to humanity, but to all creatures, all flesh, when he enters the womb of Mary. And the Spirit dwells in the heart of the universe and of all creatures. She brings forth new life for all. Francis remarks that the Trinity is a divine communion of persons, a model of relationship. “The divine Persons are subsistent relations, and the world, created according to the divine model, is a web of relationships. Creatures tend towards God, and in turn it is proper to every living being to tend towards other things, so that throughout the universe we can find any number of constant and secretly interwoven relationships.”40 Interconnectedness pervades the universe because it bears the imprint of the Triune Creator. Indeed, Trinitarian interconnectedness and relationship become the model for our own human fulfillment. We are made in love by Love Himself; we become who we are meant to be. We grow and become holy to the extent that we go out of ourselves, in love, to enter into relationships. Those who go out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others, and with all creatures “make their own that Trinitarian dynamism which God imprinted in them when they were created. Everything is interconnected, and this invites us to develop a spirituality of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity.”41 The Creator has always intended creatures to live connected to and dependent on each other. It is clear why Pope Francis chose to begin this encyclical with the words of St. Francis of Assisi. In “Canticle of the Creatures,” St. Francis begins with praise of the Creator, and this leads him to give thanks for fellow creatures he calls brother and sister and for the gifts they offer: brother sun, who “is beautiful and radiant with great splendor;” and our Sister Mother Earth, Who sustains and governs us, And who produces various fruit with colored flowers and herbs.”42 The love of God tutors us “to love and accept the wind, the sun and the clouds, even though we cannot control them.”43 There is a brotherhood and sisterhood of fellow creatures. Pope Francis takes us to the heart of what it is to be human: linked to all creatures, humans, the cosmos, because of our one Creator, who loved us into existence.

The Cosmic Common Good The Gospel of Creation re-centers us on the Creator, directs us to see the Creator’s pervasive and loving presence in creation, emphasizes the interconnectedness of all beings, and envisions the universe as a splendid communion. How shall we name this moral vision of the Gospel of

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

165

Creation? I propose it resembles my own formulation of a Catholic ecological ethic: the cosmic common good.44 The cosmic common good begins from the tradition of reflection on social issues known as Catholic social teaching. From the beginning, Catholic social teaching has sought to apply core theological principles regarding the dignity of the human person and her intrinsically social nature to emerging problems of modern society. I contend that these principles of Catholic social teaching, once extended and reoriented in a fully ecological and non-anthropocentric direction, yield a framework of a cosmic common good, which entails a virtue of Earth solidarity and the promotion of Earth rights. The cosmic common good is a thoroughly Catholic concept, rooted in a Catholic theology of creation, yet its basic tenets are flexible enough that it can find resonance across multiple traditions that do not share the same theological foundations. The cosmic common good can establish a common ground for interreligious ecological ethics. The two cornerstone principles of Catholic social teaching are human dignity and the common good, and they function together dynamically: the principle of human dignity affirms the essential goodness and inviolable dignity of each and every human person, who is both a whole unto himself, and a part that belongs to something greater. The common good affirms the essentially social nature of the human person, such that a human being cannot fulfill her vocation or achieve her happiness apart from others. The common good affirms the essential goodness of the whole, composed of intrinsically dignified parts. On the one hand, the common good can include those material goods that every individual requires, such as the human need for food, water, shelter, and clothing. These goods are “common” in the sense that the needs they meet are shared by others. The common good also includes a set of goods that belong to the whole as a whole, such as water sources (as distinguished from one’s individual physical need for water) and clean air. It is good for the community as a whole when the basic needs of each member are met. At the same time, the common good is much more than just the aggregate of individual goods. Rather, the common good also includes some goods that cannot be achieved except in community. It includes the full social, intellectual, and spiritual flourishing of persons. It is not just that human beings happen to live in groups, or that it is easier in community to get the necessities of life. The common good suggests that one of the primary goods people seek in community is relationship itself:

Chapter Seven

166

The common good of public life is a realization of the human capacity for intrinsically valuable relationships, not only a fulfillment of the needs and deficiencies of individuals.… Eating with others, sharing a home with others, and benefiting from education, intellectual exchange, and friendship are all aspects of a life of positive social interaction and communication with others. They are not merely extrinsic means to human flourishing but are aspects of flourishing itself. This shared life of communication and interaction with others, in all its aspects, is good in itself.45

All the varied ways in which we share our lives with others are not merely a means to individual flourishing, but “are aspects of flourishing itself.” Traditionally the principles of Catholic social teaching were understood solely in a human context: human dignity and the human common good. Yet on both scientific and theological grounds, limiting our moral vision of the common good and dignity strictly to the human community is unjustifiable. The Catholic tradition is best expressed if it is reoriented ecologically and embraces a cosmic common good and creaturely dignity. First, any reasonable theological ethic must attend to a realistic picture of the world, and the sciences increasingly provide substantial support for a broader and cosmic common good, just as first astronauts experienced and reported. The 13.7 billion year history of the universe’s evolutionary self-development–which has yielded the emergence of all earthly life in the nearly 4 billion years of the planet’s history–shows that to be human is not merely to be a creature among others; it is to be related, in one’s very genes, to countless life forms, chemical reactions, and physical processes. As John Hart notes, humans are “tied to all the created universe, as complexified stardust whose origins lie in the singular point of cosmic emergence.”46 The vast sagas of human cultures are only a part of the cosmos’ own saga, what some call the “Journey of the Universe.”47 Human beings are kin to all the creatures we encounter on Earth, and indeed all these past, present, and future life forms have their origin in galactic and cosmic processes that span billions of years. Consider the fact that the iron that makes our blood turn red when exposed to oxygen was forged in the hearts of stars billions of years ago. To comprehend the human common good, and to fathom the scope of our own human existence, requires including the cosmic and planetary history that makes it possible. Only an ethical framework that draws on the full scope of the evolutionary development of our human kinship to nonhuman creatures can be an adequate response. The cosmic common good presents a more honest assessment of humanity’s place within this cosmos, which is frankly incomprehensibly massive in space and time.

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

167

Second, a common good limited strictly to human beings makes little sense in light of ecological interdependence. Humans are related to other earthly creatures and to the cosmos itself not simply because of our historical roots, but we are radically dependent on the Earth and its ecological systems for our survival and flourishing: food, water, air, shelter–every day, we depend on minerals in the Earth’s soil and the energy of the sun to feed us and to sustain us. As Russell Butkus and Steven Kolmes argue, ecological processes are part of the common good and so “the care of the bio-physical world is a moral obligation without which the common good cannot be promoted or maintained.”48 It is necessary to look at the great common good without which our individual or our collective human flourishing would not be possible. Third, we are now aware of the vulnerability of our planet’s ecological systems to severe impairment, to planetary breakdown, as we see in climate change, the loss of our coral reefs, extinction of species–the Earth is vulnerable to human action and inaction. As Pope Francis graphically describes: “Each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste are generated, much of it non-biodegradable, highly toxic and radioactive, from homes and businesses…. The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”49 A degraded Earth reconfirms that we cannot separate the human common good from that of other creatures. Theologically, the cosmic common good is rooted in and is more consistent with an authentically Catholic theology of creation, where the center of moral vision is not the human person–the moral worldview of anthropocentrism–but instead the center is God, known as theocentrism. The doctrine of creation not only establishes a common bond between human beings and all other creatures, but it also gives the cosmos its divine context, its intimate and direct relationship to the Creator, as we have seen in Pope Francis’ Gospel of Creation. An anthropocentric common good does not adequately respect the independent goodness of creation, and so it does not adequately respect God for who God is: Creator of all that exists. A Catholic cosmic common good has as its focus the totality of what exists, created by God. Only an ethical formulation that captures the fullness of God’s creation seems appropriate, and here even a planetary common good seems too narrow. The particular common good of the human community–which is the classic aim of justice–thrives only through harmony with the planetary and cosmic common good. The term “cosmos” is meant to highlight the context that has no single center other than God; it raises up as worthy of our reflection those galactic events like Proxima B that add nothing directly to human well-being and indeed the

168

Chapter Seven

vast stretches of space that lie entirely hidden from human view. The cosmic common good emphasizes our human identity not only as earthly creatures but as galactic and cosmic ones, as well. In addition, a cosmic common good helps us understand not only humanity’s role within the cosmos, but Earth’s role in the cosmos itself. A sustainable and flourishing Earth community has bearing for the flourishing of the cosmos as a whole, which we can sense when we consider the destruction of a healthy and living Proxima B. For Christians, “cosmos” may be synonymous with creation, and certainly a Catholic cosmic common good is rooted in the Gospel of Creation and the Christian tradition. Yet the basic outlines of the cosmic common good are flexible enough to bridge theological and cultural boundaries. The cosmic common good has the potential for articulating a globally shared, common moral vision, and here I briefly propose a few features of it:50 1. Theocentrism/Cosmocentrism: For Christians and others who believe in a Creator, this moral vision is theocentric, focused on and directed to God. For others, though, the cosmic common good could also be a form of cosmocentrism, focused on the well-being of the entirety of the cosmos, rather than just one species above others. 2. Cosmos as Commons: The cosmic common good guides us to see the cosmos as a kind of “commons:” a space and a context for mutual flourishing, such as a school or village commons. The commons emphasizes not only physical proximity but also the dimension of a shared life together, a place in which creatures both sustain their bodies and form meaningful relationships. The cosmic common good allows us to call the Earth–our slice of the local cosmos–our home. 3. Creaturely Dignity: Each member of this universe possesses intrinsic value and dignity, even if they also must be used by other creatures for their survival. Human dignity may be more noble, more dignified, and therefore under certain circumstances more worthy of respect and care. But human dignity is a subset of a larger more encompassing creaturely dignity. 4. Diversity of Species: Drawing from both ecosystem sciences and a theology of creation, a Catholic cosmic common good attests to the intrinsic value of a diversity of species. Diversity lends greater stability to ecosystems and to the Earth as a whole, and it better represents the creativity and goodness of the Creator. 5. Holism: Humans inhabit an ordered universe, not centered on us, that possesses its own intrinsic goodness and dignity. It includes both a concern for holistic systems as well as for the individual creatures that populate them. It calls for the inclusion of the Earth as a whole, its

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

169

ecosystems, and the plants, animals, and creatures that live in them–all of these to be brought within the circle of moral consideration. 6. Ecological Justice: Threats to this order, this order of love, this interconnected communion of creation, are a matter of justice and they require moral action. The cosmic common good is a moral vision that alerts us to a polluted Earth as a moral problem. 7. Humans as Earth’s Guardians: Humans do not fulfill their human calling unless they seek the good of all creatures with whom we share our lives. That is what human dignity consists of. Echoing Yuri Artyukhin, humans are called to stand guard “over the whole of our Earth.” Humans are summoned to be intelligent, rational pursuers of the cosmic common good.

The Cosmic Common Good and Non-Christian Religious Traditions The cosmic common good shares multiple similarities with the ecological moral vision developed in other religious traditions. In tracing out these similarities, the cosmic common good could become a common ground for interreligious ecological ethics. I do not suggest that this moral vision is the only legitimate moral vision, or that it must be adopted by everyone. Yet the proposal of a cosmic common good offers a locus of cross-cultural moral deliberation: how might such a moral vision bring people together, across religious and cultural divides, to a shared commitment to protect our common home? I will look briefly at the ecological moral visions of four non-Christian religious traditions to detect traces of the Gospel of Creation and the cosmic common good: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Indigenous traditions.

Islam In Islamic environmentalism, Muslims are wary of celebrating the goodness of nature excessively. This would make it an idol and overlook the distinction between creator and creation. In Islam, all creation is “Muslim”–it submits to God’s laws, and all creatures have a purpose and usefulness beyond that of service to humanity. Islam is thoroughly theocentric and affirms that all creatures exist to praise and worship God: “The seven heavens and the Earth and all that is therein, glorify Him and there is not a thing but that it glorifies Him with His praise but you do not understand their glorification” (17.44).51 Similar to Pope Francis, Islamic environmentalism traces ecological harm back to human choices. Humans have a unique dignity and a right to use the goods of the Earth; they “have

170

Chapter Seven

been given the responsibility of stewardship and trust (al-amaanah) by God in order to care for and serve as a channel for the blessings of God to all creation.”52 A portion of humanity, however, has rejected that responsibility; they have kept too much of the Earth’s goods for themselves, and so have failed to be a responsible steward of creation. In this way, Islamic environmentalism draws its moral mandate from respect for the Creator: similar to Pope Francis, the failure to perceive a Creator eases the way for selfishness, either on the part of oneself, one’s nation, or even a species.

Hinduism In Hinduism, one of the central concepts is dharma: derived from a word that means “to sustain,” “to support,” or “to uphold.” Dharma can represent many different realities: cosmic order, how the universe is structured; justice in society; religious duty; and one’s own personal happiness.53 It is “the moral order that sustains the cosmos, society, and the individual.”54 Hindu theologians have expanded this core theological idea into dharmic ecology. A key principle of dharmic ecology is the belief that the Supreme Lord or Supreme Being resides in all beings. The divine is the innermost reality of any creature. Many passages from Hindu sacred scriptures affirm that the divine dwells within all beings and so all elements of creation are to be respected. The Bhagavata Purana declares: “Ether, air, fire, water, earth, planets, all creatures, directions, trees and plants, rivers, and seas, they all are organs of God’s body; remembering this, a devotee respects all species.” (11.2.41).55 The Bhagavata Purana continues, “my devotee is the one who sees in all creation my presence.” In the sacred text the Bhagavad GƯtƗ, there is a remarkable parallel with Francis’ Gospel of Creation. The GƯtƗ, “The Song of the Lord,” certainly the most widely known of Hindu scriptures, consists of a dialogue between the warrior Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna. On the eve of the final great battle between the Pandavas and Kauravas, cousins by birth, Arjuna is devastated by the prospect of having to fulfill his duty as a warrior to fight and kill his family members. Krishna, over the course of their dialogue, reveals himself as the avatar (incarnation) of the supreme Lord Vishnu. Krishna explains: Unborn am I, changeless is my Self, of [all contingent beings] I am the Lord! Yet by my creative energy I consort with Nature–which is mine–and come to be in time. (7) For whenever the law of righteousness withers away and lawlessness arises, then do I generate Myself on Earth. (8) For

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

171

the protection of the good, for the destruction of evildoers, for the setting up of the law of righteousness, I come into being age after age. (4:6-8)56

Here we see Krishna as changeless and timeless, the Lord of all beings. The universe arises because of Krishna’s “creative energy,” which now fills Nature. All creatures depend on Krishna, the Creator, for their existence. And the intention behind Krishna’s incarnations (avatƗra) is to re-establish dharma, the law that governs the universe he created. Here we see an intimate connection between the Creator, and the cosmic and moral order that guides creation. In another passage, Krishna declares, “Of this whole universe the origin and the dissolution too am I./Higher than I there is nothing whatsoever; on Me this universe is strung like clustered pearls upon a thread” (7:6-7). Again, we see the distinction between Creator and creation as greater than any distinction between fellow creatures. Krishna is the origin and the end of all creation. The simile of a necklace connotes the Lord’s centrality but also hiddenness, that the form and structure of the universe is present but masked within. The image of the world as a necklace of pearls also provides an image of the world’s value, as a beautiful and precious good that exists to glorify the Lord. Creation reveals God and is a place where God dwells, innermostly. Krishna reveals himself as creator of the universe and the source of the moral law, and he explains that coming to know him as Creator brings true joy. In another passage, we see an intimate connection between Krishna as Creator of the universe, as refuge for creatures, and the wise bonded to him by love: (4) By Me, Unmanifest in form, all this universe was spun: in Me subsist all beings, I do not subsist in them.… (13) But great souled [people] take up their stand in a nature that is divine; and so with mind intent on naught but [Me], they love and worship me, knowing Me to be the beginning of [all contingent beings].… (18) [I am the Way], sustainer, Lord, and witness, [true home and refuge], friend.” (9: 4, 13, 18)

This passage underscores both Krishna’s transcendence, the essential distinction between Krishna and all contingent reality, and also Krishna’s immanence in creation, since all creatures emanate from Krishna, and Krishna is their sustainer, home, refuge, friend. Finally, the truly wise love and worship Krishna, because he is the source of all creatures. For both dharmic ecology and the cosmic common good, the divine is thoroughly and completely present in all beings–to those who can discern, the Creator comes to us through other creatures. Similarly to the cosmic

172

Chapter Seven

common good, dharmic ecology fuses the divine, the human, and the cosmos into a coherent whole.

Buddhism In Buddhism, there is no supreme God; there is no Creator to whom all creatures belong, so there is no doctrine of creation. Yet Buddhist understanding of how the cosmos functions stresses at its core interconnectedness: for Buddhist Monk and teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, the principle of interdependence is so central, he calls it the Buddhist version of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.57 Originally, the principle of interdependence stressed that what a thing is, depends on a myriad of past and present factors. Because all things are impermanent–constantly changing–nothing is entirely separable from anything else: everything exists as it is because of its connections to innumerable others. Learning this allows us to see our existence as bound up with the existence of everything else. Nothing exists absolutely; ‘things’ only arise in a network of processes. Some Buddhists describe this as “no-self:” there is no permanent self that does not change and is not linked to other beings. Interdependence takes interconnectedness to a further level: the existence of any creature or any being is so related to other factors, that it cannot be considered apart from them. Nothing exists on its own; everything exists because of its connections to other beings. The original intent of the teaching of interdependence was not about ecology or nature: it was to provide insight into why human beings fall into patterns of limitless desires and cravings and so constantly end up being dissatisfied. Understanding interdependence was to help end all dissatisfaction in life. Some contemporary Buddhists, however, see this vision of mutuality and relationality itself as a basis for ecological healing and enlightenment. They have reinterpreted interdependence to affirm the intrinsic goodness of the interconnectedness of all beings within the universe. Rather than escaping a dissatisfying world, interdependence becomes a healing vision of cosmic and ecological interdependence that can decrease clinging and discontentment both for ourselves and for all beings. For Thich Nhat Hanh, all Buddhist teachings are based in some way on interdependence. Nhat Hanh prefers the term “interbeing”–rather than any hard distinction between any people or creatures, they “inter-are.” Nhat Hanh offers tangible examples to explain interdependence that not only express the teaching but are also explicitly ecological. A flower, for example, is always receiving “non-flower” elements, such as water, air,

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

173

and sunshine, to sustain what it is. Just as a flower is a stream of change, so is human life, which also cannot be separated from water, air, sunshine, and flowers.58 Perhaps his most famous example of interbeing, however, is his invitation to ponder deeply a white piece of paper and to see the cloud within it. This is not poetic whimsy, or an abstract philosophical analogy; rather, by contemplating the paper’s origins, we see in fact that it comprises multiple other entities. The paper arises because of previous conditions, and as such it exists in interrelationship with everything that precedes it and follows it. “If you are a poet you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are.”59 Nhat Hanh continues and discovers within the paper the presence of the sun that made the tree grow, the logger who cut the tree, the bread that fed the logger, and the parents who gave birth to the logger. Just as this paper contains a multitude of other beings, there is no way we can annihilate this piece of paper. “This sheet of paper has never been born, and it will never die. It can take on other forms of being, but we are not capable of transforming a sheet of paper into nothingness.” Nhat Hahn is taking what science tells us–that matter can neither be created nor destroyed–and developing a moral vision from it. By extrapolation, everything in the universe is like this piece of paper, including human beings. We contain a host of other beings within us; there is no time when a separate “I” began, and there will be no time when a separate “I” dies. Meditating on the principle of interbeing by peering deeply into reality can give people an experience of themselves as connected to the universe, and that experience can awaken latent powers of compassion and healing that enable us to appreciate our connectedness to all beings. Nhat Hanh’s meditation on the piece of paper has a dual purpose: as a reflection on the reality of interbeing, it is meant to empower people to see reality and thereby to eliminate their fear and suffering. At the same time, it also contains a potent ecological message: without healthy clouds, healthy water, and healthy soil, there may be no paper, no flowers, no trees, no us. Buddhist interdependence, while operating without a doctrine of the Creator, matches the cosmic common good’s attempt to provide a moral vision by which human beings are part of a greater cosmic whole, and to care for the whole means to care for us as well. The human person is inextricably related–and cannot be understood without reference to– nonhuman nature, to the entirety of Earth, and indeed to all beings.

174

Chapter Seven

Native Americans Finally, indigenous traditions are a crucial source for developing a sound ecological moral vision. Without idealizing indigenous peoples, as if they are exemplars of perfect ecological awareness, the history of indigenous relationships to the Earth still represents the closest examples we have to “sustainability,” to human responsibility for the Earth, and to a moral vision of the cosmic common good. American Indian George Tinker, for example, argues that there are “fundamental, deep structure differences” between American Indian cultures and Western cultures: most importantly, American Indians organize the world spatially and not temporally. Westerners tend to privilege concepts and values rooted in the idea of a linear direction of time: “Hence, progress, history, development, evolution, and process become key ideas and narratives” that find their way into all disciplines, from science and economics to theology and ethics.” 60 By contrast, American Indians think spatially, geographically. For example, creation stories deal not with the beginning and end of the universe but with “an ecosystem present in a definable place.”61 Because of this, indigenous peoples view themselves as attached to particular lands and places, rather than living within a particular historical moment. Tinker describes their attitude to this land as a “spatially related responsibility” to the land and to all the animals, waters, mountains, and birds that share that land with them. American Indians are more ready to assume the interrelatedness of all living and non-living creatures, and to see them as family. The members of the community include “animals (four-leggeds), birds, and all the living, moving things (including rocks, hills, trees, rivers, and so on), along with all the other sorts of two-leggeds (e.g. bears, humans of different colors) in the world.”62 Tinker’s depiction of an American Indian moral vision yields an ecological ethic that stresses balance and reciprocity. Balance connotes harmony between creatures as a constant goal. When any disruption arises, which is inevitable, something must be done to restore the balance. An ethic of balance represents a keen awareness of humanity’s place within the whole and of that nation’s responsibility to maintain and further the harmony of creatures that inhabit the land. American Indians realize, of course, the necessity of upsetting that balance and occasionally harming those to whom one is related, such as hunting or going to war. Yet they also recognize that harmony must be re-established and kinship be acknowledged following the damage. An ethic of reciprocity underscores

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

175

the kinship between humanity and the rest of creation and connotes a mutuality between the nations. An excellent example of this mutuality is the Lakota (also known as the Sioux) prayer: mitakuye oyasin translates roughly into “all my relations” or “we are all related.” Like the Christian word “amen,” it is spoken at the end of every prayer, and often mitakuye oyasin are the only words that are spoken during an entire ceremony, and so they become an entire prayer unto themselves.63 Behind the word “relations” stand multiple layers of meaning. “Relations” includes one’s close relatives, like parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on. More broadly, it incorporates all human beings, persons of all nations and colors. Yet, in contrast to traditional Christian and Western ways of thinking, the circle of spiritual relatedness and moral concern does not end there. “Every Lakota who prays this prayer knows that our relatives necessarily include the fourleggeds, the wingeds, and all the living-moving things on Mother Earth.”64 Mitakuye oyasin therefore reflects the abiding sense of solidarity the Lakota strive to experience toward all nonhuman beings, whom they consider their relatives. Tinker cites a Lakota teacher who suggests that a better translation for mitakuye oyasin would be: “For all the above-me and below-me and around-me things: That is for all my relations.”65 This more recent translation perfectly expresses Tinker’s observation that American Indians tend to configure reality in terms of space rather than time. What binds these other creatures to the one who prays is not a common history or even a common root in God or the divine. Rather, it is their location and their proximity to the speaker: there is a communion of creatures who exist above, below, and around the one who utters this prayer. It is a spatial, community-oriented prayer that affirms the interrelatedness of humanity with all creatures. Thus, the Lakota prayer mitakuye oyasin contains in ritual form the core elements of Native American moral vision: reciprocity with the rest of creation and balance with all our relations. Mitakuye oyasin is a fitting prayer to acknowledge the communion of creation and the cosmic common good.

Conclusion This exploration into other religious traditions suggests that the Catholic vision of a cosmic common good–which I propose expresses well the four themes developed in Pope Francis’ “Gospel of Creation”–has resonances in other traditions, and again that some of the overlapping themes might form a common ground for interreligious ecological ethics. The cosmic common good is not identical with dharmic ecology,

176

Chapter Seven

interdependence, etc., and it certainly is not evident that the Gospel of Creation will suddenly be readily adopted by the entire world. But there does seem to exist some significant common approaches across vastly different kinds of people. “Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group,”66 and the religious traditions I discussed today can be found on every continent, probably in every country in the world. Naming a common moral vision might help encourage interreligious cooperation on shared goals, like protecting our common home. And evidence of a common ethic might inspire those who do not identify with any religion; oftentimes our moral vision can be refocused not just by a group we claim to allegiance to, but by someone whose ideas inspire us, by someone who can provide a sense of the world more adequate to our experience. Moral vision alone is not enough to protect our common home. We need concrete actions and massive social and cultural changes: for people of faith, prayers and spiritual practices that might educate us in how to perceive the cosmic common good/dharmic ecology/stewardship/balance with all our relations, as our human calling; for all of us, we need broad shifts towards renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and building resilient cities in an age of progressive climate warming. Yet still, those actions will spring more quickly and more firmly from the soil of a robust moral vision that perceives the interconnectedness of creation and humanity’s call to pursue the cosmic common good, to protect the Earth and her creatures. To conclude our discussion, let us return finally to our astronauts and to Pope Francis. We do not need a dramatic encounter with a faraway planet like Proxima B to appreciate the peril our home planet Earth is experiencing and to recognize our moral responsibility. Astronaut Joseph P. Allen once remarked on how fundamentally our view of the Earth has changed: “With all the arguments, pro and con, for going to the moon, no one suggested that we should do it to look at the Earth. But that may in fact have been the most important reason of all.” In a way, space exploration has returned us to ourselves: the astronauts’ experiences call us to look, deeply and compassionately, at the Earth, at its beauty and its mounting struggles, and to recalibrate our moral vision considering this newfound vision. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis similarly calls upon every person of goodwill to deepen and to broaden their moral vision, to see new possibilities, and to cultivate the courage to attempt new ways of living. Pope Francis ends Laudato Si’ with two prayers, one of which is meant for

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

177

anyone who believes in a Creator, but I think could, perhaps, be adopted by many as a wish for the cosmic common good: Teach us to discover the worth of each thing, to be filled with awe and contemplation, to recognize that we are profoundly united with every creature as we journey towards your infinite light.

Notes 1

Lee Speigel, “Scientists May Have Just Discovered Another Earth,” Huffington Post, August 25, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-planet-pro xima-b_us_57bc6f68e4b03d51368ad735. 2 Lauren Tousignant, “This is where humans will move when we destroy Earth,” New York Post, August 24, 2016, http://nypost.com/2016/08/24/this-nearby-planetcould-support-alien-life/. 3 Frank White, The Overview Effect-Space Exploration and Human Evolution (Houghton-Mifflin, 1987). 4 Charles Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity: Civilization and the Human Sense of Self (Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2013), 127-128. 5 At Carl Sagan’s request, NASA directed its Voyager 1 spacecraft to take a photograph of Earth from more than 4 billion miles away, which is a photograph that has come to be known as the “pale blue dot.” Sagan turned this into a book, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (New York: Random House, 1994). Sagan emphasized that all human experience ever recorded has occurred on this little speck of blue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g. 6 Rym Ghazal, “Saudi’s Prince Sultan, the first Arab in space,” April 9, 2015, http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/saudis-prince-sultan-the-first-arab-inspace. 7 Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity, 128. 8 Calvin J. Hamilton, “Earth From Space,” Views of the Solar System, 2009, http://solarviews.com/eng/earthsp.htm. 9 Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity, 128. 10 Hamilton, “Earth From Space,” http://solarviews.com/eng/earthsp.htm. 11 Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity, 128. 12 Richard Gula, Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1989), 141. 13 Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 146. 14 Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 146. 15 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care For Our Common Home, 2015, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papafrancesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.

178 16

Chapter Seven

One version can be found here: Custodia Terrae Sanctae, “The Canticle of the Creatures,” 2011, http://www.custodia.org/default.asp?id=1454. 17 Pope Francis, LS, §1. 18 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 19 Pope Francis, LS, §21. 20 Pope Francis, LS, §2. 21 Pope Francis, LS, §76. 22 Pope Francis, LS, §76. 23 Pope Francis, LS, §83. 24 Pope Francis, LS, §13. 25 Pope Francis, LS, §75. 26 James B. Martin-Schramm and Robert L. Stivers, Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method Approach (Maryknoll, N.Y. : Orbis Books, 2003), 17-18. 27 Pope Francis, LS, §67. 28 Pope Francis, LS, §68. 29 Pope Francis, LS, §202. 30 Pope Francis, LS, §85. 31 Pope Francis, LS, §88. 32 Pope Francis, LS, §88. 33 Pope Francis, LS, §77. 34 Pope Francis, LS, §77. 35 Pope Francis, LS, §138. 36 Pope Francis, LS, §139. 37 Pope Francis, LS, §49. 38 Pope Francis, LS, §176. 39 Pope Francis, LS, §76. 40 Pope Francis, LS, §240. 41 Pope Francis, LS, §240. 42 Pope Francis, LS, §87. 43 Pope Francis, LS, §228. 44 For a full articulation of this ethic, see Daniel P. Scheid, The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). 45 David Hollenbach, The Common Good and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 81. 46 John Hart, Sacramental Commons: Christian Ecological Ethics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 18. 47 Brian Thomas Swimme and Mary Evelyn Tucker, The Journey of the Universe (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011). 48 Russell Butkus and Steven Kolmes, “Ecology and the Common Good: Sustainability and Catholic Social Teaching,” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 4, no. 2 (2007): 403-436, 429-430. 49 Pope Francis, LS, §21. 50 For a fuller exposition of these and other features, see Scheid, The Cosmic Common Good, 36-44.

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

179

51

Mohammad Shomali, “Aspects of Environmental Ethics: An Islamic Perspective,” 2008, http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081111_1.htm. 52 Shomali, “Aspects of Environmental Ethics,” http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081111_1.htm. 53 Bruce Sullivan, The A to Z of Hinduism (London: The Scarecrow Press, 2001), 76. 54 Barbara Stoler Miller, The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War (New York: Bantam Classics, 1986), 2. 55 Cited in O.P. Dwivedi, “Hindu Religion and Environmental Well-Being,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, ed. Roger Gottlieb (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 162. 56 Bhagavad GƯtƗ, trans. R. C. Zaehner (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966). All in text citations come from Zaehner. 57 Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1998), 221. 58 Thich Nhat Hanh, The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 2008), 46. 59 Thich Nhat Hanh, Essential Writings, ed. Robert Ellsberg (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001), 55. 60 George Tinker, American Indian Liberation: A Theology of Sovereignty (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 8. 61 Vine Deloria, God Is Red (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1973), 91. 62 Tinker, American Indian Liberation, 9. 63 Achiel Peelman similarly contrasts mitakuye oyasin, which stresses the relatedness of the speaker to everything that surrounds her, to “amen” in Christian prayers, which accentuates the speaker. Achiel Peelman, Christ Is a Native American (Toronto: Novalis, 1995), 42. 64 George Tinker, “For All My Relations: Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Christmas Trees,” Sojourners 20, no. 1 (1991): 19-21. 65 Tinker, George, “For All My Relations,” 20. 66 Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life, “The Global Religious Landscape,” 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.

Literature Butkus, Russell, Steven Kolmes. 2007. “Ecology and the Common Good: Sustainability and Catholic Social Teaching.” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 4, no. 2: 403–436. Custodia Terrae Sanctae. 2011. “The Canticle of the Creatures.” See, http://www.custodia.org/default.asp?id=1454. Deloria, Vine. 1973. God Is Red. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

180

Chapter Seven

Dwivedi, O.P. 2006. “Hindu Religion and Environmental Well-Being.” In, Roger Gottlieb, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology (New York: Oxford University Press). Eisenstein, Charles. 2013. The Ascent of Humanity: Civilization and the Human Sense of Self. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books. Ghazal, Rym. 2015. “Saudi’s Prince Sultan, the first Arab in space.” (April 9). See, http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/saudis-princesultan-the-first-arab-in-space. Gula, Richard. 1989. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hamilton, Calvin J. 2009. “Earth From Space.” Views of the Solar System. See, http://solarviews.com/eng/earthsp.htm. Hanh, Thich Nhat. 2008. The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. —. 2001. Essential Writings. Edited by Robert Ellsberg. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. —. 1998. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Hart, John. 2006. Sacramental Commons: Christian Ecological Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hollenbach, David. 2002. The Common Good and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin-Schramm, James B., Robert L. Stivers. 2003. Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method Approach. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Miller, Barbara Stoler. 1986. The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War. New York: Bantam Classics. Peelman, Achiel. 1995. Christ Is a Native American. Toronto: Novalis. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. 2012. “The Global Religious Landscape.” See, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscapeexec. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. Sagan, Carl. 1994. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. New York: Random House. Scheid, Daniel P. 2016. The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Shomali, Mohammad. 2008. “Aspects of Environmental Ethics: An Islamic Perspective.” See,

The Moral Vision of Laudato Si’

181

http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081111_1.htm. Speigel, Lee. 2016. “Scientists May Have Just Discovered Another Earth.” Huffington Post (August 25). See, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-planet-proximab_us_57bc6f68e4b03d51368ad735. Sullivan, Bruce. 2001. The A to Z of Hinduism. London: The Scarecrow Press. Swimme, Brian Thomas, Mary Evelyn Tucker. 2011. The Journey of the Universe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tinker, George. 2008. American Indian Liberation: A Theology of Sovereignty. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Tinker, George. 1991. “For All My Relations: Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Christmas Trees.” Sojourners 20, no. 1: 19-21. Tousignant, Lauren. 2016. “This is where humans will move when we destroy Earth.” New York Post (August 24). See, http://nypost.com/2016/08/24/this-nearby-planet-could-support-alienlife/. White, Frank. 1987. The Overview Effect-Space Exploration and Human Evolution. Houghton-Mifflin. Zaehner, Robert Charles, trans. 1966. Bhagavad G߼tߞ. New York: Oxford University Press.

V. ADVOCACY

CHAPTER EIGHT LAUDATO SI’ AND TRADITIONAL AFRICAN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS PETER OSUJI

Introduction The damages done to our Earth by the industrial and agricultural activities are well known. These include ozone layer depletion, deforestation, unjust exploitation and sharing of natural resources, etc. Whereas Africa is often seen as the most vulnerable region to the effects of climate change, which is true, the region has also contributed to the problem of climatic change and environmental degradation as noted above, albeit in a small amount. The reason for the degradation of the environment is partly because of the people’s penchant for foreign things, including ethical principles and ideas that result in the tendency to neglect the African traditional environmental wisdom or ethical principles that have served us for years. However, we know today that the same Western ethical principles and the technology that they favor have greatly aided the exploitation and destruction of our universe. Furthermore, while scholars of environmental ethics have drawn on other non-Western traditions to enrich environmental ethics discourse, little attention has been paid to the African environmental traditional ethics. In complaining about it, Workineh Kelbessa, an Ethiopian Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics, argues: Those who have studied non-Western religions and philosophies… have overlooked the contribution of Africa to environmental ethics. They have either kept quiet or what they said about Africa was rather thin compared to what they said about Native Americans, Asians and Australian Aborigines.1

It is also worth noting that it is only recently that the African scholars started showing interest in the implications and import of indigenous

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

185

African thought and values for environmental ethics. It would seem that African thought has little or nothing to contribute to environmental ethics. But now it is obvious that it does have a lot to contribute. In this paper, I argue that Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si’, echoes many of the principles of traditional African environmental ethics– the cosmic common good, the cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth. These overarching properties show the similarities of both traditions. The similarities suggest common strands of thought and thus validate each approach. However, it is said that the devil lies in the details; the differences between the two ethical approaches lie in the details and their nuances. The similarities and differences between the two approaches can be harnessed together to forge a better and a more global framework to safeguard our common home. In effect, we will perform a comparative analysis of the two approaches–the traditional African environmental ethics and the Laudato Si’. The aim is to identify and harness their common and divergent strands to forge a better and a more global framework that can assist in minimizing climate change and environmental degradation and ultimately safeguard the Earth, our Common Home. In order to facilitate the discussion, the paper will be structured as follows: after this introduction, the first section, which sets up the tone and raison d'être of the paper, will be a succinct description of the African worldview. In the third section I will outline the traditional African environmental ethics under three broad principles: the cosmic common good, the cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth. Using these principles also in the final section, I will offer a comparative analysis of the two approaches: the traditional African environmental ethics and the Laudato Si’. Now we turn to the African worldview.

Brief Description of African Worldview The traditional (precolonial) African metaphysical worldview can be described as an interdependent existence among the Earth, its fauna, flora, human and nonhuman animals, the gods and the spirits, as well as the ancestors (i.e. the living dead) and the unborn. In this peaceful interdependent coexistence, even though human beings could and do challenge the gods and the spirits in their mutual interactions on the globe, they (humans) tend to be less audacious. They tend towards humility and cautiousness. Godfrey Tangwa, a Cameroonian Professor of Philosophy, rightly and concisely noted that human beings were “more mistrustful and unsure of human knowledge and capabilities, more conciliatory and

Chapter Eight

186

respectful of other people, plants, animals, inanimate things, as well as sundry invisible, intangible forces, more timorous of wantonly tampering with nature.”2 They embrace the African aphorism “live and let live.” In this worldview, the universe is understood as a cosmic unity in which the creatures engage in a network of relationships of which John Vernon Taylor succinctly summarizes as follows: Not only is there less separation between subject and object, between self and non-self, but fundamentally all things share the same nature and the same intention one upon another… the living, the dead and the first Ancestors, from the stone to the divinities a hierarchy of power but not of being, for all are one, all are here, all are now.3

Therefore, there exists a thin and pliable distinction between the profane and the sacred, the temporal and non-temporal, the individual and the communal, matter and spirit, and plants and animals, as well as between animate and inanimate.4 The presence of and the interventions of the gods and spirits in human affairs are concrete realities. There is even a common belief that spirits are transformed into humans, just as humans transform into animals, plants, spirits, and forces, such as winds.5 Thus, these are indicative of the complex non-dichotomized interrelationship of the Earth and its constituents, as well as the supernatural. Tangwa has described this traditional African metaphysical worldview as “Eco-biocommunitarian. That is, the recognition and acceptance of interdependence and peaceful coexistence between the Earth, plants, animals, human beings, and the deities.”6

African Ecological/Environmental Ethics It is obvious from the account of the worldview that African metaphysics is indispensable in constructing a meaningful African environmental ethics, and the metaphysical underlining of African environmental ethics is not one of domination prompted by greed.7 Rather, it is based on the belief that everything exists for a reason, whether human beings are cognizant of that reason or not. It is one of mutual interrelationship devoid of the contrast among plants, animals, and inanimate things, the sacred and the profane, matter and spirit, and the communal and the individual. Thus, the “live and let live” philosophy. This worldview gave rise to and continues to shape African environmental ethics. Folkloric assertions and taboos latent in the African metaphysics serve to conserve the ecological balance. In that interdependent nondichotomized interrelationship of things, ethics, custom, laws, taboos, and

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

187

metaphysical conceptions form a single piece in the traditional African worldview. They delineate what are prescribed and proscribed, as well as the rewards and penalties, respectively.8 One can identify the following principles: (1) the cosmic common good, (2) the cosmic harmony, and (3) respect for the Earth. Before we get into these three principles, we need to explore an important concept, relatedness or interconnectedness of all things.

Relatedness (Interconnectedness) of All Things There is a (fraternal) interconnectedness and the interrelationship between the Earth and all of its entities. This network of relationships and interactions among beings and non-beings of the ecosystem is meant to maintain the integration of and balance among the beings and the ecosystem. It is a network of relationships that includes the supernatural beings, the gods, the spirits, and the Supreme Being. The idea and belief that everything in nature–the universal/cosmos and its content, including humans, ancestors, the unborn, and the gods, etc.–is interrelated raises strong doubt and opposition to the proposal that African ethics (environmental ethics included) is inherently anthropocentric. Human beings are believed to be part of nature, not distinct from it. All living and non-living things are seen as part of “a single web or fabric of life,” and are mutually interdependent. Following the vital force theory, they “share the common characteristic of being bearers of a vital or life force.” It is arguably true that emphasis is laid on harmonious communal relationships and humanistic nature of African ethics; however, as Kevin Behrens has shown, the communal and harmonious relationship is extended beyond humans to “include other entities that form part of the web of life.”9 In light of this, Behrens further proposes an African relational, environmental ethics that “regards non-human nature as morally considerable” and emphasizes “a moral obligation to treat nature with respect, as well as to promote harmonious relationships between humans and other natural entities.”10 This concept of the relatedness and web of relationships helps to explain our chosen principles–the cosmic common good, the cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth.

The Cosmic Common Good The claim that all of nature, including the supernatural world, is interconnected or interrelated is a recurring view in the writings of

188

Chapter Eight

scholars on Africa. For instance, Leopold Senghor asserts that “… the natural and the supernatural, the mundane and the divine, the material and the spiritual, are united in an inseparable oneness.”11 Communal life and the resultant interrelationship and interdependence fosters a shared way of life and the consciousness of the concept that we are in this together. We sink or survive together; our fate is intertwined. This communitarian spirit is carried over to our relationship with the non-human entities and the universe itself. Their fate is seen as intertwined with ours. An example is the idea of totem to safeguard some animals and birds. (This is explained below.) Furthermore, the story of the Siamese crocodile as a symbol of the common good is a typical example. The idea of communal life is intrinsically connected to the concept of the common good, wherein individuals advance their interest in such a manner that is both consistently respectful of other people, as well as other things, and also mindful of fostering the good of the community. The concept of the common good is symbolized in Akan culture as a Siamese crocodile. This mythical crocodile bears two heads, but one common stomach. The common stomach signifies that the basic interests of all the members of the community are identical, depicting the common good.12 The common good, in the African perspective, is not an aggregate of individuals’ good. Rather, according to Kwame Gyekye, a Ghanaian Professor of Philosophy, it is that which is essentially good for human beings as such and encompasses the necessities that “are basic to the enjoyment and fulfillment of” each individual’s life.13 Otherwise, were the common good the aggregate of individuals’ goods, it would not be fulfilled in such a way as to benefit every person in the society, or even the non-human creatures. The concept of the common good provides a collective legitimization that goes beyond the dictates of the ego and thus frowns at the idea of “absolute possessiveness and exclusiveness.”14 The fulfillment or realization of the common good has a cosmic implication wherein the well-being of the non-human animals and all creatures, including the universe itself, is envisaged. As discussed above, the well-being of these creatures and the universe is seen as intertwined with that of the human beings, the deities, and the spirits–the “live and let live” philosophy. This concept of being in it together, the interdependence or interrelatedness, grounds and invokes a moral obligation to achieve or seek our good, our well-being, as well as those of other beings and things. Harmony being one of the greatest goods means that we are obligated to promote harmony and shun disharmony. We ought to seek the good of others and not just our own.15

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

189

Therefore, in the spirit of “live and let live,” and the cosmic common good, it is an ethical code not to take more than one needs from nature. This prohibits “irresponsible and unlimited exploitation of resources and human beings…. It reflects deep respect and balance between various things.”16 This traditional moral wisdom helps to preserve a reasonable balance among the different resources constituting the ecosystem.17 It is also a moral code employed for the proper management of the natural resources. For instance, the usage of land reflected the awareness of impoverishment of land and the importance of forests and trees for the maintenance of environmental values. The Oromo of Ethiopia typifies the attitude of the Africans toward nonhuman entities. They do not just pay attention to entities that possess economic values. They also focus on other species as valuable in and of themselves. While sacred groves possess symbolic values, some wild animals and plants are considered as symbols of unity. They possess religious significance. This concept of wildlife management entails the immorality of totally destroying a species and the need to live in harmony with nonhumans, as well as with Mother Earth.18 Furthermore, some studies, such as “The Costs of Rainforest Conservation” by Schmidt-Soltau, suggest that indigenous people living in the forests that Cameroon designated as national parks actually manage the forest better than the government and its environmental organizations. The reason, of course, is that the indigenous people comprehend fully well that their lives and well-being are intimately tied to the well-being of the forests.19 Therefore, it is lamentable that these days, contrary to these traditional African principles, some people hunt some animals to near-extinction for food, money, or other reasons. There is, also, the deforestation for fuel, timber, or wood for building. Sometimes these activities are even seen as a mark of development or civilization, while in reality they are a disregard and a violation of the traditional African environmental ethic. So, from the African perspective, all organisms and entities in the ecosystem are part of the interrelated whole, and, therefore, they have (equal) “rights to live and blossom and to reach their individual forms of unfolding and self-realization.”20 Ndu mmiri ndu azu, mmiri attala ma azu a nwuna. [The life of the water and the life of the fish. Let the water not dry and the fish not die.] That is, let both the water in the stream or river and the fish in them flourish. May the stream or river not run dry and the fish not die. This Nigerian proverb advocates peaceful and mutual coexistence of all creatures. For human beings to harm nature or any of the constituents of the ecosystem is to harm ourselves. Conversely, defending them is self-defense. Thus, these values impose on humans the obligation

Chapter Eight

190

to care for the ecosystem. We are required to be stewards rather than domineers of creation and the ecosystem. Furthermore, let us expatiate on the idea of the Good of the unborn or the future generations. As mentioned earlier, in the traditional African worldview, there is an interrelationship among the past, present, and future, that is, among the dead and ancestors, the living, and the unborn (i.e. future generations). Therefore, there is intergenerational connection entailing a moral “considerability” for the future generation. The intergenerational connection is important because a characteristic of many environmental issues is that they span generations. Much of what we, the current generation, do affects the future generation, just as we inherited some of the consequences of the acts of the generation before us. For instance, if we drive a species to extinction, we deprive the future generation the benefits of such species. While some Western ethicists wonder whether we have moral duties toward future generation or not, because these do not exist yet, the African thought understands the unborn as part of the wider community in the interrelationship of all things that includes the supernatural world. “The ethical aspiration of doing good beyond the grave is… an ethical ideal [that] can be discerned in the… the notion of ancestorhood–a notion that is mainly based on the conviction that there is a solidarity between the past, present, and the future.”21 For example, the land belongs not to an individual or the current generation, but to the community that includes the unborn. It is the responsibility of the current generation to preserve it for the future generation by judiciously using it. The belief is that the environment is our common inheritance, and it is shared across generations and so ought to be preserved as far as possible. It generates direct moral duties towards the unborn. Therefore, while some Western scholars (Savulescu, Peter Singer, etc.) honestly struggle to make sense of the moral obligations to future generations, “it is almost a non-question in African thought.”22 The traditional African thought that privileges our interconnectedness and interrelatedness requires that we not only respect the existence of the unborn but that we do all “necessary to ensure their capacity for the successful realization of their well-being and potential.”23 Kwesi Wiredu insists that these responsibilities that we owe the future generations are more imperious than others: Of all the duties owed to the ancestors, none is more imperious than that of husbanding the resources of the land so as to leave it in good shape for posterity. In this moral scheme the rights of the unborn play such a cardinal role that any traditional African would be nonplussed by the debate in Western philosophy as to the existence of such rights. In upshot

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

191

there is a two-sided concept of stewardship in the management of the environment involving obligations to both ancestors and descendants which motivates environmental carefulness, all things being equal.24

By considering the good of the whole cosmic community that includes the unborn, the cosmic common good is realized, and that leads to harmony– the cosmic harmony–as I explicate next.

The Cosmic Harmony The network of relationships and interactions among beings and nonbeings, that is, all members of the ecosystem including the Supreme Being, the gods, the spirits, and the deities, is meant to maintain the integration and balance of the beings and ecosystem.25 That is, to maintain the harmony among ecosystem and its occupants, hence, the cosmic harmony. In this web of relationships, what affects one impacts another and the ecosystem. The impact could disturb, weaken, or strengthen the harmony. Therefore, in the traditional African metaphysical worldview, striving to maintain the harmony and a balanced relationship with all creatures and the supernatural beings–the gods, the spirits, and the deities–the human beings, both alive and dead, ancestors, and the unborn; the plants, animals, fauna, and flora; and the rivers, mountains, and other elements and phenomena in the universe is of paramount importance.26 The well-being of a person consists “in keeping in harmony with the cosmic totality.”27 It is believed that if things go well with Africans, they are sure that they are at peace with the gods and with the scheme of things. While when things go wrong, it means that people have fallen out of step with the gods and the ancestors; they are in disharmony with the ecosystem. For instance, when someone falls sick or if there is a catastrophe, it is believed that someone did something that caused a disharmony or a disequilibrium in the relationship. Such situations call for soul searching and eventual action to appease the ancestors and the gods to restore harmony and equilibrium. Maintenance and restoration of balance and harmony in the ecosystem is also achieved through taboos. Some of these taboos may not have originated as environmental ethics, but they evolved into that. They instruct against environmental degradation. For instance, the taboos against water pollution include the prohibition of women from going near the river/stream during menstruation. Also, there are taboos against urinating or defecating at the source of or into the river, stream, and pond. These are believed to destroy the “vital force”–the life of the river– and lives of humans, animals, plants, and other things that depend either on

Chapter Eight

192

them or their vital force. Likewise, some forests, hills, and mountains were designated as evil or sacred to prevent people from entering or climbing them, cutting trees or plants on them, or even killing animals and other beings that are habiting them.28 Although these practices have a religious background, they guard against deforestation and degradation of the ecology, as well as conserving and strengthening the lives or “vital forces” of these beings, thereby maintaining the desired cosmic harmony. Furthermore, different traditional ethnic groups in Africa consider various species of plants and animals as totems. The harming or killing and eating of these totems were considered as taboo and, therefore, prohibited. The common belief is that the ancestors would strike any culprit and even the entire community with misfortunes. In fact, people were required to be friendly to the totems. Because various species were protected through this “toteism,” it was very rare driving any of them to extinction.29 This practice helped to conserve and strengthen the lives or “vital forces” of these beings, thereby contributing in maintaining the desired cosmic harmony. So, it is that the cosmic harmony is explained by Placide Tempels’ idea of a unity of vital force. In his Bantu philosophy, Tempels argued that the inmost nature of all beings is the vital force. It is the ontological principle that vitalizes, energizes, or animates all beings and things: human beings, animals, plants, minerals, objects, and even events. It is given to them by the Supreme Being. The activities performed by all beings and things are to maintain, intensify, or increase this force.30 This energy, which is commonly shared by everything, guarantees the fundamental unity of all that exists and thus maintains the equilibrium.31 In the words of Mambo Ama Mazama, an Associate Professor and Director of the Graduate Programs of the Department of Africa American Studies at Temple University: …for Tempels, an African ontology essentially entails an energy of cosmic origin that permeates and lives within all that is–human beings, animals, plants, minerals, and objects, as well as events. This common energy shared by all confers a common essence to everything in the world, and thus ensures the fundamental unity of all that exists… This energy constitutes the active, dynamic principle that animates creation, and which can be identified as life itself.32

Polycarp Ikuenobe, a Nigerian Professor of Philosophy, also argued in support of this understanding of composite reality and the resultant harmony, stressing that human beings are a harmonious part of the composite reality, which is basically “a set of mobile life forces.”33 Continuing, Ikuenobe insists that because nature or reality is a continuum,

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

193

we do not have a “conceptual or interactive gap between the human self, community, the dead, spiritual or metaphysical entities, and the phenomenal world; they are interrelated, they interact, and in some sense, one is an extension of the other.”34 One can conclude from the foregoing that the vital force as an ontological principle of unity is “a principle of the connectedness” of all beings and things based on common essence; it also implies “a principle of harmony based on the organic solidarity and complementarities of all forms.”35

Respect for the Earth While it would seem that traditional African environmental ethics is anthropocentric, there are many African themes and concepts that see nonhuman nature as morally considerable. They provide and highlight the moral obligations to treat nature with respect. These are based on African traditional worldviews “which intrinsically respect all things in nature.”36 Humans are interrelated with the rest of nature and need to live in harmony with them for the good of all. There is, therefore, obvious raison d'être for treating human and non-human nature, and the supernatural environment, well. One of these reasons would be for the good of nature, which includes humans. So, human well-being and even existence is endangered or broken down if the cosmos is disrespected or neglected and abused as the current ecological degradations portray. We should be conscious of how fragile our nature is, after all, as Murove rightly put it, “…human well-being is indispensable from our dependence on and interdependence with all that exists, and particularly with the immediate environment on which all humanity depends.”37 Also, there is a need to respect the cosmos and non-human entities for their sake. They possess their integrity. Kofi Asare Opoku, an African Professor of Religion and Ethics, asserts that because humans are part of nature, and interrelated, there is a community. This experience of community with nature is often conveyed and manifested in forms of “identity and kinship, friendliness and respect.”38 Workineh Kelbessa, an Ethiopian Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics, observes that the African worldview does not permit “irresponsible and unlimited exploitation of resources and human being…” And I concur with Kelbessa that this view not only portrays an attitude of deep respect for nature and all things for their sake, but also depicts and ensures harmony among them. He argues that “it reflects deep respect and balance between various things… [J]ustice, integrity, and respect as human virtues [are not only] applicable to human beings but they extend them to nonhuman species and Mother Earth.”39 Once again,

194

Chapter Eight

this is an example of an African traditional concept and practice showing that the Earth possesses its integrity, and that entails a moral obligation to treat and care for the Earth and non-human entities with respect for their sake and not solely for the sake of human beings. Thus, it shows that African ethics (including environmental ethics) is not just anthropocentric. Even Segun Ogungbemi, who does not think that the supernatural being is involved in the environmental ethic, acknowledges that in African traditional environmental ethics, the Earth is accorded some integrity and respect for its sake. Segun Ogungbemi, a Professor of Philosophy, proposed an ethics of “nature-relatedness,” which is a reformulation of the African traditional environmental wisdom. Ethics of “nature-relatedness” is an ethics that leads human beings to treat the Earth and all non-humans with respect by seeking to co-exist peacefully with nature and treat it with some reasonable concern for its worth, survival, and sustainability. Ogungbemi tried to understand the African traditional environmental ethic focusing on reason and experience alone. Unlike other approaches to African traditional environmental ethics, Ogungbemi’s ethics of “naturerelatedness” is devoid of any recourse to a Supreme Being and religious affinity. It is anchored solely on reason, experience, and the will, with reason serving as the “guiding force.” For him, natural resources possess no spiritual nature.40 However, his ethics of nature-relatedness supports and buttresses the thesis that African environmental ethics acknowledges the integrity of the Earth and respects it for its sake. Having explored the concept of the cosmic common good, the cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth in traditional African environmental ethics, I now proceed to analyze, compare, and contrast these concepts with the environmental ethics of Laudato Si’.

The Comparison of Papal Ecological/Environmental Ethics (Laudato Si’) and Traditional African Environmental Ethics The world received with joy Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si, (Praise Be to You) On Care for Our Common Home issued on May 24, 2015. It attracted attention because he, in a way, preempted, encouraged, and influenced the discussions and policy outcomes of the United Nations International Conference on Climate Change held in Paris a few weeks after. In the encyclical, the pope radically discussed the environmental and ecological deterioration and abuse of the Earth, our Common Home, as well as the human contribution to these problems. He drew attention to some ethical, economic, and cultural values and principles that we need to

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

195

seriously consider to safeguard the Earth, our Common Home. As we did above, we shall discuss these values under the following broad principles: the cosmic common good, the cosmic harmony, and respect for the Earth.

The Cosmic Common Good Pope Francis acknowledges that the common good is a central and unifying principle of social ethics. He adopted the definition of common good in the Catholic tradition, that is, the common good as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allows social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their fulfillment.”41 Pope Francis also acknowledges that human ecology is inseparable from the idea of the common good. And so, as with the traditional African environmental ethics, he recognizes somehow the interrelatedness or the connectedness of all things with humans and the creator. According to him, he owes this insight to his patron Saint Francis, who communed with the creator, as well as with all created things, inviting even the flowers “to praise the Lord, just as if they were endowed with reason.”42 He called the plants and animals brothers and sisters as if to say they were humans. This action illustrates Saint Francis’ great love and respect for all creatures and the universe. Because of this, the Pope puts Saint Francis up as a model of proper attitude to the environment and the ecology. The Pope believes that St. Francis is a perfect example of how to joyfully and authentically care for the vulnerable and live up to integral ecology. By integral ecology the Pope is pointing out “how inseparable is the bond between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace.”43 Therefore, for Francis, and indeed for the Church, the universe, and hence the climate, is a common good, which belongs to all and is meant for all. He argues that because “God created the world for everyone,” the Earth is a shared inheritance, and everyone ought to benefit from its fruits.44 This belief, therefore, entails a moral obligation to care for the Earth and to seek a judicious distribution of the fruits of the Earth. It calls for stewardship and communion. The relationship should not be that of master-subject, or exploiter and the exploited. Rather, in this relationship we should adopt the language of “fraternity and beauty” to be intimately united with all that exists. In that way, we will forestall a relationship of ruthless exploiters, consumers, and masters who are “unable to set limits on their immediate needs.”45 This idea echoes the traditional African ethical principle of not taking from the Earth more resources than one needs. One plants and harvests

196

Chapter Eight

only enough for one’s need. The African worldview does not permit “irresponsible and unlimited exploitation of resources and human being…”46 (See section C, 1) This is a weak concept in the western technological society, and the Pope struggles with this in Laudato Si as he tries to convince his readers that the irresponsible and unlimited exploitation and abuse of resources and human beings contributed immensely to the ecological deterioration and climate problem of today. Unfortunately, even the Africans are guilty of this irresponsible and unlimited exploitation, notwithstanding that it is forbidden in their traditional environmental ethics. The belief that the universe (Earth) is for all and its fruits are supposed to benefit all, that is, for the common good, requires us to have concern for the poor and the underprivileged of the Earth. Thus, there is a need for every ecological approach “to incorporate a social perspective” to cater for the “fundamental rights of the poor and the underprivileged.”47 Everything, every creature, should be catered for. That is why the Church does not hold the right to private property as absolute. Again, this idea echoes the traditional African environmental, ethical principle of “live and let live” discussed above. It is one of the principles that guides communal life where community encompasses humans–the living, the dead, and the unborn–nonhuman entities, and all creatures. It is a community where humans, the gods, the spirits, and all creatures form a web of relationship and interdependence; a community where even the gods need the human beings, just as we need them. This sense of community is rare in Western thought, and the Pope struggles with it in Laudato Si’. Hence, it is weak there.48

The Cosmic Harmony According to Laudato Si’, there is an internal or intrinsic harmony in the world/nature. It is supported by the belief that everything–human beings, plants, animals, water, and soil-have their own unique purpose. All creatures are moving forward towards a “common point of arrival, which is God.”49 The cosmic harmony, so to say, lies in this movement towards a “common point of arrival, which is God,”50 and held together in Christ. This movement is in and through Jesus Christ in whom all things hold together. As we read in the Letter of Saint Paul to the Colossians, “For in him were created all things in heaven and on Earth, visible and invisible… all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.” (Col. 1:16-17)

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

197

All creatures, even the tiniest ones, are a constant revelation of God. Contemplating in these creatures permits us to recognize in each thing a teaching that God means to gift us with.51 Pope Francis further concurs with John Paul II that we can assert that “alongside revelation properly socalled, contained in Sacred Scripture, there is a divine manifestation in the blaze of the sun and the fall of night.”52 The assertions that everything has a purpose, that is, moving toward God; that everything is a revelation of God; and that although human beings are irreducible to a status of objects, they are not meant to dominate and abuse other creatures tyrannically lead to the acknowledgment of nature as a locus of God’s presence. Thus, he affirms with the bishops of Brazil that the Spirit of life abides in all living creatures, and this Spirit invites us to commune with and to enter into a relationship with God.53

Respect for the Earth As with the traditional African environmental ethics, Pope Francis calls for respect for the Earth. His call reflects the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the integrity of creation as seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.54 However, Pope Francis’ call promotes a novel insight into that Catholic moral tradition of respecting creation and nature. For instance, Pope Francis sees a broader meaning in the word “creation” than in the word “nature,” more than is often acknowledged in the Catholic tradition. For him, “Creation is the order of love,” because it is an expression of the Gift of God “illumined by the love which calls us together into universal communion.”55 The pope insists that for religious people such as Christians, respect for the Earth and the need to care for our Common Home are essential parts of their faith. In fact, their responsibility and duty within and towards creation and the Universe emanate from and are sustained by their faith. The biblical account of creation as narrated in the Book of Genesis portrays human beings as grounded in threefold “fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor and with the Earth itself.”56 It was a harmonious relationship, although these relationships are seen now as broken and have led to the disruption of the original harmonious relationship. The cause of the rupture is said to be that human beings have been playing God, domineering nature, and refusing to accept their creaturely limitations. For the non-religious, humanism arouses their conviction to care for the Earth. Pope Francis says, “If the simple fact of being human moves people to care for the environment of which they are a part,” then Christians should come to the realization that “their

198

Chapter Eight

responsibility within creation, and their duty toward nature and the creator, are an essential part of their faith.”57 From his interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, Pope Francis concludes that human beings with their intelligence were meant to “respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world …”58 For example, if somebody finds on any tree or on the ground a bird’s nest containing some eggs or the young, and the mother is sitting upon either of them in the nest, one is forbidden to take them.59 These sorts of laws confirm that the Bible prohibits “tyrannical anthropocentrism that has no concern for other creatures.60 Furthermore, the Pope argues that while the Biblical account invites us to acknowledge each person as a subject who is irreducible to the status of an object, it does not suggest that other beings and the Earth are subjected to humans. They are not mere objects that are subjected to arbitrary human domination. When this idea is not heeded, when humans consider themselves masters and domineers of the rest of the creation, there follows dire consequences and catastrophe as we see in the ecological crisis of today.61 Moreover, the ultimate destiny and purpose of other creatures is not to be found in human beings. But they move forward with humans and through them towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the Risen Christ embraces and illumines all things.”62 These ascents of faith offer further reasons for rejecting the tyrannical and irresponsible domination by human beings over other creatures. The biblical injunction to rest on the seventh day and the jubilee year (seven weeks of years, i.e. 49 years) is celebrated as a year of general forgiveness and “liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants.” (Lev. 25: 10) It also sought to guarantee balance and fairness in peoples’ relationships with others, even “with the land on which they lived and worked.”63 In the sabbatical years (7 years) people were required to take a break from tilling the ground and sowing and to reap what is necessary to survive on and no more. (Cf. Lev. 25: 4- 6) The pope concludes that the sabbatical years and the Jubilee years are meant for the common good, the well-being of all humans, and the Earth they live in that sustains them. By acknowledging respect for the Earth, to the benefit of both the humans and the cosmos itself, Pope Francis has furthered the thoughts of John Paul II. There is a growth in the teaching of the three recent popesJohn Paul II (JP II), Benedict, and Francis–on the how and why we should care for our planet. John Paul II brought the papal reflection on environmental ethics to prominence, and the subsequent popes have sought to maintain that in their way. The teachings of John Paul II on the

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

199

environment are open to the idea that the care for the Earth can be beyond human well-being, (expand) that is, beyond the impact it has on humans. Thus, he is open to the understanding of common good that will include more than human well-being and includes the well-being of nature for its sake. Here the well-being of the planet is acknowledged not necessarily because of its impacts on humans, but rather because the well-being of our planet is acknowledged for its own sake and more.64 John Paul II recognized that the universe possesses a harmonious order, internal dynamic balance, and its own integrity. He expressed the need to respect and safeguard this order and integrity.65 On the contrary, according to Scheid, Pope Benedict’s reflections on environmental ethics focused more on “limiting the common good to human well-being.”66 It would seem that for him, the reason to safeguard the universe is primarily to the benefit of the human race, and not to the benefit of the Earth or the universe itself. Therefore, although he concurs with John Paul II on the respect for the order of the universe, he painstakingly argues for the human well-being by emphasizing the importance of human dignity.67 Although Francis’ teaching on “integral ecology” to safeguard our Common Home is grounded in the Catholic tradition, he sought to bring these traditional ideas to confront the authentically new challenges posed by both the environment and poverty.68 The traditional African worldview that informed the environmental ethical principles is very religious. It acknowledges the universe as the work of the Supreme Being. The presence of God and the spirits pervade the whole of creation. God is made manifest and worshiped through nature. As already stated, there is interrelationship and interdependence among God, the deities, humans, and all creation, forming a community that encompasses all of them. Therefore, the argument the pope is making to convince his readers about human beings being grounded in threefold “fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor and with the Earth itself”69 and the resultant moral requirement are all too familiar to, and taken for granted in, the African worldview. But they are a lot different to the pope’s Western audience. However, the novelty of the encyclical, Laudato Si’, is the audacious broad claim the pope made about our attitude and behavior and the deleterious effects these things have on the universe and on us. Also, it is the first and only papal encyclical on the Integrity of Creation and the respect for the Earth. There is also a sense of urgency and a call for a radical shift. The radical claims made by the Pope include that we have abused and caused harms to ourselves, to creation, and to our Mother Earth through our irresponsible use, selfish consumption, and abuse of

200

Chapter Eight

goods. The habits of “wealthier sectors of society” of wasting and discarding resources have reached an unprecedented level. The “exceeding level of the exploitation of the planet” has been unable to solve poverty and economic and financial greed, which is blind to human dignity and the natural environment. It has also been unable to solve the prevalence of improper use of technology and technocratic powers, lack of consideration for values and conscience, and the misguided anthropocentrism that has distorted relationships with others and with creation.70 The pope insists that through these activities we have truly caused global environmental deterioration such that “our sister, Mother Earth, who sustains us,” is now crying “out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of goods with which God has endowed her...”71 Of course, there is a certain urgency in the encyclical. Francis recognizes that climate change is not just a moral issue but a great menace to the well-being of the globe, as well as to the integrity of nations. Island nations, such as Fiji, the Maldives, Cape Verde, and Tonga, are at grave risk. So, Charles Reid, a Professor of Law, believes that it was not a coincidence that Pope Francis promoted as cardinals Arlindo Gomes Furtado of Cape Verde Islands and Soane Patiti Mafi of Tonga. Reid thinks that Pope Francis made these bishops cardinals to position them at “the frontline of looming climate catastrophe and carry the message of a world at risk to all of the humanity.”72 The urgency requires all to act now and to put into practice the environmental ethical principles he enunciated, as well as the wonderful traditional African environmental ethical principles to safeguard our Common Home. Following this radical expansive claim and the urgency for action, the pope makes a radical call to shift from our obsession with individuals and their exploitation of our Common Home to “an authentic humanity” that extends authentic human ecology and global ecological conversion.73 These require “changes in lifestyle, models of production and consumption, the establishment of structures of power which today govern society.” 74 Also, it requires authentic human development with moral character, moral values, conscience, and the spiritual dimension, (i.e., integral development) with “full respect for the human person and the world around” us, and its harmony, as we foster “integral ecology through sustainable and integral development.”75 The integral ecology requires us to develop comprehensive solutions that consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. This demand entails our engaging the environment or the “relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it.”76 In this integral perspective, we

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

201

recognize that “we are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis that is both social and environmental.” That is why an integral solution is necessary. Likewise, the integral ecology takes cognizance of economy, culture, spirituality, moral responsibilities, and conscience. That is, integral solution entails ethical, spiritual, economic, social, and cultural ecologies.77 Again, this idea of an integral solution requiring all aspects of life and society and the system is all too familiar to the African worldview with its holistic approach to life as its bedrock, where there is no dichotomy between the profane and the sacred, the temporal and non-temporal, the individual and the communal, matter and spirit, and between plants and animals. The universe is understood as a cosmic unity in which the beings engage in a network of relationships.

Conclusion The papal teachings have only now caught up with the traditional African environmental ethics. However, they lend credibility and prominence to each other’s approach and to their common message towards safeguarding our environment. They invite us to consider the common good as a cosmic good wherein each creature deserves respect and possesses the rights to exist for its good and the good of all. Humility before, and respect for, the environment and our fellow beings reflects and reinforces our moral compass, as well as represents the veritable beacon for a more equitable global society and a sustainable economic future. The similarities suggest common strands of thought. And together with the strengths and weakness of each approach, we can forge a better and more global framework for safeguarding the Earth, our Common Home.

Notes 1

Workineh Kelbessa, “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa,” Diogenes 52, no. 3 (2005): 19-20; See also Kevin Gary Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” in Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics, ed. Elvis Imafidon and John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji (LanhamBoulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2014), 56. 2 Godfrey B. Tangwa, Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame (Mankon, Bamenda Cameroun: Langaa Research & Publishing, 2010), 57. 3 John Vernon Taylor, The Primal Vision (London: SCM Press, 1963), 64. See also Emefie Ikenga-Metuh, Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions (Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers, 1987), 69.

202 4

Chapter Eight

Emefie Ikenga-Metuh, Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions (Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers, 1987), 51; and Tangwa, Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame, 57. 5 Tangwa, Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame, 57. See also Philomena A. Ojomo, “An African Understanding of Environmental Ethics,” Thought and Practice 2, no. 2 (2010): 60. 6 Tangwa, Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame, 57. 7 Ojomo, “An African Understanding of Environmental Ethics,” 60. 8 Tangwa, Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame, 58. 9 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 55 – 56. 10 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 57. 11 Leopold Senghor, On African Socialism (London, Macmillan, 1964), 72 – 74. See also Harvey Sindima, “Community of Life: Ecological Theology in African Perspective,” in Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology, eds. Charles Birch, William Eaken, and Jay MccDaniel (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990), 137ff; Bénézet Bujo, The Ethical Dimension of Community (Nairobi, Kenya: Pauline Publication, 1998), 22-25; Godfrey B. Tangwa, “Some African Reflections on Biomedical and Environmental Ethics, in A Companion to African Philosophy, ed. Kwesi Wiredu (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 389; and Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 58ff. 12 Peter I. Osuji, African Traditional Medicine: Autonomy and Informed Consent (New York: Springer, 2014), 138- 39; and Kwame Gyekye, Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 45-47. 13 Osuji, African Traditional Medicine: Autonomy and Informed Consent, 239; and Kwame Gyekye, "African Ethics," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, summer 2011 edition, last modified June 10, 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/african-ethics/. 14 Innocent I. Asouzu, The Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African Philosophy (Calabar, Nigeria: University of Calabar Press, 2004), 380ff. 15 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 60ff. 16 Kelbessa, “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa,” 19 -20. Also see Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 59. 17 Segun Ogungbemi, “An African Perspective on the Environmental Crisis,” in Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, ed. Louis Pojman (Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Publ. 1997). 18 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 64.; and Kelbessa, “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa,” 24. 19 David T. Ngoong, “The Environmental, Population, and Theology: A Perspective from Cameroon,” Bulletin of Ecumenical Theology 28 (2016): 34. David T. Ngong, is an Associate Professor of Religion and Theology at Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 20 Ojomo, “An African Understanding of Environmental Ethics,” 53.

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

203

21

Munyaradzi Felix Murove, “An African Commitment to Ecological Conservation: The Shona Concepts of Ukama and Ubuntu,” Mankind Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2004): 203; and Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 68. 22 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 67-68. 23 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 67-68. 24 Kwesi Wiredu, “Philosophy, Humankind, and the Environment,” in Philosophy, Humankind, and Ecology, ed. Henry Odera Oruka (Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press, 1994), 46; Also see Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 68. 25 Emefie Ikenga-Metuh, Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions (Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers, 1987), 70. 26 Innocent I. Asouzu, Ibuanyidanda: New Complementary Ontology Beyond World Immanentism, Ethnocentric Reduction and Impositions (Zweignieder Lassung, Zürich: Lit Verlasg Gmbtt & co KG wien, 2007), 71. 27 Taylor, The Primal Vision, 67. 28 Munamato Chemhuru and Dennis Masaka, “Taboos as Sources of Shona People’s Environmental Ethics,” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12, no. 7 (2010): 128-130; and Benson Ohihon Igboin, “African Religion and Environmental Challenges in Post Colonial Africa,” Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies 2, no. 1 (2012): 27. 29 Chemhuru and Masaka, “Taboos as Sources of Shona People’s Environmental Ethics,” 130; Igboin, “African Religion and Environmental Challenges in Post Colonial Africa,” 27. 30 Placide Tempels, Bantu Philosophy (Paris: Presence Africaine 1959), 175; and Stephen O. Okafor, “Bantu Philosophy: Placide Tempels revisited,” Journal of Religion in Africa 13, no. 2 (1982): 84 – 85. Also see Elvis Imafidon, “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition,” in Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics, eds. Elvis Imafidon and John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2014), 38. 31 Mambo Ama Mazama, “Afrocentricity and African Spirituality,” Journal of Black studies 32, no. 2 (2002): 219- 20. Also see Imafidon, “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition,” 39. 32 Mazama, “Afrocentricity and African Spirituality,” 219-220. Also see Imafidon, “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition,” 39. 33 Polycarp Ikuenobe, Philosophical Perspective on Communalism and Morality in African Traditions (London: Lexington Books, 2006), 63- 64; and also see Imafidon, “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition,” 39. 34 Ikuenobe, Philosophical Perspective on Communalism and Morality in African Traditions, 64. 35 Okafor, “Bantu Philosophy: Placide Tempels revisited,” 94. Also see Imafidon, “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition,” 39. 36 Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 58. 37 Munyaradzi Felix Murove, “An African Commitment to Ecological Conservation: The Shona Concepts of Ukama and Ubuntu,” Mankind Quarterly .

204

Chapter Eight

45, no. 2 (2004): 195- 96; and Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism.” 38 Kofi Asare Opoku, “African Traditional Religion: An Enduring Heritage,” in Religious Plurality in Africa, eds. Jacob Olupona and Sulayman Nyang (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993), 77. 39 Kelbessa, “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa,” 24. Also see Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 58. The emphasis in the text is my own. 40 Segun Ogungbemi, “Ethics of Nature-Relatedness,” 2014, accessed September 14, 2016, http://nkalaenvironmental.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-african-perspectiveon-environmental.html. 41 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 1965, §’s 23 and 26, accessed January 12, 2017, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html; and Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2015) §156. 42 Thomas of Celano, The Life of Saint Francis, I, 29, 81: in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1, (New York-London-Manila, 1999), 251; and Pope Francis, LS, §11. 43 Pope Francis, LS, §10. 44 Pope Francis, LS, §23. 45 Pope Francis, LS, §11. 46 Kelbessa, “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa,” 24. Also see Behrens, “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism,” 59. 47 Pope Francis, LS, §93. 48 Pope Francis, LS, §66. 49 Pope Francis, LS, §83. 50 Pope Francis, LS, §83. 51 Pope Francis, LS, §85; Pope John Paul II, Catechesis, (26 January 2000), 5; and Insegnamenti 23/1 (2000), 112. 52 Pope John Paul II, Catechesis, (2 August 2000), 5; Insegnamenti 23/2 (2000), 123; and Pope Francis, LS, §85. 53 National Conference of the Bishops of Brazil, A Igreja e a Questao Ecologica, 1992, 53 – 54, cited by Pope Francis, LS, §88. 54 Pope Francis, LS, §130; and Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §2415 - 2418. 55 Pope Francis, LS, §76-77. 56 Pope Francis, LS, §66. 57 John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 15: AAS 82, (1990), 156; and Pope Francis, LS, §64. 58 Pope Francis, LS, §68. 59 Deuteronomy 22: 4, 6. 60 Pope Francis, LS, §68. 61 Pope Francis, LS, §82. 62 Pope Francis, LS, §83 and §86. 63 Pope Francis, LS, §71.

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

205

64

See Daniel P. Scheid, “The Common Good Human, or Cosmic?” [The Greening of the Papacy, edited by Ronald A. Simkins and John J. O’Keefe], Journal of Religion and Society, Supplements 9 (1913): 6. 65 Pope John Paul II, “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation,” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, January 1, 1990, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. (Accessed January 2. 66 Scheid, “The Common Good Human, or Cosmic?,” 6. 67 Scheid, “The Common Good Human, or Cosmic?,” 7; Pope Benedict, Caritas Veritate, §51 and §7, accessed January 8, 2017, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_benxvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html; See Scheid, “The Common Good Human, or Cosmic?,” 7. 68 Sean P. O’Malley (Cardinal), “Laudato Si’: 'Our Common Home' and the Dignity of the Poor,” Spirituality, June 18, 2015, http://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?id=174073#. 69 Pope Francis, LS, §66. 70 Pope Francis, LS, §2, §27, §56, §103 – 104, §105, and §119. 71 Pope Francis, LS, §1-2. 72 Charles Reid, “Pope Francis, the Common Good and Global Climate Change,” The Huffington Post, last modified Jun 13, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/pope-francis-the-commong_b_7577306.html. 73 Pope Francis, LS, §5-6. 74 Pope Francis, LS, §9-10, §13, and §112. 75 Pope Francis, LS, §13, §112, §124, and §137-162. 76 Pope Francis, LS, §139. 77 Pope Francis, LS, §141-142 and §143-146.

Literature Asouzu, Innocent I. 2007. Ibuanyidanda: New Complementary Ontology Beyond World Immanentism, Ethnocentric Reduction and Impositions. Zweignieder Lassung, Zürich: Lit Verlasg Gmbtt & co KG wien. —. 2004. The Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African Philosophy. Calabar, Nigeria: University of Calabar Press. Behrens, Kevin Gary. 2014. “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism.” In, Elvis Imafidon, John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji, eds., Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books), 55-72. Bujo, Bénézet. 1998. The Ethical Dimension of Community. Nairobi, Kenya: Pauline Publication.

206

Chapter Eight

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Chemhuru, Munamato, Dennis Masaka. 2010. “Taboos as Sources of Shona People’s Environmental Ethics.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12, no. 7: 121-133. Gyekye, Kwame. 2011. "African Ethics." In, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition; Last modified June 10). See, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/african-ethics. —. 1997. Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Igboin, Benson Ohihon. 2012. “African Religion and Environmental Challenges in Post-Colonial Africa.” Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies 2, no. 1: 17-38. Ikenga-Metuh, Emefie. 1987. Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions. Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers. Ikuenobe, Polycarp. 2006. Philosophical Perspective on Communalism and Morality in African Traditions. London: Lexington Books. Imafidon, Elvis. 2014. “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition.” In, Elvis Imafidon, John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji, eds., Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books), 37-54. Kelbessa, Workineh. 2005. “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa.” Diogenes 52, no. 3: 17-34. Mazama, Mambo Ama. 2002. “Afrocentricity and African Spirituality,” Journal of Black studies 32, no. 2: 218 - 234. Murove, Munyaradzi Felix. 2004. “An African Commitment to Ecological Conservation: The Shona Concepts of Ukama and Ubuntu.” Mankind Quarterly 45, no. 2: 195 - 215. Ngoong, David T. 2016. “The Environmental, Population, and Theology: A Perspective from Cameroon.” Bulletin of Ecumenical Theology 28: 22- 47. Ogungbemi, Segun. 2016. “Ethics of Nature-Relatedness.” (Accessed September 14). See, http://nkalaenvironmental.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-africanperspective-on-environmental.html. —. 1997. “An African Perspective on the Environmental Crisis.” In, Louis Pojman, ed., Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 2nd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth), 330-337. Ojomo, Philomena A. 2010. “An African Understanding of Environmental Ethics.” Thought and Practice 2, no. 2: 49-63.

Laudato Si’ and Traditional African Environmental Ethics

207

Okafor, Stephen O. 1982. “Bantu Philosophy: Placide Tempels Revisited.” Journal of Religion in Africa 13, no. 2: 83-100. O’Malley, Sean P. (Cardinal). 2015. “Laudato Si’: 'Our Common Home' and the Dignity of the Poor.” Spirituality (June 18). See, http://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?id=174073#. Opoku, Kofi Asare. 1993. “African Traditional Religion: An Enduring Heritage.” In, Jacob Olupona, Sulayman Nyang, eds., Religious Plurality in Africa (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 67-82. Osuji, Peter I. 2014. African Traditional Medicine: Autonomy and Informed Consent. New York: Springer. Pope Benedict XVI. 2009. Caritas in Veritate. London: Catholic Truth Society. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. Pope John Paul II. 2000. Catechesis. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. —. 1990. “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation.” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace. (January 1). See,http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/d ocuments/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. Reid, Charles. 2016. “Pope Francis, the Common Good and Global Climate Change.” The Huffington Post. (June 13). See,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/pope-francis-thecommon-g_b_7577306.html. Scheid, Daniel P. 2013. “The Common Good, Human or Cosmic?” Journal of Religion and Society, Supplement 9: 5–15. Senghor, Leopold. 1964. On African Socialism. London, Macmillan. Sindima, Harvey. 1990. “Community of Life: Ecological Theology in African Perspective” In, Charles Birch, William Eaken, Jay McDaniel, eds., Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books), 137-148. Tangwa, Godfrey B. 2010. Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame. Mankon, Bamenda Cameroun: Langaa Research & Publishing. —. 2004. “Some African Reflections on Biomedical and Environmental Ethics.” In, Kwesi Wiredu, ed., A Companion to African Philosophy (Malden, MA: Blackwell) 387-403. —. 1996. "Bioethics: An African Perspective." Bioethics 10, no. 3: 183200. Taylor, John Vernon 1963. The Primal Vision. London: SCM Press. Tempels, Placide. 1959. Bantu Philosophy, Paris: Presence Africaine.

208

Chapter Eight

Thomas of Celano. 1999. The Life of Saint Francis, I, 29, 81. In, Regis J. Armstrong, Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New YorkLondon-Manila). Vatican II. 1965. Gaudium et Spes. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Wiredu, Kwesi. 1994. “Philosophy, Humankind, and the Environment.” In, Henry Odera Oruka, ed., Philosophy, Humankind, and Ecology (Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press), 30-48.

CHAPTER NINE THE POOR AND THE EARTH ARE CRYING OUT: PROTECTING OUR COMMON HOME JOHN KILCRANN, JUDE NNOROM AND CHIKA ONYEJIUWA

Introduction This chapter discusses the alignment of the Papal encyclical Laudato Si’ with the mission of the congregation of the Holy Spirit under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Spiritans). Laudato Si’ is an affirmation and a challenge to the Spiritan mission. The Spiritan missionary purpose is the “evangelization of the Poor.”1 Together with the poor, they experience pollution, poor harvest, irregular weather patterns, forced migration, unsolicited extraction of natural resources,2 depletion of fishing resources, dumping of wastes, and a general indifference to the effects of harmful human activity on the Earth. The Spiritan response to the effects of these activities is rooted in their voluntary option for the poor. They readily and willingly accept to live and work in places “where the church has difficulty in finding workers.”3 Also, they are open to collaborate with like-minded civil and faith-based organizations in the protection of the Earth–our common home. The Spiritan response seeks to link local, regional, and global initiatives in a mutually reinforcing manner. The Spiritan intervention at the local level is shown later through the ministry of the Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative (hereafter, SPIRASI). Spiritan advocacy at the regional level is advanced through the Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network (hereafter, AEFJN) at the European Union. Intervention at the global level is through VIVAT international. To begin these discussions, it is helpful to provide an overview of Spiritan initiatives regarding Justice, Peace, Integrity of Creation (hereafter, JPIC) as a form of Spiritan advocacy. This overview addresses the Spiritan JPIC Office in Rome and how it seeks to advance

210

Chapter Nine

the protection of the environment through VIVAT International, AEFJN, and SPIRASI on the local level.4 VIVAT and AEFJN are networks of religious congregations united in advancing the common good through multi-congregational collaboration. This collaboration has provided the platform for advancing the Spiritan missionary purpose, while also bringing on board the recent teachings of Laudato Si’. Above all, it demonstrates the need to bring local issues to global and regional fora, and the necessity of making global and regional initiatives for the common good known at the local level. The discussion begins by exploring the formation of the Spiritan congregation and its advancement of Justice and Peace. Then VIVAT and AEFJN are explained as tools for advancing Spiritan environmental advocacy at the global and regional levels. Finally, local issues are linked to VIVAT and AEFJN to consider how this linkage can be beneficial to the advancement of Laudato Si’ and broader Spiritan missionary initiatives.

The Spiritan Congregation and Advocacy for Justice and Peace Claude Poullart Des Places and Mary Paul Libermann founded the Spiritans. Both were motivated by the needs of the poor when they established the congregation over three centuries ago. Although JPIC and the protection of the Earth were not framed as goals in its present language and form, their witness provided the lens for understanding their commitment to the poor and stewardship of creation in the 18th and 19th centuries in which they lived. This humble congregation began in Paris, France on Pentecost Sunday, 1703, and was dedicated to the Holy Spirit.5 Today, Spiritans number about 3,000 professed and lay members. They are present in the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America. Spiritans are active in over 62 countries, offering themselves in mission as “the advocates, the supporters and the defenders of the weak and the little ones against all who oppress them.”6 As such, the Spiritan mission is within the milieu of the poor. In some missions, such as the Amazonia in Brazil, Niger Delta in Nigeria, Iligan in the Philippines, the forests of Cameroon, Central Africa, and the Democratic Republic of Congo among many others, Spiritans experience first-hand the destructive effects of climate change on the poor.7 Being one with the poor, they advocate for their material and spiritual needs, standing always in solidarity with them.8 Advocacy in this sense is part of the Spiritan mission and implies making the voice of the poor heard and their needs known within the corridors of power.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 211

Such a mission demands continuous assessment and reassessment of the needs of the poor in the light of the signs of the times. Assessment of these needs happens during General Chapters of the congregation.9 Delegates at General Chapters reflect on the mission of the congregation, conscious of the raison d'être for the foundation of the congregation. Since the evangelization of the poor is the missionary purpose of the Spiritans, General Chapters have the mandate to evaluate contemporary missionary strategies, paying particular attention to the Spiritan missionary purpose. At the General Chapter of 1986 in Chevilly, France, for example, delegates decided to establish a Justice and Peace Office at the General House in Rome. The office was tasked with articulating Spiritan Justice and Peace. This office was envisaged to serve as a Spiritan response to the new orientations of the 2nd Vatican council: “the Church, sharing in mankind’s joys and hopes, in its anxieties and sadness, stands with every man and woman of every place and time, to bring them the good news of the Kingdom of God, which in Jesus Christ has come and continues to be present among them.”10 The Chapter at Chevilly and subsequent Chapters reminded professed and lay Spiritans that sharing in the joys, hopes, anxieties, and sadness of the poor, to whom we are dedicated, is a way of remaining faithful to the raison d'être of the congregation. The nascent Justice and Peace office (established in 1987) implored Spiritans in their various missions to employ social analysis, the method of “See, Judge, Act,” in order to delineate significant experiences of living and working with the poor.11 These experiences were later articulated and formed the nucleus of the discussions in the subsequent General Chapter that took place in Itaici, Brazil in 1992.12 The focus at this time was on Justice and Peace, seen from the perspective of working with the poor, oppressed, disadvantaged, abandoned, and excluded. It also focused on the rights of indigenous people, the need for education, primary health care, etc. Subsequent developments and experiences of confreres from areas that experience environmental problems, such as pollution and the negative effects of mineral exploitation, initiated a later focus on the Integrity of Creation. Written resources were developed by the JPIC office to assist those on mission to employ Spiritan JPIC methodology. Over the years, formation on Spiritan spirituality of JPIC was also included in Spiritan formation curricula,13 from initial to ongoing formation programs.14 Still, there was a gap. Spiritans on mission realized that while engaging local populations on JPIC initiatives, there was a need to engage policy makers at the local, regional, and global levels. They discovered that in some instances, governments were involved in environmentally unfriendly actions through

212

Chapter Nine

weak policies, for example unplanned dumping sites that are turning cities and human dwellings into “a pile of filth.”15 They also are involved in corrupt practices, such as granting permission to multi-national companies for mineral exploration without adequate consideration of local environmental impacts. The question was then how could governments be held accountable for their contribution to environmental problems? Such a question, while applicable to the global north, is essential in the global south where political repression occurs. Perhaps using the lens of human rights and having a presence at various inter-governmental fora might address this gap! In 1998 in Maynooth, Ireland, Spiritans decided to engage inter-governmental bodies at the global level. Delegates at the chapter in Maynooth saw this as a response to the call of the then Holy Father, St. Pope John Paul II, for an active Catholic participation in the “new Aeropagus.”16 These were the contemporary centres of power where policies about world peace are framed, debated, and formalized into international law. It seemed the time was ripe for complementing local JPIC efforts with a presence at global and regional inter-governmental bodies, such as the United Nations and the European Union. However, it was at the following chapter in 2004 in Torre D’Aguila, Portugal that a definite mandate was given to the General Administration of the congregation to realise this presence. Delegates recognized that local JPIC efforts needed to be linked to regional and international efforts to continue advancing the core Spiritan missionary purpose–evangelization of the poor. Consequently, Spiritans joined a non-governmental faithbased organization founded by the Society of Divine Word and the Sister Servants of the Holy Spirit (SSpS). Previously, together with the Society of African Missions and the Missionaries of Africa, Spiritans strengthened the office of Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in the United States of America for advocacy in the United States Congress.17 Later, having learned from the success of AFJN, they founded AEFJN to advance advocacy at the EU. Membership in these organizations became avenues for advancing specific issues of interest emanating from the Spiritan mission. The relevant issues included HIV/AIDS, migrants and refugees, peacebuilding in conflict areas, human trafficking, gender inequality, abuse of the rights of indigenous people, and stewardship of creation, among others.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 213

Spiritan Advocacy at the Global Level: VIVAT International VIVAT was founded in 2000, among other purposes, to glean grassroots’ experiences and insights from its members and bring these to the attention of others, particularly the United Nations.18 For Spiritans, membership in VIVAT provides the platform for amplifying the “cry of the poor and the Earth” on the urgency to protect the Earth–our common home. VIVAT is in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and provides the space for issues experienced on the ground in the missions to be heard at the United Nations.19 It has two offices strategically located at United Nations bases in New York and Geneva. While its office in New York follows the sessions of the United Nations and the commitments made by Heads of States and governments, the office in Geneva seeks to raise awareness about human rights.20 The Geneva office also seeks to protect human rights defenders, including Spiritans. It encourages members of VIVAT to educate people on the promotion and respect for human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It motivates VIVAT members to bring human rights violations to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council. For example, “access to safe drinking water is a basic and universal human right,”21 as noted by Pope Francis, and harmful human activities on the environment violate this right. As a multi-congregational platform for advocacy, VIVAT educates its members on these rights and raises awareness on their violation at the UN. Also, as a global platform VIVAT enhances JPIC initiatives of member congregations. It helps to forestall the despondency that arises from not observing measurable changes in JPIC programs on the ground. As a network of close to 15,000 members with JPIC promoters in the various provinces, districts, or groups (depending on each congregations’ structure of administration), VIVAT creates inter-congregational links in the form of a web. Its interconnected networks provide possibilities for sharing best practice, informing, educating, and training member congregations and local people on the ground, on issues of advocacy for human rights, thus linking advocacy for human rights to the JPIC ministry. However, there are some within the Spiritan family who are doubtful of advocacy at the global level. They argue that our presence at the United Nations may not enhance our missionary purpose–the evangelization of the poor. For them, United Nations processes are slow, complicated, and arduous. For example, reports needed for the Universal Periodic Review of member states requires skill and competence in the use of language and

214

Chapter Nine

writing style.22 Reports should be accurate with date, time, and place. Many local people among whom Spiritans live and work are not skilled in this way of writing reports, and Spiritans themselves already have so many other pastoral engagements to attend to on a daily basis. Therefore, it becomes a challenge to report human rights violations accurately. Also, given the weak monitoring system of the UN, human right defenders have little or no protection when they expose violations from within particular countries. Thus, they are exposed to life-threatening situations. Furthermore, the principle of non-intervention emphasizes that “no state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.”23 This makes it difficult for external intervention in the affairs of another country, leading to criticisms that have been voiced in the following ways. “Why has the United Nations or powerful states not brought an end to the ongoing conflicts in many parts of the world?” Another said: “What have they done to hold South Sudan accountable for the death of Sr. Veronika Terézia Rackováan, a Slovakian SSpS Missionary who died of gun shots wounds when their clinic in Yei, South Sudan, was attacked in May 2016?” Notwithstanding these criticisms, VIVAT has recorded some successes. For example, the Spiritan British province’s REVIVE project brought the British government to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva in 2015 with regard to the treatment of refugees and immigrants in the greater Manchester area.24 Also, in collaboration with Churches and Mining,25 an ecumenical coalition of about 70 Latin American organizations, VIVAT mobilized those affected by the negative effects of mining in Latin America to make their voices heard at the United Nations in New York. Furthermore, in collaboration with Franciscan International–a faith-based NGO belonging to the Franciscan worldwide community–VIVAT continues to bring to the attention of the United Nations the ongoing violation of human rights in West Papua.26 Advocacy at the global level may be slow, arduous, and require technical skill, but it is a tool for evangelization, making the cry of the poor and the Earth heard within the corridors of power.

Spiritan Advocacy at the Regional Level: Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network (AEFJN) is a network of 48 male and female religious congregations advocating for economic justice in the trade relations between Africa and Europe. As a sister organization

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 215

to Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN), which lobbies the US Congress in Washington D.C., AEFJN was established by Spiritans and other religious congregations. Their many years of missionary activities in Africa raised pertinent questions about European economic policies towards Africa. Coming from European countries themselves, and knowing that it is possible to institute changes in Africa through just economic policies, these missionaries created AEFJN as a platform and a tool for bringing the unheard voices from Africa to the EU. AEFJN engages the member states of the EU, pointing out the effects of unjust economic policies in Africa and lobbying for economic policies that will benefit the people of Africa and not just a select few. Drawing from the experience of her members on the ground in Africa, the network “listens to the voice of Africa and brings this voice to the EU, insisting on the right and responsibility of Africans to make their own policy for development.”27 The responsibility to make such economic decisions should rest with Africa, given that, “the richest coltan and diamond mines are in Africa, as are a significant deposit of uranium, copper, iron ore, bauxite (the ore used to make aluminum) and practically every other fruit of volcanic geology.”28 Despite the presence of these resources, Africa is wallowing in poverty as “hidden networks of multinationals, middlemen and African potentates… aligned to no nation and belonging instead to the transnational elites that have flourished in the era of globalization, profit from the destitution of Africa.”29 This negative situation continues to influence and shape missionary efforts in Africa. Therefore, it is in the interest of Spiritans and other missionary religious congregations to engage the European Union and lobby for just and transparent policies. At the very least to ensure that minerals extracted from the soil of Africa benefits the people of Africa. In this regard, Spiritan advocacy through AEFJN seeks to lobby the European Union for transparent legislation and accountability for European companies doing business in Africa. This is essential as AEFJN links extraction of raw materials and its negative impacts to the vision of an integral ecology advanced in Laudato Si’. AEFJN understands that the extraction of raw materials affects both the human and social dimensions of life and should not be separated in any discourse concerning the environment. Apart from the fact that the Earth from where these minerals are extracted is an essential part of the environment, its supply chain from production, refinement, transportation, and other issues should be transparent and environmentally friendly. More so, the totality of the processes of its supply chain impacts on the loss of biodiversity, pollution of water and the environment, and decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown

216

Chapter Nine

of society.30 As such, AEFJN advocates regionally at the EU as a potent tool for advancing Spiritan solidarity with the poor. However, while AEFJN lobbies the European Union, multinational corporations also do the same. They argue that although profit is in the nature of their business, they also contribute to the growth of local African economies through foreign direct investment.31 They claim that they provide employment to the teeming youths in many African countries, develop infrastructure, offer scholarships, and contribute to the overall growth of economies in Africa. Therefore, they lobby institutions, such as the European Union and its member countries, to facilitate options and processes of doing business in Africa. While it cannot be denied that in some instances, multinational corporations contribute towards the development of human resources and infrastructures in Africa, the fact remains that in many of their business ventures, the negative impact of their activities on the environment and local populations, especially the poor, is often neglected. Very little is done to ameliorate the effects of “the pollution produced by residue including dangerous waste present in different areas.”32 These wastes are often dumped in areas most often inhabited by the poor. While the poor breathe the air from these wastes, some of which are toxic, multinational corporations develop cities and urban centers where they provide infrastructures that attract hundreds of people, creating informal settlements that further foster poverty and undermine the environment. Some also question AEFJN’s continuous advocacy in Brussels while the European Union is experiencing some form of fragility, most evident in Brexit.33 Supporters of Brexit and other Eurosceptics argue that the concentration of power in Brussels weakens national governments and threatens democracy. They argue that officials in Brussels were appointed by political parties from their respective countries and were not elected through a democratic process! Also, they argue that concentrating too much power in Brussels undermines national sovereignties and makes it difficult to hold nationally elected officials accountable.34 Therefore, the question is, if more countries in Europe follow the example of Britain and exit the European Union, what will be the implications of such exits on the regional advocacy and lobbying function of AEFJN? The organizational structure of AFEJN provides an answer to this question. AEFJN has local antennae in some of the member countries of the European Union.35 Member congregations in each of the member states of the European Union belong to local antennae and follow national economic policies of their countries on Africa. In Britain, for example, AEFJN has a local antenna. Brexit notwithstanding, the local AEFJN antennae in Britain will

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 217

continue to advocate and lobby the British parliament on behalf of the people of Africa. Although exiting the European Union may seem a weakness in advocacy at the regional level, it has potential positive elements. It provides the opportunity for local antennae to be more engaged in the economic decision making processes of their countries, especially on economic issues that relate to Africa. Also, advocacy by local antennae advances transparency in the activities of multinational corporations incorporated in particular European countries. Local antennae campaign for multinational corporations to follow due processes in their overseas operations to preclude the use of bribery in obtaining contracts in Africa. Thus, AEFJN’s advocacy is relevant both on the regional level through the European Union and on national levels through local antennae. By engaging the European Union, AEFJN brings out the hidden implications of multinational business ventures in Africa. It campaigns for an integral approach to development, highlighting its impact on the human person. While its secretariat engages policy makers in Brussels, they also visit communities in Africa and train local people on how to engage national governments and multinational corporations. AEFJN is not antibusiness or anti-development. It campaigns for an alternative model of doing business: a model which takes into account socio-political and economic dimensions, which Laudato Si’ emphasized cannot be separated in any discourse concerning the human person. It challenges multinational corporations to use their business and technological advancement for the benefit of the human person and not the other way around. Spiritan JPIC is empowered by the advocacy of AEFJN as one of the tools for realizing the Spiritan missionary purpose.

Spiritan Advocacy at the Regional Level: Business Negotiations in Africa This section of the chapter explores in more detail Spiritan advocacy at the regional level to address systemic corruption in business practices in Africa. Although there are enough resources on the Earth to sufficiently care for everyone, millions of people still go to bed hungry, and thousands die daily from hunger or hunger-related causes.36 There are a myriad of causes of hunger, including lack of national investment in agriculture and many problems related to climate and weather, war and displacement, unstable markets, and food wastage.37 In this regard, the 2014-16 Food and Agricultural Organization report is very significant: the report was on The State of Food Insecurity in the World at the end of the Millennium Development Goals.38 It shows that while there is a general decrease in the

218

Chapter Nine

number of undernourished people from 821 million in 2010-12 to 795 million in 2014-2016, the distribution of the hunger-ridden regions leaves a lot to wonder about.39 Granted there are variations in the regional distributions, an overview of the Food and Agricultural Organization report clearly shows that while hunger decreased by an average of 5% from 1990-2016 in the developed world (mainly in the European Union and the USA), in Africa hunger increased by an average of 20% within the same period.40 A recent Global Financial Integrity report demonstrates that “developing countries have effectively served as net creditors to the rest of the world with tax havens playing a major role in the flight of unrecorded capital.”41 A corresponding reality is that while the gross domestic product of developing economies in Africa have continued to experience growth, the wellbeing or the real economic conditions of the people of Africa have continued to deteriorate. It is difficult to come to terms with situations like that of Nigeria that is said to be the biggest economy in Africa,42 but more than 60% of her citizens live below the poverty line.43 It is thus appropriate to consider some underlying problems. Systemic Corruption: The global economy is enmeshed in structures that are skewed in favor of the global north involving systemic corruption in financial and political institutions in the global south. The symposium for ecclesiastical provinces of Africa and Madagascar focused on systemic corruption as undermining development of Africa.44 Corruption is a very difficult concept to define with precision or measure, because it covers a wide spectrum of illegal and unethical acquisitions of wealth or benefits in many forms.45 Essentially, corruption emanates from an exploitative drive that places the interest of the individual (person or organization) as supreme.46 Corruption expresses itself in actions that tend to serve the logic of power and quest for material benefits.47 In Africa, systemic corruption often involves the complicity of top government officials and community leaders, who enable transnational corporations to bypass national laws and access natural resources. This form of corruption garners financial power and legal instruments to skew international economic policies, frameworks, and trade agreements through tax evasion, tax havens, transfer pricing, and manipulated invoicing. It thus becomes imperative to underline that the success of the sustainable development goals and any genuine effort to lift the global south out of poverty must seriously consider corporate financial integrity and social solidarity as indispensable prerequisites. Such a commitment to ethics will lead to behaviors and business decisions that ask questions not just about what is profitable and legal, but also about what is most helpful to the planet and the common good.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 219

Global Governance: Globalization has led to a global economy without clear global governance.48 Behind the so-called global economy, systemic corruption leads to a global shadow economy driven by special interests of transnational corporations.49 However, these corporations can engage interests other than those related to their shareholders when those other interests can advance their corporate objectives in the countries where they operate. Globalization has created an economy of exclusion and financial systems where particular economic and financial interests obstruct the common good.50 Here, political and economic choices are often not guided by ethical principles that put the common good at the center; instead those choices are governed by the logic of power and profit.51 Policymakers and business corporations are guided by a distorted view that sees nature as an infinite deposit of raw materials to be used for personal or corporate gain.52 The consequences of the shadow economy in international trade create unfair deals for agriculture and natural resource extraction. A recent OXFAM briefing paper shows that the richest 1% of the world have more wealth than the rest of the world put together.53 To counter-balance this, there needs to be better global governance with effective measures to require and enforce due diligence with ethical standards at all levels of these corporate investments.54 Such efforts in ethical due diligence has shaped recent economic partnership agreements.55 For example, the European Union has been exploring export-oriented economic partnerships with Africa as a prime destination to sell products, increase production capacity, and obtain raw materials and agricultural commodities, all of which can stimulate economic growth. Similarly, trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership56 and the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership57 can have a strong impact on international trade. However, caution must be taken to avoid developing countries not succeeding in these circumstances of transnational trade partnerships. Sustainable development goals require trade agreements to work in favor of environmental protection, renewable energy sources, respect for human rights standards, labor rights, decent wages for workers, and fair prices for raw materials and commodities. In other words, growth of gross domestic product must occur in a manner that positively impacts the quality of life and well-being of citizens in developing nations. These tensions are especially evident in developments regarding farmland and food. Farmland and Food: When the value of land is expected to rise, profit-seeking investors are attracted. They invest in farmland in developing nations by establishing large-scale industrial farms for the purpose of exporting the food and energy crops, such as for biofuels. The

220

Chapter Nine

influx of massive capital into the food system means that the agro-food sector can become dominated by a financial logic of increasing shareholders’ value with high financial returns. When that happens, it leads to the ever-greater concentration of resources and land in the hands of a few players in the market at the expense of family farmers, thereby eroding the basic function of the food system: to provide sustainable healthy food for all. However, this erosion can be avoided insofar as agro-business receives backing from international entities that can help to create a better outcome. These influences include the following: Doing Business,58 agriculture rankings of the World Bank,59 the public support given to agrofuel companies in Europe and the USA, and the promotion of public-private partnerships in agriculture through the G8’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. However, these arrangements impact land tenure systems, seeds, taxes, and trade laws. It is imperative that such arrangements occur not only to the advantage of large corporations–their control of land, water, seeds, and other natural resources can occur all too easily at the expense of small-scale family farmers regarding their food and environmental sovereignty. Efforts must increasingly be focused upon avoiding African farmlands being diverted from local food production towards the industrial production of agricultural commodities for export, biofuel foodstuffs, mining, and forestry. To assist in achieving sustainable development goals there is need for greater oversight by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development established the “Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.”60 Although this international standard is not legally binding, it seeks to ensure that companies source minerals responsibly and thus avoid conflicts and human rights abuses. The guiding principle is that companies are encouraged to provide due diligence regarding the supply of their raw materials. This involves several issues for companies trading in minerals or related metals. They must do the following: check their supply chains for risks related to mineral trade; identify and assess the risks; design and implement a strategy to remedy identified risks; carry out independent third-party audit of supply chain due diligence; and report annually on supply chain due diligence. Following the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance, the US enacted the Dodd Frank Act.61 This Act makes it mandatory for the US listed companies to perform supply chain due diligence in their dealings with DR Congo and nine neighboring countries. Also, they must determine

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 221

whether their mineral purchases have benefited armed groups. Subsequently, they must report to the US Security and Exchange Commission on the measures they have taken.62 Groups have campaigned for a similar binding instrument from the European Union towards the 3TG (Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten, and Gold). However, the European Union established only a partial voluntary oversight instrument. This means that only “upstream” companies (which import minerals in raw form like ore, gold, and metals) will be required as mandatory to check their supply chain for risks and report what they have done about it. These importers of raw materials represent only a small portion of the European companies trading in minerals. Most of the minerals entering the European Union market come in processed forms, such as in components, in semi-finished, and in finished products. The companies trading in these minerals are “downstream” companies that are not required to perform supply chain due diligence, but merely encouraged. This loophole needs to be resolved to prevent future ecological destruction and illicit capital flight, such as occurs in the region of the great lakes of Africa. The cries of the poor continue to rise from the global South. Spiritan Vision: Incorporating and advancing the tenets of Laudato Si’ in the Spiritan mission can assist Spiritans and other missionaries in restoring the dignity of the poor who are adversely affected by the negative effects of extractive minerals on the environment. A large proportion of the religious consciousness of Europe and America has been formed by the platonic or classical world view of science characterized by utilitarianism. In contrast, the Spiritan vision has a worldview of the universe as an interconnected single living organism that can try to influence and shape policies for business in Africa. The insight of Einstein can be helpful here: we need to break out of old assumptions and a static worldview of the universe.63 The Spiritan vision recognizes a one-world family where everyone finds a place befitting the innate dignity of the human person; a world where everyone feels responsible for the life of the planet; and a world that pulsates with the integrity and beauty with which God endowed creation (Genesis, 1:31). In the words of Pope John Paul II, there is enough for everyone’s need, but there is definitely not enough for everyone’s greed.

Advocacy at the Local Level: The Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative This next section of the chapter considers Spiritan initiatives at the local level by discussing the ministry of Spiritan Asylum Services

222

Chapter Nine

Initiative (SPIRASI). This missionary response to the cry of the poor today is based on the link between the cry of the poor and the cry of the Earth in Catholic Social Teaching. This link is important in understanding mission commitment today, not least in the Catholic context. Spiritan JPIC initiatives are mostly on the grassroots. Grassroots are the local contexts that provide impetus for Spiritan JPIC initiatives. Local contexts vary. There are no uniform Spiritan JPIC initiatives that cover the 62 countries where Spiritans are present. Each context is peculiar and has its own dynamics that determine a particular Spiritan response. For example, while Spiritan JPIC in Amazonia Brazil involves environmental issues, in Stuttgart, Germany it focuses on anti-human trafficking, and in Dublin, Ireland it focuses on Spiritan Asylum services initiative (SPIRASI). Each Spiritan advocacy at the local level employs social analysis, using the pastoral cycle of “See, Judge, Act.” Social analysis provides the tool for a holistic examination of a local situation, interrogating individual historical and structural components, while aiming to link them together to form a complete whole.64 Although as a process social analysis appreciates isolated issues, such as dumping of wastes, water pollution, assistance to asylum seekers, etc., it also analyses the structural causes of these issues in order to better develop a comprehensive approach in dealing with them. The subsequent discussion of SPIRASI in Ireland presents a local response to a global issue. However, at the local level Spiritans listen to the “cry of the poor” and in collaboration with them seek for just solutions. Spiritan advocacy at the local level also takes into account the presence and initiatives of other religious congregations. Although the Spiritan approach is founded on its core missionary purpose, it recognizes the efforts of other religious missionary congregations on the field and collaborates with them in seeking to realize the common good. Such a collaboration on the local level enhances Spiritan advocacy and provides inter-congregational JPIC support. It also makes it possible to know the specific issues each congregation is focusing on in order to avoid duplication. The Cry of the Earth and the Cry of the Poor in Catholic Social Teaching: An example of a contemporary cry of the poor is the displacement of people worldwide. The discussion examines how a Spiritan project in Dublin, Ireland attends and responds to one of the more vulnerable groups in our world: asylum-seeking survivors of torture. The strong theme in Laudato Si’ of relating to the poor is essential to the more general theme of protecting our common home. The phrase “the poor and the Earth are crying out” is used in the final prayer of the encyclical and shows the close link between the plight of the poor and

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 223

ecological degradation; elsewhere the poor are referred to as “the crucified poor.”65 If there be any doubt about the link in Pope Francis’ mind between the suffering of the poor and our fragile planet, it is only necessary to recall that the poor are mentioned almost sixty times in the encyclical and poverty a further twelve times. In fact, the encyclical speaks of the “intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet,”66 and in its methodological analysis the structural links between ecological degradation and the plight of the poor are examined in detail. The connection between the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor is a theme in Catholic Social Teaching that gradually has been emerging in official Church documents during the decades before the publication of Laudato Si’. To see more clearly how the recent thought process on the environment and its link to the poor has progressed in Catholic Social Teaching, one of the themes that shows this process more clearly is the topic of development and its appropriate models. While the encyclical Populorum Progressio (published in 1967) focused in a very intentional way on development, later Church documents began to draw a link among the environment, development, and the poor.67 Some of these documents deal with the question in considerable detail, others very much in passing. While not dealing exhaustively with this topic, a selection of some of the passages from Church documents of recent decades will demonstrate the growth and direction of thinking in this area, which culminates in a more developed form in Laudato Si’. In 1971, the documents from the World Synod of Catholic Bishops noted that “resources, as well as the precious treasures of air and waterwithout which there cannot be life-and the small delicate biosphere of the whole complex of all life on Earth, are not infinite, but on the contrary must be saved and preserved as a unique patrimony belonging to all human beings.”68 While the first encyclical of Pope John Paul published in 1979, Redemptor Hominis, deals with a wide range of topics, including human rights and dignity, the link among the environment, development, and the poor is raised on a number of occasions. This passage is typical: “By submitting man to tensions created by himself, dilapidating at an accelerated pace material and energy resources, and compromising the geophysical environment, these structures unceasingly make the areas of misery spread, accompanied by anguish, frustration and bitterness.”69 Moving into the 1980s during the papacy of John Paul II, the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis continues to make the link between the environment, development, and vulnerable populations. Speaking about development, the encyclical observed that “natural resources are limited;

224

Chapter Nine

some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation but above all for generations to come… the direct or indirect result of industrialization is, ever more frequently, the pollution of the environment, with serious consequences for the health of the population.”70 The letter issued by Pope John Paul II for the World Day of Peace in 1990 made this link more explicit: “It is manifestly unjust that a privileged few should continue to accumulate excess goods, squandering available resources, while masses of people are living in conditions of misery at the very lowest level of subsistence. Today, the dramatic threat of ecological breakdown is teaching us the extent to which greed and selfishness-both individual and collective-are contrary to the order of creation, an order which is characterized by mutual interdependence.”71 Paragraph 11 of the same document goes on to assert that “it must also be said that the proper ecological balance will not be found without directly addressing the structural forms of poverty that exist throughout the world.”72 The World Day of Peace message in 2007 published by Pope Benedict XVI looks, amongst other ideas, at the consequences of ecological abuse: “The destruction of the environment, its improper or selfish use, and the violent hoarding of the Earth's resources cause grievances, conflicts and wars, precisely because they are the consequences of an inhumane concept of development.”73 In 2004, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace published the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It has a large section on the environment and again treats the link among ecology, development, and the poor. For example, it points out that “the present environmental crisis affects those who are poorest in a particular way… All development worthy of the name must be integral, that is, it must be directed to the good of every person and of the whole person.”74 Caritas in Veritate, published in 2009, devotes Chapter 4 in its entirety to the environment and development. Principles are presented, and again the link among the environment, development, and the poor is referred to: “Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole.”75 Rising Number of Displaced Peoples: With the above as a background, it is easy to understand why a contemporary approach to mission in Catholic circles gives special attention to what Laudato Si’ calls “the cry of the poor.” This section considers an experience of the Spiritan mission

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 225

in Ireland that attends to refugees and asylum seekers who are survivors of torture and indeed find themselves amongst the poorest and most abandoned of the poor–the Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative (SPIRASI) founded in Dublin in 1999. The words of the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and currently the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Antonio Guterres, in a talk given in Geneva on December 16, 2015, clearly show the connection between our theme and the case study: “In the last few years, we have seen a staggering escalation of displacement caused both by conflict and by natural hazards. The number of people forced to flee daily as a result of conflict and persecution nearly quadrupled between 2010 and 2014… The resulting steep rise in humanitarian needs far exceeds the capacity of the international humanitarian community to provide the minimum core protection and life-saving assistance to all those affected… Violent conflicts, just like human rights violations and persecution, do not erupt in a vacuum. They are the final result of a complex interaction of problems ranging from inequality and marginalization, lack of good governance and rule of law, competition over shrinking resources in a context of population growth and chaotic urbanization often exacerbated by environmental degradation and the effects of climate change.”76 Laudato Si’ also examines, especially in Chapter 1, the list of social, economic, and political factors that provoke different levels of injustice, tensions, and conflict. One passage points to “a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognised by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever.”77 Attending to Torture Survivors: According to UN figures, 65.3 million people were either refugees, asylum seekers, or internally displaced people in 2015. In fact, on average 24 people worldwide were displaced from their homes during every minute of every day during 2015.78 An understanding of the different categories is important here. A refugee, according to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, is “any person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”79 Asylum seekers are those who are seeking to be recognised as refugees. When they are granted this recognition they are given refugee status. Internally Displaced People have

226

Chapter Nine

been dislocated within their own country and are seeking safety there. According to the UN, Internally Displaced People are defined as “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”80 Considering the size of the Republic of Ireland’s population (4.75 million according to the 2016 census) and its island position, one would not expect very large numbers of refugees to be a feature of the country. Yet between 2002 and 2014, just over fifty thousand (50,056) officially applied for refugee status in the country.81 Current studies show that it is far from easy to calculate with any precision what percentage of refugees have been tortured and that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a feature in the lives of many forced to flee, with women twice as likely as men to develop PTSD.82 PTSD is ten times more common amongst refugees than in the general population.83 Studies also show that conservative estimates for percentages of refugees who have experienced torture before arriving in the European Union can be in the range of 10% to 35%.84 With this as a basis, it is permissible to estimate that potentially between five thousand and seventeen thousand of those who applied for refugee status in Ireland since 2002 were torture survivors. It is necessary to point out here that despite being signatories of international agreements accepting to provide treatment for survivors of torture, the Irish government to date has not provided any center that can offer such treatment. Besides, no such center currently exists in Northern Ireland–with its population of 1.86 million inhabitants–and SPIRASI also receives many torture survivors from there.85 Since the early 2000s, SPIRASI, a Church sponsored organization, has been and continues to be the only such center offering such treatment on the entire island of Ireland. Since beginning its work with torture survivors in the early 2000s, SPIRASI has assisted over four thousand torture survivors, including 650 during 2015 alone, from all across the island of Ireland (Irish Republic and Northern Ireland). The Reality of Torture: Torture can reasonably easily be defined. According to Article (1) of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), torture is defined as follows: “…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 227

him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons.”86 However, a video prepared by SPIRASI for the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture in 2015 puts flesh on this cold legal definition and is worth watching. The short video, which makes uneasy viewing, presents the words of torture survivors frequenting SPIRASI and is spoken by well-known Irish personalities in order to provide anonymity for the torture survivors.87 Between 2001 and 2012, 2,590 torture survivors were given professional counselling services by SPIRASI. Statistics quoted for this group in a recent study are interesting. 71% were male, while the mean age of those who presented was 31.9 years. Participants were citizens of one hundred different countries and spoke 112 different languages; an interpreter was needed by 58% of the clients. The top five countries of origin in descending order were Somalia (224 persons), Republic of Congo (202), Nigeria (174), Sudan (173), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (202). 88% of referrals were asylum seekers; 9% were refugees; and the remainder were clients with other residency arrangements in Ireland or in the European Union. During the period studied (2001–2012), the proportion of clients based on their nationality varied from 75% of new referrals at the beginning of the period studied coming from Africa and decreased to just over 50% of all new referrals coming from Africa in the interim. Towards the end of the period studied, the number of referrals presenting from the Middle East and Europe for example rose to 20% in 2011 and 2012.88 At the time of writing (late 2016), information supplied by SPIRASI indicated that clients were coming from an extensive range of countries. However, numerically the top five source countries of origin of clients attending SPIRASI since 2013 include Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan. Torture can be afflicted by many different categories in society. In SPIRASI’s experience, they can be as varied as follows: State agents (police, army, prison authorities, state security, etc.) have inflicted torture on approximately 50% of the clients presenting themselves. Non-state agents, such as criminal gangs, militants, rebel groups, and religious groups, are responsible for inflicting torture on approximately 26% of SPIRASI’s clients. The third large category responsible for torturing approximately 24% of the clients who come to SPIRASI could be broadly identified as community groups, such as family members, tribal leaders, or village elders, as well as a diverse selection of local people.89 Therapy: Addressing the Effects of Torture: Besides counselling, therapy offered to survivors of torture in SPIRASI is a first step to offer a

228

Chapter Nine

safe place and a trusting environment. The therapeutic process with a torture survivor takes time, since it essentially aims to offset the damage the torturer planned to inflict–namely to break the person tortured. Three kinds of therapy are available–individual, group, and family therapy. Acupuncture is offered to clients who do not want to speak of their experiences, but who would like to work on their trauma or pain in an alternative way. In 2013, 2,184 clients availed of one or another of these therapies, rising in number to 2,328 in 2014 and 2,635 in 2015. Medical legal reports are also provided for those who need them in the process of refugee status requirement or in a protection process. SPIRASI also offers an outreach support in reception and accommodation centers, as well as English language classes to Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) level 5,90 information technology literacy, numeracy, and various other classes. Torture is not only a significant life event. It usually leads to substantially negative changes in life plans and directions for each individual affected and may have adverse consequences for descendants of the torture survivor. Providing rehabilitation services involves restoring, in as far as possible and over a considerable amount of time, the independence of the individual, which includes their full inclusion and participation in society, as well as their physical, mental, vocational, and social abilities. This task is carried out in very difficult circumstances. Ireland ranks very low on a world scale of successful asylum applications–just 3% of cases being recognised in 2015.91 Over 84% of asylum seekers are currently waiting for five years to have their cases resolved; 49% have been waiting over 8 years, and 21% have been waiting over 10 years. The difficulties and uncertainties involved in such waiting make life significantly more difficult for torture survivors and are an appreciably negative factor in their recovery from the effects of torture. Besides, 2015 saw an increase of 126% in refugee status applications with some 3,276 applications received; during 2014, 1,448 such applications were presented.92 Other difficulties and issues include the gender balance with females being underrepresented in referrals to SPIRASI. Over the entire 20012012 period, for every female survivor of torture who sought the help of SPIRASI, 2.6 males presented themselves. Regionally, a variation was detected with females accounting for 33% of attendance for individuals of African origin, 35% for those of European origin, and 13% and 11% for those of Middle Eastern and Asian origin, respectively. From some countries, males represented a noticeably high percentage of those presenting, for example Algeria (100%), Afghanistan (99%), Guinea (93%), Islamic Republic of Iran (79%), Iraq (84%), and Sudan (85%).

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 229

With the exception of 2009, during the period of the study when the male/female ratios of the total asylum-seeking population is examined, it becomes clear that proportionately females have been underrepresented. This may have come about for a myriad of reasons, not least those of a cultural nature.93 A Social and Ecological Approach Needed: Protecting our common home demands a broad approach, according to Laudato Si’. Specific passages point out that “a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor.”94 With over 65 million people displaced in our world, the likely consequences both for the environment and for the poor and marginalized are discouraging. SPIRASI’s experience with torture survivors on one level could be described as a drop in the ocean. On another level, however, it calls our attention to the seriousness of the situation, to the immensity of human suffering, and to the “conversion” Laudato Si’ calls for on no less than twelve occasions to ensure that our Earth does indeed become our protected and valued common home.

Spiritan Advocacy: Linking Local, Regional, and Global Initiatives Spiritan JPIC aims to link local, regional, and global issues in a web of mutually reinforcing actions. These issues are foundational in developing specific advocacy strategies. Such a bottom-up approach has the advantage of bringing issues from the ground to the “New Areopagus,” regional and global centers of power, such as the United Nations and the European Union. Spiritan membership of VIVAT and AEFJN becomes useful in this regard, as these networks facilitate placing grassroots issues on the agenda of intergovernmental organizations. In other words, it is a good attempt at ensuring that local issues are part of the global agenda. Further, it is a way of ensuring that mission countries are not handed out templates unsuitable for their local conditions. It also recognizes local agency in determining issues that affect them. Another advantage of this approach is that global issues agreed on by member states of the United Nations, such as agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development goals, are made known to the grassroots. Oftentimes, international protocols and conventions acceded to by national governments are not known by the people they claim to represent. One way of making these conventions known is through information. The more local people are informed about these conventions, the better placed they will be to question their national

230

Chapter Nine

governments. While these governments are signatories to such global conventions, they are slow in implementing them. Laudato Si’ is a resource and an advocacy strategy for linking local issues to the global agenda. It is a call for a radical appreciation of what is happening to the Earth, our common home, and is an affirmation of local Spiritan JPIC initiatives. It also presents a challenge to Spiritan JPIC, as its teachings should be understood by all. Pope Francis addressed Laudato Si’ to “every person living on this planet.”95 Therefore, it should be understood by the local fisherperson, the hawker on the street, workers in the manufacturing and mining sectors, and professionals, as well as national policy makers. The task of making it known and understood locally involves ongoing animation. It is a process that could elicit a change of attitude in our relationship with the environment. As such, parishes, missions, schools, and places where Spiritans are present are avenues for learning and implementing the values contained in the encyclical. The global call of the Holy Father in Laudato Si’ is an invitation for us to “think global (while) acting local.”96 It also provides an opportunity for Spiritans on the ground to make known the teachings of Laudato Si’ to Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). As Pope Francis noted in Laudato Si’, there are other people and organizations who advocate and work “to resolve the tragic effects of environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s poor.”97 Some of these are CSOs, and collaboration with them is essential in furthering the teachings of Laudato Si’. Oftentimes, local CSOs are involved in lobbying national governments on a diversity of environmental issues.98 Partnership with them, while bringing out the ethical dimensions elaborated in Laudato Si’, provides moral ground for their campaigns. The encyclical also provides an avenue for Spiritan collaboration with diocesan JPIC structures in raising awareness about the impact of government policies on the environment. A collaboration on specific issues, among all these stakeholders, will not only deepen the teachings of Laudato Si’, but will also ensure that more awareness is created about these issues on the local level. Sharing insights from Laudato Si’ and making them known among these various stakeholders is an ongoing challenge for Spiritan JPIC, but it will also enrich Spiritan JPIC initiatives. Laudato Si’ also creates the space for engaging multinational corporations operating in local communities. Whereas these corporations are involved in businesses in local communities in the developing world, their global corporate headquarters are located in Europe and North America. Engaging these corporations does not entail confrontation, but seeking together with them alternative models of doing business that will

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 231

embrace the teachings of Laudato Si’. It will provide them with a new lens for viewing the impact of their business interests on poor local communities. Hopefully, it will move them to enact environmentally friendly policies that will consider business impacts on the environment. In this way, multinational corporations are helped to carry out in the global south the same business ethics that inform their operations in the global north. When they understand the negative impact of their businesses on local communities and work towards better and more environmentally friendly policies within countries of their operations, their operations will help to advance the human person. Our presences at the United Nations through VIVAT International and at the European Union through AEFJN are positive ways of helping Spiritans bring local issues to the attention of global policy makers. This bottom-up approach is essential. It brings the voices of the grassroots to the centers of power and helps the political elite, who formulate policies, to understand the impact of these policies on local populations. Grassroots experiences are vital and should help to inform policies. Should the grassroots experience not inform policies, especially economic policies that affect the poor who are the majority in our world, governments will be out of touch with their people. It will also lead to the development of secondary grievances that trigger conflicts. The Spiritan missionary presence reduces these secondary grievances locally and links these issues to regional and global centers of power. With its vast network in 62 countries in the world, Spiritans welcome Laudato Si’, and we hope to use it as a tool of evangelization to reach those on the margins of society. Moreover, Laudato Si’ provides a template for engaging policy makers, making them hear “the cry of the poor and the cry of the Earth.”

Notes 1

Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Rule of Life (Rome, Italy: Scuola Tipografica, 2013), 19. 2 Spiritan missionaries experience the daily effects of oil exploration in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria. In a discussion with one of the confreres working in this area, Fr. Boniface Ugwo, he stated that you simply cannot believe how oil exploration has destroyed the livelihoods of people. Apparently, pollution and river contamination makes it difficult for people to grow their food and to fish in the rivers and creeks of the Niger Delta. 3 Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Rule of Life, 12. 4 VIVAT International is a network of about 12 religious congregations. Founded by the Society of Divine Word and Sister Servants of the Holy Spirit with Spiritans as full members, VIVAT is registered with the Economic and Social Council

232

Chapter Nine

(ECOSOC) of the United Nations (UN) and has offices in New York and Geneva. Retrieved from http://vivatinternational.org/about/membership. AEFJN is a network of about 48 religious congregations. Its secretariat is based in Brussels, and it seeks to advance fair and just business practices between Europe and Africa. Retrieved from http://aefjn.org/en/members/. 5 Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Ministry (Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications, 2004), 10. 6 Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Rule of Life, 14. 7 Climate change is seen here as “a global problem.” Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (Vaticana: Libreria Editrice, 2015), §25. 8 Solidarity is defined as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good.” Pope John Paul II, Solicitudo Rei Socialis (Vaticana: Libreria Editrice, 1988), 38. 9 A Chapter is an important meeting of a congregation that, “works out its goals and objectives.” Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Rule of Life, 175. 10 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (London: Burns & Oates, 2004), 30. 11 Joe Holland and Peter Henriot, Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice (Washington DC: Orbis books, 1983), 10. 12 Significant Experiences refer to the various reports from different missions that were distilled pertinent issues on Justice and Peace, such as working with Indigenous people, ethnic and religious minorities, disadvantaged youth, pygmies, etc. Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Itaici (Rome, Italy: Scuola Tipografica,1992), 27-68. 13 Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Spiritan Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Ministry, 24-38. 14 Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Guide for Spiritan Formation Annexes (Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications, 2013), 9-19. Also, The JPIC office in Rome publishes a newsletter three times a year on different aspects of Spiritan JPIC programs in the congregation. As time progressed, a booklet on Spiritan JPIC was developed containing Spiritan JPIC methodology. 15 Pope Francis stated that “the Earth our common home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth… [which is] closely linked to a throw away culture.” Pope Francis, LS, §21-22. 16 John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (Vaticana: Libreria Editrice, 1990), 37. 17 AFJN was founded by missionaries from the named congregations in 1983. Retrieved from http://afjn.org/about-afjn/historymission/. 18 VIVAT International, “Membership,” accessed April 8, 2017, http://vivatinternational.org/about/membership. 19 VIVAT International, “Membership,” accessed April 8, 2017, http://vivatinternational.org/about/membership. 20 Some scholars have suggested that knowledge and defense of human rights is a useful way of ensuring respect for human dignity, such as David Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations, 2nd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 25. The Spiritan presence in Geneva through VIVAT is one way of protecting the human rights of the poor and marginalized.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 233 21

Pope Francis, LS, §29. Universal Peer Review is a human rights monitoring system agreed and adopted by the member states of the UN. United Nations General Assembly, “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty,” December 21, 1965, http://www.un-documents.net/a20r2131.htm. 23 United Nations General Assembly, “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty,” December 21, 1965, http://www.un-documents.net/a20r2131.htm. 24 REVIVE is a Spiritan project in the UK that supports refugees and asylum seekers in the greater Manchester area. The Spiritans. “Revive: 2015 Annual Report.” Accessed April 8, 2017. http://www.revive-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Annual-report-2015.pdf. 25 CIDSE, “Churches and Mining in Latin America,” July 17, 2015, http://www.cidse.org/articles/business-and-human-rights/extractive-industries-inlatin-america/churches-and-mining-in-latin-america.html. 26 Franciscan International, “Human Rights Defenders Gather for Panel Discussion on West Papua,” Accessed on April 8, 2017, http://franciscansinternational.org/Aktuelles.111.0.html?&L=2&tx_ttnews%5Btt_n ews%5D=358&cHash=c6333bbc038199615599c8a68daf6398. 27 AEFJN. “Home.” Accessed April 8, 2017. http://aefjn.org/en/home/. 28 Tom Burgis, The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systemic theft of Africa’s Wealth (London: William Collins, 2015), 5. 29 Burgis, The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systemic theft of Africa’s Wealth, 8. 30 Pope Francis, LS, §26-40. 31 Foreign direct investment refers to “an investment made to acquire lasting or long-term interest in enterprises operating outside of the economy of the investor.” ThoughtCo., “Definition of FDI/Foreign Direct Investment,” last modified December 16, 2014, https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-foreign-directinvestment-1146093. 32 Pope Francis, LS, §21. 33 Brexit refers to the vote of the people of Britain to exit the European Union . Alice Foster, “What is Brexit and What is Going to Happen Now That Britain has Voted to LEAVE the EU,” The Sunday Express, last modified March 30, 2017, http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645667/Brexit-EU-European-UnionReferendum-David-Cameron-Economic-Impact-UK-EU-exit-leave. 34 Future of Working, “11 Advantages and Disadvantages of the European Union,” May 29, 2015, https://futureofworking.com/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-ofthe-european-union. 35 Antennae are the national branches of AEFJN. 36 Poverty, “Hunger and World Poverty,” accessed on April 8, 2017, http://www.poverty.com. 37 World Food Programme, “Zero Hunger,” accessed April 8, 2017, https://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes. 22

234 38

Chapter Nine

FAO, IFAD, and WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (Rome, Italy: 2015), 1-20, http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf. 39 FAO, IFAD, and WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (Rome, Italy: 2015), 1-20, http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf. 40 FAO, IFAD, and WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (Rome, Italy: 2015), 1-20, http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf. 41 Global Financial Integrity, “New Report on Unrecorded Capital Flight Finds Developing Countries are Net-Creditors to the Rest of the World,” December 5, 2016, http://www.gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-on-unrecorded-capitalflight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditors-to-the-rest-of-the-world. 42 Vanguard, “Nigeria Remains Africa’s Biggest Economy – IMF,” October 19, 2016, http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/10/nigeria-remains-africas-biggest-economyimf. 43 FAO, IFAD, and WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (Rome, Italy: 2015), 1-20, http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf. 44 SECAM, “Governance, Common Good, and Democratic Transitions in Africa,” February 15, 2013, no. 29, 5-7. 45 C.C. Ojukwu and J. O. Shopeju, "Elite Corruption and the Culture of Primitive Accumulation in 21st Century Nigeria," International Journal of Peace and Development Studies 1, no. 2 (2010): 16. 46 Tolle Eckhart, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose (New York: Dutton, 2005), 8-16. 47 Eckhart, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, 8-16. 48 Joseph E. Stiglitz and Mark Pieth, “Overcoming the Shadow Economy,” International Policy Analysis (2016):1-6. 49 Stiglitz and Pieth, “Overcoming the Shadow Economy,” 1-6. 50 Pope Francis, LS, §54. 51 Pope Francis, LS, §119, §136, and §162. 52 Pope Francis, LS, §106, §115, and §116. 53 OXFAM, “An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can be Stopped,” OXFAM Briefing Paper, January 18, 2016, https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf. 54 Olivier de Schutter, “Tainted Lands: Corruption in Large Scale Land Deal,” Global Witness Report, 2016.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 235 55

Economic Partnership Agreements are a scheme to create a free trade area (FTA) between the European Union and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP). 56 The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries. The finalized proposal was signed on February 4, 2016, in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations. 57 The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States, with the aim of promoting trade and multilateral economic growth. The American government considers the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 58 Doing Business ranking of the World Bank measures the ease of regulatory environment for the corporations to start and operate in a country. 59 Enabling the business of agriculture ranking of World Bank examines and monitors regulations that impact how markets function in the agriculture and agribusiness sectors. 60 The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (French: Organization de coopération et de développement économiques, OCDE) is an intergovernmental economic organization with 35 member countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. It is a forum of countries describing themselves as committed to democracy and the market economy, providing a platform to compare policy experiences, seeking answers to common problems, identify good practices, and coordinate domestic and international policies of its members. 61 The Dodd Frank Act is a binding legal instrument of the US government with a geographical focus on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 9 neighbouring countries making it mandatory for the US-listed companies to perform supply chain due diligence. 62 United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “About the SEC,” accessed on April 8, 2017, https://www.sec.gov/. 63 Albert Einstein, “On Solving Problems by Albert Einstein,” accessed April 8, 2017, http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X00063A06/. 64 Holland and Henriot, Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice, 14. 65 Pope Francis, LS, §241. 66 Pope Francis, LS, §16. 67 For example, see Justice in the World (1971); Redemptor Hominis (1979); Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987); the 1990 and 2007 World Day of Peace Messages, as well as the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) and Caritas in Veritate (2009). 68 World Synod of Catholic Bishops, “Justice in the World,” August 19, 2012, §8, https://justmecatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/justice-in-the-world/. 69 Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, §16. 70 Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei Socialis, §34. 71 Pope John Paul II, “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation,” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, January 1, 1990, §8,

236

Chapter Nine

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. 72 Pope John Paul II, “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation,” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, January 1, 1990, §11, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. 73 Pope Benedict XVI, “The Human Person, The Heart of Peace,” Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, January 1, 2007, §8, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_benxvi_mes_20061208_xl-world-day-peace.html. 74 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church, 271. 75 Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, §48, accessed January 8, 2017, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_benxvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html. 76 Antonio Guterres, “High Commissioner’ Dialogue on Protection Challenges: Understanding and Addressing Root Causes of Displacement - Opening Remarks,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, December 16, 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/admin/hcspeeches/567139aa9/high-commissioner-dialogueprotection-challenges-understanding-addressing.html. 77 Pope Francis, LS, §25. 78 For figures at the end of 2015 see United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Forced Displacement in 2015,” Global Trends, accessed April 8, 2017, http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends2015.html. 79 The text of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is available here: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,” July 28, 1951, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx. 80 See United Nations, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, accessed December 08, 2016, http://www.unhcr.org/43ce1cff2.html page 1. 81 Kathy Walsh, Torture Survivors in Ireland: Needs Assessment for Overcoming Barriers to Rehabilitation, SPIRASI, Dublin, 2016: 7. 82 Walsh, Torture Survivors in Ireland: Needs Assessment for Overcoming Barriers to Rehabilitation, 10 and 18; R. M. Duffy, S. O’Sullivan, G. Straton, B. Singleton, B. D. Kelly, “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001 – 2012),” Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (2016): 2. International studies indicate that between 30% and 84% of asylum seekers are torture survivors. 83 Duffy et al., “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001 – 2012),” 2. 84 Walsh, Torture Survivors in Ireland: Needs Assessment for Overcoming Barriers to Rehabilitation, 4-6.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 237 85

According to Northern Ireland’s Law Centre, while there were approximately 600 asylum seekers living in asylum support accommodation in August 2015, there were almost 200 applications for asylum in Northern Ireland in the year ending August 2015. Law Centre, “How Many Asylum Seekers and Refugees are there in Northern Ireland,” accessed November 28, 2016, http://www.lawcentreni.org/Publications/Policy-Briefings/How-many-refugees-inNI-Oct-2015.pdf. 86 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” December 10, 1984, part 1, article 1, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx. 87 The video can be found at: YouTube, “#SPIRASI, #26June,” accessed April 8, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3qRIXJWbfw. 88 Duffy et al., “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001 – 2012),” 3. 89 I am grateful to Mr. Robert King of SPIRASI for supplying relevant unpublished information from the organization. 90 In Ireland, QQI validates, monitors, and ensures the quality and standards of teaching programs. Level 5 is approximately the level required on completing high school/secondary school. 91 See: The Journal, “Asylum and Refugees: How Ireland Compares to the Rest of the World,” September 5, 2015, http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-asylum-refugeestatus-compared-to-rest-of-world-2310580-Sep2015/. 92 Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, Annual Report 2015, 60, accessed November 28, 2016, http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-AB7FHF12301623en/$File/Office%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Applications%20Commissioner%2 0-%202015%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 93 Duffy et al., “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001 – 2012),” 3-5. 94 Pope Francis, LS, §49. 95 Pope Francis, LS, §3. 96 Think global and act local is a strategy often employed by business people, but it could also be used when dealing with the issue of the environment. Citizens for Global Solutions, “Think Global, Act Local,” November 20, 2015, http://globalsolutions.org/blog/2015/11/Think-global-act-local#.WE_anPkrKUk. 97 Pope Francis, LS, §14. 98 Health of the Mother Earth Foundation in Nigeria continues to raise awareness about environmental issues, especially the impact of oil exploration on the people and environment in Niger Delta. HOMEF, “Niger Delta Oil Spills; The Real Cost of Crude-Video,” October 6, 2013, http://www.homef.org/content/niger-delta-oilspills-real-cost-crude-video.

238

Chapter Nine

Literature AEFJN. 2017. “AEFJN Members.” See, http://aefjn.org/en/members. AEFJN. 2017. “Home.” See, http://aefjn.org/en/home. AEFJN. 2017. “History/Mission.” See, http://afjn.org/about-afjn/historymission. Burgis, Tom. 2015. The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systemic theft of Africa’s Wealth. London: William Collins. CIDSE. 2015. “Churches and Mining in Latin America.” See,http://www.cidse.org/articles/business-and-humanrights/extractive-industries-in-latin-america/churches-and-mining-inlatin-america.html. Citizens for Global Solutions. 2015. “Think Global, Act Local.” See,http://globalsolutions.org/blog/2015/11/Think-global-actlocal#.WE_anPkrKUk. Congregation of the Holy Spirit. 2013. Guide for Spiritan Formation. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publicaitons. —. 2013. Spiritan Rule of Life. Rome, Italy: Scuola Tipographifca. —. 2007. Spiritan Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Ministry. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 2004. Torre d’Aguilha. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 1998. Maynooth. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 1992. Itaici. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. de Schutter, Olivier. 2016. “Tainted Lands: Corruption in Large Scale Land Deal.” Global Witness Report. Duffy, R.M., et al. 2016. “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001–2012).” Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1-6. Eckhart, Tolle. 2005. A New Earth: Awakening to your Life’s Purpose. New York: Dutton. Einstein, Albert. 2017. “On Solving Problems by Albert Einstein.” See, http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X00063A06. FAO, IFAD, and WFP. 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. Rome, Italy: 2015, 1-20. See, http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a /i4646e.pdf.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 239

Forsythe, David. 2006. Human Rights in International Relations. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Foster, Alice. 2017. “What is Brexit and What is Going to Happen Now That Britain has Voted to LEAVE the EU.” The Sunday Express. See, http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645667/Brexit-EU-EuropeanUnion-Referendum-David-Cameron-Economic-Impact-UK-EU-exitleave. Franciscan International. 2017. “Human Rights Defenders Gather for Panel Discussion on West Papua.” See, http://franciscansinternational.org/Aktuelles.111.0.html?&L=2&tx_ttn ews%5Btt_news%5D=358&cHash=c6333bbc038199615599c8a68daf 6398. Future of Working. 2015. “11 Advantages and Disadvantages of the European Union.” See, https://futureofworking.com/11-advantagesand-disadvantages-of-the-european-union. Global Financial Integrity. 2016. “New Report on Unrecorded Capital Flight Finds Developing Countries are Net-Creditors to the Rest of the World.” See, http://www.gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-onunrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditorsto-the-rest-of-the-world. Guterres, Antonio. 2015. “High Commissioner’ Dialogue on Protection Challenges: Understanding and Addressing Root Causes of DisplacementOpening Remarks.” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. See, http://www.unhcr.org/admin/hcspeeches/567139aa9/high-comm issioner-dialogue-protection-challenges-understandingaddressing.html. HOMEF. 2013. “Niger Delta Oil Spills; The Real Cost of Crude-Video.” See, http://www.homef.org/content/niger-delta-oil-spills-real-cost-crudevideo. Holland, Joe, Peter Henriot. 1983. Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice. Washington DC: Orbis Books. Law Centre. 2016. “How Many Asylum Seekers and Refugees are There in Northern Ireland.” See, http://www.lawcentreni.org/Publications/Policy-Briefings/Howmanyrefugees-in-NI-Oct-2015.pdf. OXFAM. 2016. “An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can be Stopped.” OXFAM Briefing Paper. See, https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp 210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf.

240

Chapter Nine

Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. 2016. Annual Report 2015, 60. See, http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-AB7FHF 12301623-en/$File/Office%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Applications %20Commissioner%20-%202015%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Ojukwu, C. C., Shopeju, J. O. 2010. "Elite Corruption and the Culture of Primitive Accumulation in 21st Century Nigeria." International Journal of Peace and Development Studies 1, no. 2: 16. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2005. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. London: Burn & Oaths. Pope Benedict XVI. 2009. Caritas in Veritate. London: Catholic Truth Society. §48. —. 2007. “The Human Person, The Heart of Peace.” Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace. §8. See, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedictxvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20061208_xlworld-day-peace.html. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Rome, Italy: Libreria Editrice. Pope John Paul II. 1990. “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation.” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace. See, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/docu ments/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. —. 1990. Redemptoris Missio. Rome, Italy: Libreria Editrice. —. 1988. Solicitudo Rei Socialis. Rome, Italy: Libreria Editrice. Poverty. 2017. “Hunger and World Poverty.” See, http://www.poverty.com. SECAM. 2013. “Governance, Common Good, and Democratic Transitions in Africa.” (February 15) No. 29, 5-7. Scott, Timothy. 2014. “Pope Francis and the Periphery.” CRC Bulletin 11, no. 1. See, http://www.crc-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/P_10-11-Pope-Francis-and-the-Periphery.pdf. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Mark Pieth. 2016. “Overcoming the Shadow Economy.” International Policy Analysis, 1-6. The Journal. 2015. “Asylum and Refugees: How Ireland Compares to the Rest of the World.” See, http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-asylum-refugee-status-comparedto-rest-of-world-2310580-Sep2015/. The Spiritans. 2017. “Revive: 2015 Annual Report.” See, http://www.revive-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Annual-report2015.pdf.

The Poor and the Earth are Crying Out: Protecting Our Common Home 241

ThoughtCo. 2014. “Definition of FDI/Foreign Direct Investment.” See, https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-foreign-direct-investment1146093. United Nations. 2017. “Basic Facts about the UPR.” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx. —. 2016. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. See, http://www.unhcr.org/43ce1cff2.html page 1. United Nations General Assembly. 1965. “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.” See, http://www.un-documents.net/a20r2131.htm. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2017. “Forced Displacement in 2015.” Global Trends. See, http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-globaltrends-2015.html. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. 1984. “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Part 1. Article 1. See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx. —. 1951. “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.” See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugee s.aspx. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 2017. “About the SEC.” See, https://www.sec.gov/. Vanguard. 2016. “Nigeria Remains Africa’s Biggest Economy-IMF.” See, http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/10/nigeria-remains-africas-biggesteconomy-imf. VIVAT International. “Membership.” 2017. See, http://vivatinternational.org/about/membership. VIVAT International. 2015. “Churches and Mining in Latin America: A Video of Outcry and Hope.” See, http://vivatinternational.org/blog/2015/05/21/churches-and-mining-inlatin-america-a-video-of-outcry-and-hope. Walsh, Kathy. 2016. Torture Survivors in Ireland: Needs Assessment for Overcoming Barriers to Rehabilitation. SPIRASI, Dublin. World Food Programme. 2017. “Zero Hunger.” See, https://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes. World Synod of Catholic Bishops. 2012. “Justice in the World.” §8. See, https://justmecatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/justice-in-theworld/.

242

Chapter Nine

YouTube. 2017. “#SPIRASI, #26June.” See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3qRIXJWbfw.

VI. CONCLUSION

CHAPTER TEN ETHICS AND INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GERARD MAGILL

To Conclude1 This book on Integral Ecology contains the presentations of the 2016 conference on Protecting Our Common Home, the 2nd conference in the annual endowed series on the Integrity of Creation at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. As mentioned in the proceedings of the 1st conference on the topic of Climate Change,2 Pope Francis has a bold and dramatic vision for the environment in his encyclical Laudato Si’ published in 2015. It is impressive to note how he is unwilling to be evasive about the ecological threat facing our planet. He writes in a provocative manner: “doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain … our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes”––in the face of this bleak outlook he courageously challenges the “ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment” and is emphatic that “halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster.”3 To summarize his approach he refers to “Integral Ecology”4 as a means “to protect our common home.”5 These intriguing and challenging concepts have been adopted for the title and subtitle of this book. To develop an integral ecology, Pope Francis explains that we must engage the “relationship existing between nature and the society in which it lives” to seek “comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems”––his point here is breathtaking insofar as he integrates the environmental and social components: “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.”6 The vision of Pope Francis for an “integral ecology” that can “protect our common home” includes several indispensable components that he explains in his chapter on “Integral Ecology” in the encyclical. These

Ethics and Integral Ecology

245

components include the following topics: an environmental ecology in which “economic ecology” and “social ecology” work together “in the service of a more integral and integrating vision;”7 a “cultural ecology” that respects our “historic, artistic and cultural patrimony” including “care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions;”8 an “ecology of daily life” supporting “human ecology” and celebrating “the relationship between human life and the moral law” which is necessary for “a more dignified environment;”9 respect for “the principle of the common good” that not only applies “the principle of subsidiarity” (to “develop the capabilities at every level of society”) but also has a “particular concern for distributive justice” as “a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest;”10 and a commitment to “justice between generations” that promotes “intergenerational solidarity” and “intragenerational solidarity.”11 To implement this amazing vision requires “major paths of dialogue” to address the “great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge” that emerges before us.12 This is an extraordinarily inspiring vision. The Pope challenges us to develop many approaches to integral ecology. This requires a comprehensive and complex worldview of the planet and the pivotal issues that threaten its survival or foster its flourishing. Fortunately, many ideas are emerging from multiple disciplines to address the need for uniting the planet and its people in an evolving evolutionary and ecological framework. We face an existential threat that creates an opportunity for connecting environmental and social challenges to generate sustained advocacy and action, including religious and secular input.13 A brief explanation of the phrase “Integral Ecology” can help to clarify the landscape that it depicts, influenced significantly by the work of Thomas Berry.14 The phrase is derived from Latin and Greek vocabulary: integral being derived from the Latin integer, meaning whole; ecology being derived from the Greek word oikos, meaning household. The phrase also is rooted in Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The phrase integral ecology is used in this book to present the study of how organisms and the environment interact within a perspective that aligns people and planet to advocate for transformative practices. Not surprisingly, this stance requires an unavoidable range of methods that inevitably generate a wide variety of so-called ecologies. In other words, this view projects an integral stance that connects natural and social sciences with the humanities.15 Hence, the phrase “Integral Ecology” is intended to encompass in a holistic (integrative) manner the complex relation between people and the planet they inhabit, with a vast array of accompanying ethical challenges. The phrase seeks to embrace many different approaches

246

Chapter Ten

to ecology that engage the intertwined crises of our social and cultural challenges (people) and our natural environment (planet)—people and planet, so intricately connected that only astute and insightful inquiry across disciplines can fathom their depths. The crucial connectivity between humanity and the environment raises a plethora of ethical issues that necessarily foster connections among social, cultural, economic, and ecological processes to develop sustainable systems to protect the planet.16 This holistic interaction of people and planet captures what Pope Francis meant (recalling a long tradition in Catholicism as represented in liberation theology) by an integral approach to ecology that connects the cry of the Earth with the cry of the poor.17 The theological approach to integral ecology was espoused by Leonardo Boff at the same time as Thomas Berry was developing his understanding of integral ecology. Each highlights the connection between social injustice and environmental degradation,18 inspiring common ground between ecological integrity and social movements.19 This approach was unambiguously adopted by Pope Francis at the heart of his encyclical: “Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop… It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected.”20 This relationship includes society: “When we speak of the ‘environment,’ what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it.”21 This approach has significant implications for ethics. The specific focus that Pope Francis adopted is interdependence and connectedness: “Because all creatures are connected, each must be respected with love and respect, for all of us as living creatures are dependent on one another.”22 Of course, his agenda refers to ecology generally, even though this specific text focuses on creatures. Discourse on ethics and integral ecology can adopt many lines of constructive inquiry. The organizing sections adopted in this book suggest a general framework that can be helpful for ethics dialogue. First, recognizing the Context of the problem of ecological compromise situates the range of responses that are needed to protect our common home. Second, Environmental Science presents an indispensable foundation in empirical reality that is necessary to shape informed discussion. Third, the Social Sciences contribute enlightening perspectives to engage ecology from many interrelated disciples. Fourth, studies in Religion can advance ethics by inspiring imaginative and coherent visions that harness belief to safeguard our planet. Fifth, Advocacy contributes in a plethora of actionoriented policies and projects to encourage individual and community

Ethics and Integral Ecology

247

participation and to provide urgently needed practical support for the environment. It is interesting to see how this framework can be traced in the view of integral ecology advanced by Pope Francis (referring to the numbers in Laudato Si’ below as LS). The Context of his encyclical seeks “to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (LS, §2) to resolve the “ecological catastrophe” (LS, §4) that we encounter. The cause of this devastating problem is humanity because we “degrade the integrity of the Earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the Earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands” and “contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life” (LS, §7). The focus on the encyclical upon “an integral ecology” (LS, §10) is designed “to protect our common home,” especially by seeking “sustainable and integral development” (LS, §13, §18). To engage such a bold agenda, the pope explains various aspects of this “ecological crisis” (LS, §15) as the crucial Context of his discussion of “What is Happening to Our Common Home.” Here he highlights the problems of climate change, seeing climate as “belonging to all and meant for all” (LS, §23). Also, he highlights the depletion of natural resources of water causing “environmental repercussions that could affect billions of people” (LS, §31). He emphasizes the “loss of biodiversity” that demands a focus on extinction and preservation in “caring for ecosystems” (LS, §36). Furthermore, he recognizes “the effects on people’s lives of environmental deterioration” (LS, §43), recognizing that “the human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together” (LS, §48) in a manner that causes global inequality. This underscores “the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet” (LS, §16) that is reflected in his plea “to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor” together (LS, §49), as mentioned earlier. In sum, the Context that situates the analysis of the Encyclical is that “environmental degradation and human and ethical degradation are closely linked” (LS, §56). That is, the pursuit of ecological integrity is construed as an essentially ethical quest. The pope recognizes the need to rely on “the best scientific research available today” regarding the “ecological crisis” that we face (LS, §15). He upholds the high standards of scientific rigor: “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” (LS, §140). The purpose of this research is to “give us a better understanding of how different creatures relate to one another in making up the larger units which today we term ‘ecosystems’”

248

Chapter Ten

(LS, §140). He also draws a close connection between “responsible scientific and social debate” (LS, §135) that leads to many enlightening perspectives in social science. The interrelated disciplines in social science present opportunities to advance his ecological agenda. Above all, his appeal to the common good is significant: “the gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good, embarking on a path of dialogue which demands patience, self-discipline and generosity” (LS, §201). His point here is that “human ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good” (LS, §156). This stance leads him to encourage both environmental education and environmental conversion. He urges us to construe “environmental education” as being “aimed at creating ecological citizenship” (LS, §211). By this he means that “environmental education … needs educators capable of developing an ethics of ecology, and helping people, through effective pedagogy, to grow in solidarity, responsibility, and compassionate care” (LS, §210). He presents this approach to “environmental education” in terms of restoring “ecological equilibrium, establishing harmony with ourselves, with others, with nature and other living creatures, and with God” (LS, §210), thereby establishing a robust connection with religious discourse. It is in this link with religion that ecological conversion has significant spiritual implications, “an ecological spirituality grounded in the convictions of our faith” (LS, §216). As a religious leader, there is no surprise that Pope Francis presents “principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent”—with this stance he presents “guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience” (LS, §15). Here he seeks to harness the imaginative capabilities of religion to bolster rational discourse in ethics: “the ethical principles capable of being apprehended by reason can always reappear in different guise and find expression in a variety of languages, including religious language” (LS, §199), producing “syntheses between faith and reason” (LS, §63) that foster a “philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation” (LS, §130). This approach construes our planet as “a fragile world, entrusted by God to human care” (LS, §78) in which “faith allows us to interpret the meaning and the mysterious beauty” of the universe (LS, §79), resulting in “a religious respect for the integrity of creation” (LS, §130). Finally, the pope encourages us to adopt an advocacy perspective to “advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which could involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy” (LS, §15). For example, he insists that “for new models of progress to arise,

Ethics and Integral Ecology

249

there is a need to change the ‘models of global development’”—in this regard, he boldly argues that “a technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress (LS, §194). In sum, the sections that shape the book provide a general framework for addressing issues regarding ethics and integral ecology: Context, Environmental Science, Social Science, Religion, and Advocacy. Hopefully, this framework will enable the reader to traverse this landscape more successfully than previously to protect our common home. Fostering an integral ecology constitutes a global ethical imperative.

Notes 1

An earlier draft of this essay was published previously as: Gerard Magill, “Laudato Si’: A Commentary,” Spiritan Horizons 11 (2016): 80-91. Copyright permission has been obtained. 2 Gerard Magill, “The Urgency of Climate Change,” in Gerard Magill, Kia Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, 450-459. Permission has been given for repeating some of the text in that chapter. 3 Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015), §161, 194. 4 Pope Francis, LS, §124. 5 Pope Francis, LS, §13. 6 Pope Francis, LS, §139. 7 Pope Francis, LS, §141-142. 8 Pope Francis, LS, §143, 146. 9 Pope Francis, LS, §147, 155. 10 Pope Francis, LS, §157-158, 196. 11 Pope Francis, LS, §159, 162. 12 Pope Francis, LS, §163, 202. 13 See, Mary Evelyn Tucker, “Foreword,” in Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds., The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), ix-xi. Also see, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2003). 14 See, Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990); Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999); Thomas Berry, The Christian Future and the Fate of the Earth (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2009). Also see: Heather Eaton, ed., The Intellectual Journey of Thomas Berry: Imagining the Earth Community (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014); Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, Michael Zimmerman, Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World (Boston, Mass:

250

Chapter Ten

Integral Books, 2009). On the history of the phrase integral ecology, see Sam Mickey, On the Verge of Planetary Civilization: A Philosophy of Integral Ecology (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 16-24. 15 See, Michael Zimmerman, “Interiority Regained: Integral Ecology and Environmental Ethics,” in Donald K. Swearer, ed., Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2009). 16 See, Priscilla Lopes, Alpina Begossi, eds., Current Trends in Human Ecology, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011). 17 Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997); Leonardo Boff, et al, Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth Cry of the Poor (London, SCM Press, 1995; also, see, Concilium: International Journal of Theology 5 (1995): ix-xii; Leonardo Boff, The Lord’s Prayer: The Prayer of Integral Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983); Leonardo Boff, Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995). Pope Francis urges us in an integral manner “to hear both the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor” (Laudato Si’, §49). See, Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds., The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), 1-27; also, Sean Kelly, “Five Principles of Integral Ecology,” chapter 8 in the same book. 18 See, Sam Mickey, On the Verge of Planetary Civilization: A Philosophy of Integral Ecology (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 19-22. 19 See, Laura Westra, Mirian Vilela, eds., The Earth Charter, Ecological Integrity, and Social Movements (New York: Routledge, 2014). 20 Pope Francis, LS, §138. 21 Pope Francis, LS, §139. 22 Pope Francis, LS, §42.

Literature Berry, Thomas. 2009. The Christian Future and the Fate of the Earth. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. —. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Bell Tower. —. 1990. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Boff, Leonardo. 1997. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. —. 1995. Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Boff, Leonardo, et al. 1995. Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth Cry of the Poor. London, SCM Press. Also in, Concilium: International Journal of Theology 5 (1995): ix-xii. Boff, Leonardo. 1983. The Lord’s Prayer: The Prayer of Integral Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Ethics and Integral Ecology

251

Eaton, Heather, ed. 2014. The Intellectual Journey of Thomas Berry: Imagining the Earth Community. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Esbjorn-Hargens, Sean, Michael Zimmerman. 2009. Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World. Boston, Mass: Integral Books. Kelly, Sean. 2017. “Five Principles of Integral Ecology,” chapter 8 in the same book. In, Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), 1-27. Lopes, Priscilla, Alpina Begossi, eds. 2011. Current Trends in Human Ecology. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Magill, Gerard, Kia Aramesh, eds. 2016. The Urgency of Climate Change. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Magill, Gerard. 2016. “The Urgency of Climate Change.” In, Gerard Magill, Kia Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 450459. —. 2016. “Laudato Si’: A Commentary.” Spiritan Horizons 11: 80-91. Mickey, Sam, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. 2017. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1-27. Mickey, Sam. 2014. On the Verge of Planetary Civilization: A Philosophy of Integral Ecology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 16-24. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Tucker, Mary Evelyn. 2017. “Foreword.” In, Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), ixxi. Tucker, Mary Evelyn. 2003. Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. Westra, Laura, Mirian Vilela, eds. 2014. The Earth Charter, Ecological Integrity, and Social Movements. New York: Routledge. Zimmerman, Michael. 2009. “Interiority Regained: Integral Ecology and Environmental Ethics.” In, Donald K. Swearer, ed., Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press).

CONTRIBUTORS

WILL W. ADAMS, Ph.D., completed a B.S. at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, an M.A. in Psychology at West Georgia College, and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at Duquesne University. He previously trained and worked as a Clinical Fellow in Psychology at McLean Hospital (Harvard Medical School). He serves as an Associate Professor of Psychology at Duquesne University and as a psychotherapist and ecopsychologist in private practice. His special interests include ecopsychology, psychotherapy, and contemplative/meditative/mystical spirituality. Regarding the latter, he is a long-time student and practitioner of Zen Buddhism and Christian mysticism. His work has appeared in numerous psychology journals, including The Humanistic Psychologist, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, ReVision, Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, British Gestalt Journal, Existential Analysis, and Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought. He serves on the Editorial Board of The Humanistic Psychologist and The Journal of Humanistic Psychology. He is currently writing a book on ecopsychology by way of phenomenological psychology, Zen, and Christian mysticism. Beyond his work, he is blessed with a wonderful wife, daughter, son, dog, friends, and a home in the woods that abounds with neighbors who are winged, four-legged, rooted, and otherwise wildly glorious. MICHAEL BLACKHURST, Ph.D., P.E., is the Co-Director of the Urban and Regional Analysis program at the Center for Social and Urban Research at the University of Pittsburgh. He holds a Ph.D. in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and is a registered Professional Engineer. He oversees applied and basic research and consulting projects in the energy, water, and climate sectors. He has authored or co-authored 15 peer reviewed journal articles crossing the engineering, economics, and science literature. His work has been profiled in the New York Times and National Geographic. CELIA DEANE-DRUMMOND, Ph.D., is currently Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, USA. In 2015, she was appointed Director of the Center for Theology, Science, and Human

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

253

Flourishing at Notre Dame. She holds two honors degrees in natural science and theology and two doctorates, one in plant physiology and one in systematic theology. Her research interests are in the engagement of systematic and moral theology and the biological sciences, including ecology, evolution, genetics, animal behavior, psychology, and evolutionary anthropology. She is joint editor of the international journal Philosophy, Theology, and the Sciences. She has been Chair of the European Forum for the Study of Religion and Environment since 2011 and is the honorary visiting Professor in Theology and Science at the University of Durham. She has published over two hundred scholarly theology and scientific articles or book chapters and twenty-five books as editor or author. A selection of her more recent books include, Wonder and Wisdom: Conversations in Science, Spirituality and Theology (2006); Ecotheology (2008); Christ and Evolution (2009); Creaturely Theology, ed. with David Clough (2009); Religion and Ecology in the Public Sphere, ed. with Heinrich Bedford-Strohm (2011); Animals as Religious Subjects, ed. with Rebecca Artinian Kaiser and David Clough (2013); The Wisdom of the Liminal: Human Nature, Evolution and Other Animals (2014); ReImaging the Divine Image (2014); Technofutures, Nature and the Sacred, ed. with Sigurd Bergmann and Bronislaw Szerszynski (2015); Ecology in Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology, 2nd edition, (2016); and Religion in the Anthropocene, edited with Sigurd Bergmann and Markus Vogt (2017). NATALIE A. DROZDA received her Master’s Degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania, where she also completed a graduate assistantship in the Gender Studies Program. This assistantship inspired her Master’s Thesis, which investigates how outwardly successful women story their success within a gendered society. She has since revisited this project for publication. Currently, she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision at Duquesne University and plans to continue to focus her scholarship on gender, mental health, and how the two may inform each other. Her research assistantship at Duquesne affords her the opportunity to explore her other research interests of autism and trauma. This position has also further developed her passion for multicultural competency in the counseling field, and she hopes to incorporate multiculturalism topics into her research agenda. URSULA GOODENOUGH, Ph.D., is Professor of Biology at Washington University in Saint Louis. She received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University in 1969, was Assistant and Associate Professor at Harvard until

254

Contributors

1978, and since then has been at Washington University, where she has conducted research on the molecular genetics of a unicellular green alga and has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in molecular cell biology. She also teamed up with a physicist and a geologist to teach a course for non-science majors called The Epic of Evolution. She held several leadership positions in the American Society for Cell Biology, including its presidency in 1994-1995. She joined the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science in 1989, served as its president from 1992-1996, and co-chaired six of its conferences. In 1998 she published a book, The Sacred Depths of Nature (Oxford), which explores the religious potential of our scientific understandings of Nature. She was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2009 and a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology in 2013. JOHN KILCRANN, CSSp, currently is a member of the Provincial Leadership Team in the Irish Province of the Spiritan Congregation. He graduated from Catholic Theological Union at Chicago with a D. Min. degree. His work experience includes twenty years in Brazil (1978–1998), where he specialized in social ministry at the local, state, and national levels. At the local level his work focused on land concerns and the pervasive violence associated with such issues. He served at state and national levels on the executive committee of JUSSOL–a Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) organization of the Confêrencia dos Religiosos do Brasil–CRB (a federation of Brazilian religious congregations). He was a founding member of SEJUP–a human rights international lobbying organization–and was an advisor to various Brazilian churches and civil society human rights organizations. From 2000 to 2009, he was the international coordinator of the Spiritan JPIC Services based in Rome, Italy. In Rome, he served on the executive committees of various Churchlinked JPIC organizations. In 2009–2010, he was a fellow at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, where he established a distance learning JPIC program. LISA LOPEZ LEVERS, Ph.D., LPCC-S, LPC, CRC, NCC, is the Reverend Francis Philben Endowed Chair in African Studies and a Professor of Counselor Education and Supervision in the Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education in the School of Education at Duquesne University. She is in her 28th year of university teaching. Prior to entering the academy, she worked in community mental health for 15 years, counseling extensively with child, adolescent, and adult survivors of trauma. She has published books, scholarly chapters in

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

255

textbooks, and articles in peer-reviewed journals regarding issues of relevance to African culture, trauma and disaster, and the counseling profession in general. She recently edited a textbook, Trauma Counseling: Theories and Interventions. She has been awarded numerous grants and was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Botswana from 2003-2004. Professor Levers first traveled to Africa in 1993. She has worked extensively throughout the southern, eastern, and central regions of Africa. Her current scholarly projects involve the HIV/AIDS pandemic in subSaharan Africa, especially cultural implications and psychosocial effects; indigenous knowledge; roles of indigenous healers and local authorities in constructing culturally appropriate interventions; the impact of trauma on childhood and adolescent development; adult sequelae associated with early childhood trauma; designing and developing culturally sensitive community-based services for vulnerable children and adults; psychosocial issues of disability; and building culturally relevant systems of training for helping professionals. She works with marginalized communities in developing culturally sensitive systems of care, creating better access to health/mental health services, designing responses to community trauma, and building community resilience. GERARD MAGILL, Ph.D., holds the Vernon F. Gallagher Chair for the Integration of Science, Theology, Philosophy, and Law at Duquesne University (appointed in 2007) where he is a tenured Professor in the Center for Healthcare Ethics. He graduated with his Ph.D. degree from Edinburgh University in Scotland. In 1987 he started his scholarly career at Saint Louis University, where in 1996 he was appointed as the Department Chair of the Center for Healthcare Ethics. As Executive Director of that Center from 1999, he held multiple appointments including being a member of the Deans’ Council for the University’s health sciences campus, a Division Director in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University Hospital, a member of the University’s Institutional Review Board, a member of the Hospital Ethics Committee, a Professor in the School of Medicine (secondary appointment), and a Professor in the School of Public Health (secondary appointment). Dr. Magill has authored, co-authored, or edited 10 books, including a coauthored textbook on health care ethics. He has just completed a new coauthored book on Governance Ethics for Boards of Directors in Healthcare. He has published over 60 scholarly and professional articles, and he has given over 200 scholarly presentations at conferences. He is a member of 13 Professional Associations. He has extensive experience on Institutional Review Boards, Hospital Ethics Committees, and Ethics

256

Contributors

Consultation Services. Recently, he was appointed by the Duquesne University President to be Chair of the Planning Committee for the annual endowed conference series on the Integrity of Creation–this current coedited book contains the presentations from the 2nd conference in Fall 2016 on Climate Change. JUDE CHINAKA NNOROM, CSSp, is the General Coordinator for Spiritan Justice, Peace, Integrity of Creation, and Inter-religious Dialogue. He holds an M.A. in theology (Duquesne University) and an M.A. in Peace studies (Notre Dame University). In 1994, he began his missionary work in post-apartheid South Africa, where he served as the religious superior of the Spiritans. In 1997, he organized Christian ministers in Vrede, Eastern Free State, South Africa, to mediate between farmers and farm workers. He has served as an associate consultant for the Centre for Contextual Ministry in the University of Pretoria, South Africa and was part of the team giving workshops on peacebuilding and reconciliation. His research interest is primarily in Religion and Peacebuilding. He is currently the publisher of the Spiritan JPIC and IRD newsletter and has written articles on Spiritan ministry in post-apartheid South Africa. He is the author of the soon to be published Peacebuilding in North-Central Nigeria. He served as the conflict Transformation officer for Religions for Peace, a multi-religious faith-based organization in consultative status with the United Nations. He is currently a member of the board of VIVAT International, a Non-Governmental Organization in a special consultative status with the United Nations. He is also the Vice-President of Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network, which advocates for economic justice between Europe and Africa. At the request of the Planning Committee for the Duquesne annual endowed conference series on the Integrity of Creation, he encourages Spiritan Missionaries from the grassroots to be in conversation with the academy through this conference series. CHIKA ONEYJIUWA, CSSp, prior to joining the Congregation of the Holy Spirit in 1988, had a background in Bio-Chemistry, and thereafter taught Mathematics and the Sciences at the Holy Ghost Juniorate, Ihiala for several years. He subsequently pastored the communities in the creeks of Niger Delta of Nigeria, whose lives were materially impoverished and ecologically degraded due to oil exploitation, and was on the leadership team of his Province for six years. He later did other graduate studies at Creighton University and at the Institute of Spiritual Leadership, U.S., respectively between 2008 and 2012. He was the Director of Formation at the Saviorite House of Formation in Nigeria and the JPIC Coordinator for

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

257

the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Province of Nigeria, South East before assuming office as the Executive Secretary of Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network (AEFJN), Brussels in 2014. PETER I. OSUJI, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Health Care Ethics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, where he earned his doctorate in 2013. He also holds a Master’s Degree in Religious Studies from the Missionary Institute London. He worked as a missionary for many years in Ethiopia and Nigeria, where among other things he was the headmaster of schools and formation director, respectively. He also served as a Campus Minister at Duquesne University for eight years. In addition to conference presentations, he is the author of African Traditional Medicine: Autonomy and Informed Consent, many articles, and an encyclopedia entry. He is a member of two Professional Associations and a Hospital Ethics Committee. His areas of research include African ethics, research ethics, ethics committees, religious ethics, and global bioethics. JORDAN POTTER, Ph.D., received his B.A. in Philosophy from Greenville College in 2012, his M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Missouri at Saint Louis in 2014, and his Ph.D. in Health Care Ethics from Duquesne University in 2017. He is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in Advanced Bioethics at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, where he completes clinical ethics consultations and performs research in the Department of Bioethics. He has published several peer-reviewed articles and book chapters in the areas of end-of-life ethics, transplant ethics, cultural competency, and environmental ethics, and he has further research interests in the philosophy of religion, public health ethics, and clinical ethics. He is currently working on a book manuscript that argues for the moral and political justification of compensated organ donation in the United States, along with several other modifications to revamp the current United States organ donation system. In addition to his work, he is an avid Boston Celtics fan and fiction writer, and he and his wife are expecting a child in early 2018 to add to their seven year old daughter and two year old son. DANIEL P. SCHEID, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Theology at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. He graduated with his Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Boston College, his M.A. in Theology from Catholic Theological Union, and his A.B. in History from Princeton University. His work explores interreligious ecological ethics,

258

Contributors

focusing on Catholic social thought and comparative theology, with particular attention to Catholic-Hindu and Catholic-Buddhist dialogue. He has authored 13 scholarly articles or book chapters in peer reviewed journals and books, including Worldviews, the Annual Volume of the College Theology Society, and Teaching Theology and Religion. In his first book, The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics (2016), he draws on Catholic social thought to construct what he calls the "cosmic common good," a new norm for interreligious ecological ethics that can also be found in Hindu, Buddhist, and American Indian religious traditions. His second book, Cosmic Belonging: Ecological Ethics and Theologies of Creation in Thomas Aquinas and Vedanta Desika, will engage in a detailed comparison of the theologies of creation in Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas and Hindu Srivaisnava theologian Vedanta Desika. In addition, he is a member of multiple professional organizations including the Society for Christian Ethics, Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church, the Catholic Theological Society of America, the American Academy of Religion, and the College Theology Society, and he has given over 30 scholarly presentations at regional, national, and international conferences. He and his wife live in Pittsburgh with their three children.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AEFJN. 2017. “AEFJN Members.” See, http://aefjn.org/en/members. —. 2017. “Home.” See, http://aefjn.org/en/home. —. 2017. “History/Mission.” See, http://afjn.org/about-afjn/historymission. Abram, David. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Random House. Ackerman, Frank, et al. 2009. “Limitations of Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change.” Climatic Change 95, no. 3: 297-315. Adams, Will W. 2006. “The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, Ecopsychology, and the Crisis of Extinction: On Annihilating and Nurturing Other Beings, Relationships, and Ourselves.” The Humanistic Psychologist, 34, no. 2: 111-133. Adams, Will W. 2014. “Intimate Responsivity as Essence-Calling-PathFruition: Ecopsychological Ethics via Zen Buddhist Phenomenology.” In, D. Vakoch, F. Castrillon, eds., Ecopsychology, Phenomenology, and the Environment: The Experience of Nature (New York: Springer). Adano, Wario R., Fatuma Daudi. 2012. “Links between Climate Change, Conflict and Governance in Africa.” Institute for Security Studies Papers 2012, no. 234. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper_234.pdf. Adger, W. Neil, et al. 2009. “Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?” Climatic Change 93, no. 3: 335-354. Aitken, Robert. 1984. The Mind of Clover. San Francisco: North Point Press. Allcott, Hunt. 2009. “Social Norms and Energy Conservation.” Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; A Joint Center of the Department of Economics, MIT Energy Initiative, and Sloan School of Management. (October). See, http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2009-014.pdf. American Psychological Association (APA). 2009. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multifaceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. See,http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-changebooklet.pdf.

260

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. 1971. Summa Theologiae, Volume 44, Well Tempered Passion (2a2ae 155-170). Translated by Thomas Gilby. London: New Blackfriars. Armstrong, Regis J. 1999. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1. New York-London-Manila. Armstrong, Regis J., Ignatius C. Brady. 1982. Francis and Clare. The Complete Works. New York: Paulist Press. Asouzu, Innocent I. 2007. Ibuanyidanda: New Complementary Ontology Beyond World Immanentism, Ethnocentric Reduction and Impositions. Zweignieder Lassung, Zürich: Lit Verlasg Gmbtt & co KG wien. —. 2004. The Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African Philosophy. Calabar, Nigeria: University of Calabar Press. Augustine, Saint. 2006. 2nd Edition. Translated by F.J. Sheed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work c. 400). Baldwin, Matthew, Joris Lammers. 2016. “Past-focused Environmental Comparisons Promote Proenvironmental Outcomes for Conservatives.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 52: 14953– 14957. Balstad, Roberta. 2010. “The Interdisciplinary Challenges of Climate Change Research.” In, International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides (Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing), 210-212. See, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf. Batisani, Nnyaladzi. 2010. “Dynamics of Cultivated Land and Its Association with Rainfall Variability in Botswana Implications for Food Security Under Climate Change.” In, Donald Anthony Mwiturubani, et al, eds., Climate Change and Natural Resources Conflicts in Africa, (Institute for Security Studies Monographs), no. 170, 205-219. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono170.pdf. Batson, C. Daniel. 2011. Altruism in Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2009. “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena.” In, Jean Decety, W. Ickes, eds., The Social Neuroscience of Empathy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 3-15. Beck, Marisa, Tobias Krueger. 2016. “The Epistemic, Ethical, and Political Dimensions of Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modeling.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7, no. 5: 627–45.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

261

Behrens, Kevin Gary. 2014. “Toward an African Relational Environmentalism.” In, Elvis Imafidon, John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji, eds., Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books), 55-72. Berry, Thomas. 2009. The Christian Future and the Fate of the Earth. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. —. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Bell Tower; also, New York: Three Rivers Press. —. 1990. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Berry, Wendell. 2012. New Collected Poems. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press. Biddle, Justin B., Anna Leuschner. 2015. "Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science be Epistemically Detrimental?" European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3: 261-278. Birch, Charles, William Eaken, Jay McDaniel, eds. 1990. Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books. Blake, William. 1988. The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake. Newly Revised Edition. Edited by D.V. Erdman. New York: Anchor Doubleday. Bloom, Paul. 2016. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. New York: Ecco/Harper Collins. —. 2014. “Forum: Against Empathy.” Boston Review (September 10). See, http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy. Boff, Leonardo. 1997. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. —. 1995. Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Boff, Leonardo, et al. 1995. Ecology and Poverty: Cry of the Earth Cry of the Poor. London, SCM Press. Also in, Concilium: International Journal of Theology 5 (1995): ix-xii. Boff, Leonardo. 1983. The Lord’s Prayer: The Prayer of Integral Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Boikanyo, Mogakolodi Nelson, Lisa Lopez Levers. 2017. “The Effects of Climate Change on Water Insecurity in Botswana: Links to the Criminal Justice System.” In, Gerard Magill and Kiarash Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017), 434-449.

262

Bibliography

Bolderdijk, J. W., et al. 2013. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Nature Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3, no. 4: 413-416. Boykoff, Max, J. Timmons Roberts. 2007. “Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses.” United Nations Development Programme~Human Development Report 2007/2008 ~ Background Paper. See,http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/files/2010/02/Media_Coverage_of_C limate_Change.pdf. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 2004. “The Bioecological Theory of Human Development.” In, Urie Bronfenbrenner, ed., Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 3-15. —. 1981. On Making Human Beings Human. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. —. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruinsma, Gerben, David Weisburd, eds. 2014. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1976-1984. New York: Springer. Brunsdon, Chris, et al. 2009. “The Influence of Weather on Local Geographical Patterns of Police Calls for Service.” Environmental Planning B: Planning and Design 36, no. 5: 906–926. Bujo, Bénézet. 1998. The Ethical Dimension of Community. Nairobi, Kenya: Pauline Publication. Burgis, Tom. 2015. The Looting Machine: Warlords, Tycoons, Smugglers and the Systemic theft of Africa’s Wealth. London: William Collins. Bushman, Brad J., Morgan C. Wang, Craig A. Anderson. 2005. “Is the Curve Relating Temperature to Aggression Linear or Curvilinear?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 62–66. Butkus, Russell, Steven Kolmes. 2007. “Ecology and the Common Good: Sustainability and Catholic Social Teaching.” Journal of Catholic Social Thought 4, no. 2: 403–436. Canticle of the Creatures. 1999. In Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1. New York-London-Manila. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Chemhuru, Munamato, Dennis Masaka. 2010. “Taboos as Sources of Shona People’s Environmental Ethics.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12, no. 7: 121-133.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

263

Chow, Jeffrey, Raymond J. Kopp, Paul R. Portney. 2012. “Energy Resources and Global Development.” Science 302, no. 5650: 15281531. Churchill, Scott D. 2006. “Encountering the Animal Other: Reflections on Moments of Empathic Seeing.” The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 6, no. Special Edition 1: 1-13. CIDSE. 2015. “Churches and Mining in Latin America.” See,http://www.cidse.org/articles/business-and-humanrights/extractive-industries-in-latin-america/churches-and-mining-inlatin-america.html. Citizens for Global Solutions. 2015. “Think Global, Act Local.” See,http://globalsolutions.org/blog/2015/11/Think-global-actlocal#.WE_anPkrKUk. Clayton, Susan, Carla Litchfield, E. Scott Geller. 2013. “Psychological Science, Conservation, and Environmental Sustainability.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, no. 7: 377-382. Cohn, Ellen G. 1990. “Weather and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 30, no. 1: 51–64. Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II. 1971. New York: Oxford University Press. Congregation of the Holy Spirit. 2013. Guide for Spiritan Formation. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publicaitons. —. 2013. Spiritan Rule of Life. Rome, Italy: Scuola Tipographifca. —. 2007. Spiritan Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Ministry. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 2004. Torre d’Aguilha. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 1998. Maynooth. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. —. 1992. Itaici. Rome, Italy: Spiritan Publications. Corner, Adam, Alex Randall. 2011. “Selling Climate Change? The Limitations of Social Marketing as a Strategy for Climate Change Public Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 21, no. 3: 10051014. Corner, Adam, Nick Pidgeon. 2010. “Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 52, no. 1: 24–37. Costello, Anthony, et al. 2009. “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change.” Lancet 373, no. 9676: 1693-1733. Crimmins, Allison, et al. 2016. “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.” Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC, USA. See, https://health2016.globalchange.gov.

264

Bibliography

Crutzen, Paul J. 2006. “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” Climatic Change 77, no. 3: 211-220. Custodia Terrae Sanctae. 2011. “The Canticle of the Creatures.” See, http://www.custodia.org/default.asp?id=1454. Davenport, Coral. 2017. “Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications.” The New York Times (January 25). See,https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agenciestold-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html. Davis, Lucas W. 2008. “Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy And Water: Evidence from a Field Trial.” RAND Journal of Economics 39, no. 2: 530-546. Deignan, Kathleen, ed. 2003. When the Trees Say Nothing. Thomas Merton. Writings on Nature. Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books. de Schutter, Olivier. 2016. “Tainted Lands: Corruption in Large Scale Land Deal.” Global Witness Report. de Waal, Frans. 2009. The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. New York: Broadway Books. Deacon, Terrence W. 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. NY: WW Norton & Company. —. 1998. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. NY: WW Norton & Company. Deane-Drummond, Celia. 2017. “In Praise of Creatures: Pope Francis’ Message of Hope for a Fragile Earth.” In, Nicola Hoggan Creegan, Andrew Shepherd, eds., Ecology and Hope (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock). —. 2016. “Laudato Si’ and the Natural Sciences: An Assessment of Possibilities and Limits.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 392-415. —. 2012. “Joining the Dance: Catholic Social Teaching and Ecology.” New Blackfriars 93, no. 1044: 193-212. —. 2012. “Theology and the Environmental Sciences.” In, Oliver D. Crisp, et al, eds., Christianity and the Disciplines: The Transformation of the University (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark), 71-84. Deloria, Vine. 1973. God Is Red. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Descartes, Rene. 1998. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by D.A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1637). Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguin.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

265

Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2010. “Inside UN Climate Change Negotiations: The Copenhagen Conference.” Review of Policy Research 27, no. 6: 795-822. Doherty, Thomas Joseph, Susan Clayton. 2011. “The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 265–276. Dovidio, John F., et al. 2010. “Empathy and Intergroup Relations.” In, Mario Mikulincer, Phillip R. Shaver, eds., Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature (Washington DC: APA Press), 393-408. Duffy, Richard M., et al. 2016. “Demographic Characteristics of Survivors of Torture presenting for Treatment to a National Centre for Survivors of Torture in Ireland (2001–2012).” Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1-6. Dunne, Joseph. 1997. Back to the Rough Ground: Practical Judgment and the Lure of Technique. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Durant, Sarah M., et al. 2017. “The Global Decline of Cheetah Acinonyx Jubatus and What it Means for Conservation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 3: 528-533. Dwivedi, O.P. 2006. “Hindu Religion and Environmental Well-Being.” In, Roger Gottlieb, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology (New York: Oxford University Press). Eaton, Heather, ed. 2014. The Intellectual Journey of Thomas Berry: Imagining the Earth Community. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Eckhart, Meister. 1980. Breakthrough. Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation. Edited by M. Fox. Garden City, NY: Image Books. (Original works c. late 1200s to early 1300s). Eckhart, Tolle. 2005. A New Earth: Awakening to your Life’s Purpose. New York: Dutton. Edwards, Denis. 2016. “‘Sublime Communion’: The Theology of the Natural World in Laudato Si’.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 377-391. Einstein, Albert. 2017. “On Solving Problems by Albert Einstein.” See, http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X00063A06. Eisenstein, Charles. 2013. The Ascent of Humanity: Civilization and the Human Sense of Self. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books. Esbjorn-Hargens, Sean, Michael Zimmerman. 2009. Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World. Boston, Mass: Integral Books. Executive Office of the President and National Science and Technology Council. 2015. “Social and behavioral sciences team: 2015 annual report.” (September).

266

Bibliography

See,https://sbst.gov/download/2015%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.p df. FAO, IFAD, and WFP. 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. Rome, Italy: 2015, 1-20. See,http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf. Ferrer, Jorge N. 2002. Revisioning Transpersonal Theory. A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Finley, James. 2004. Christian Meditation. San Francisco: Harper. Fischer, Constance T., Leswin Laubscher, Roger Brooke. 2016. The Qualitative Vision for Psychology. Invitation to a Human Science Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Fisher, Andy. 2013. Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the Service of Life. 2nd Edition. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Forsythe, David. 2006. Human Rights in International Relations. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Foster, Alice. 2017. “What is Brexit and What is Going to Happen Now That Britain has Voted to LEAVE the EU.” The Sunday Express. See,http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645667/Brexit-EUEuropean-Union-Referendum-David-Cameron-Economic-Impact-UKEU-exit-leave. Franciscan International. 2017. “Human Rights Defenders Gather for Panel Discussion on West Papua.” See,http://franciscansinternational.org/Aktuelles.111.0.html?&L=2&tx _ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=358&cHash=c6333bbc038199615599c8a68 daf6398. Freud, Sigmund. 2012. The Future of an Illusion. New York: Broadview. (Original work published 1927). —. 1961. Civilization and its Discontents. Translated by J. Strachey. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1930). Friedman, Harris L., Glenn Hartelius, eds. 2013. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Frith, Chris D., Uta Frith. 2006. “The Neural Basis of Mentalizing.” Neuron 50, no. 4: 531-534. Funtowicz, Silvio O., Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the PostNormal Age.” Futures 25, no. 7: 739–755. Future of Working. 2015. “11 Advantages and Disadvantages of the European Union.”

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

267

See, https://futureofworking.com/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-ofthe-european-union. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. Edited by G. Barden and J. Cumming. London: Sheed and Ward. Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011. “Some Early Ethics of Geoengineering the Climate: A Commentary on the Values of the Royal Society Report.” Environmental Values 20, no. 2: 163–188. Garner, Gregory, Patrick Reed, Klaus Keller. 2016. “Climate Risk Management Requires Explicit Representation of Societal TradeOffs.” Climatic Change 134, no. 4: 713–723. Georgi, Erik, Franz Petermann, Marc Schipper. 2014. "Are Empathic Abilities Learnable? Implications for Social Neuroscientific Research from Psychometric Assessments." Social Neuroscience 9, no. 1: 74-81. Ghazal, Rym. 2015. “Saudi’s Prince Sultan, the first Arab in space.” (April 9). See,http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/saudis-prince-sultan-thefirst-arab-in-space. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. A Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gifford, Robert. 2011. “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 290-302. Gillingham, Kenneth, Richard G. Newell, William A. Pizer. 2008. “Modeling Endogenous Technological Change for Climate Policy Analysis.” Energy Economics 30, no. 6: 2734–2753. Gladwell, Malcolm T. 2016. “Malcolm Gladwell on racism, Trump, and the moral licensing phenomenon.” YouTube. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjf8b_LLZ6g. Global Financial Integrity. 2016. “New Report on Unrecorded Capital Flight Finds Developing Countries are Net-Creditors to the Rest of the World.” See,http://www.gfintegrity.org/press-release/new-report-onunrecorded-capital-flight-finds-developing-countries-are-net-creditorsto-the-rest-of-the-world. Goodenough, Ursula. 2000. “Reflections on scientific and religious metaphor.” Zygon 35, no. 2: 233-240. See,http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092 &context=bio_facpubs. —. 1998. The Sacred Depths of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

268

Bibliography

Goodenough, Ursula, Terrence W. Deacon. 2007. “The Sacred Emergence of Nature.” In, P. Clayton, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 854-871. See,http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066 &context=bio_facpubs. Goodenough, Ursula, Terrence W. Deacon. 2003. “From Biology to Consciousness to Morality.” Zygon 38, no. 4: 801-819. See,http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085 &context=bio_facpubs. Goodenough, Ursula, Paul Woodruff. 2001. "Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence." Zygon 36, no. 4: 585-595 See,http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091 &context=bio_facpubs. Grimm, Nancy B., et al. 2008. “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities.” Science 319, no. 5864: 756-760. Gula, Richard. 1989. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Guterres, Antonio. 2015. “High Commissioner’ Dialogue on Protection Challenges: Understanding and Addressing Root Causes of Displacement-Opening Remarks.” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. See,http://www.unhcr.org/admin/hcspeeches/567139aa9/highcommissioner-dialogue-protection-challenges-understandingaddressing.html. Gyekye, Kwame. 2011. “African Ethics.” In, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition; Last modified June 10). See, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/african-ethics. —. 1997. Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Haines, Andrew, et al. 2006. “Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability, and Mitigation.” Lancet 367, no. 9528: 21012109. Hamilton, Calvin J. 2009. “Earth From Space.” Views of the Solar System. See, http://solarviews.com/eng/earthsp.htm. Hanh, Thich Nhat. 2008. The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. —. 2001. Essential Writings, edited by Robert Ellsberg. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. —. 1998. The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

269

Hart, John. 2006. Sacramental Commons: Christian Ecological Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hendrix, Cullen S., Sarah M. Glaser. 2007. “Trends and Triggers: Climate Change and Civil Conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 695-715. Höijer, Birgitta. 2010. “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 19: 717–731. Holland, Joe, Peter Henriot. 1983. Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice. Washington DC: Orbis Books. Hollenbach, David. 2002. The Common Good and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOMEF. 2013. “Niger Delta Oil Spills; The Real Cost of Crude-Video.” See,http://www.homef.org/content/niger-delta-oil-spills-real-costcrude-video. Horrocks, James, Andrea Menclova. 2011. “The Effects of Weather on Crime.” New Zealand Economic Papers 45, no. 3: 231–254. Hsiang, Solomon M., Marshall Burke, Edward Miguel. 2013. “Quantifying the Influence of climate on Human Conflict.” Science 341, no. 6151: 1235367-1—1235367-14. Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Igboin, Benson Ohihon. 2012. “African Religion and Environmental Challenges in Post-Colonial Africa.” Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies 2, no. 1: 17-38. Ignatius of Loyola. 1991. “The First Week: Principle and Foundation.” In, George E. Ganss, ed., Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah: Paulist Press), §23, 130. Ikenga-Metuh, Emefie. 1987. Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions. Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers Ikuenobe, Polycarp. Philosophical Perspective on Communalism and Morality in African Traditions. London: Lexington Books, 2006. Ikuenobe, Polycarp. 2006. Philosophical Perspective on Communalism and Morality in African Traditions. London: Lexington Books. Imafidon, Elvis. 2014. “On the Ontological Foundation of Social Ethics in African Tradition.” In, Elvis Imafidon, John Ayotunde Isola Bewaji, eds., Ontologized Ethics: New Essays in African Meta-Ethics (Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books), 37-54. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Leo A. Meyer, eds. Climate change

270

Bibliography

2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. See,https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. —. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.” Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Thomas F. Stocker, et al, eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. See,http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL _FINAL.pdf. —. 2007. Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger, eds. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland. See,https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf. International Social Science Council and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2013. “World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments.” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. See,http://www.worldsocialscience.org/documents/wss-report-2013full-text.pdf. —. 2010. “World Social Science Report 2010: Knowledge Divides.” Paris, France: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. See, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf. Jacobson, Louis. 2016. “Yes, Donald Trump Did Call Climate Change a Chinese Hoax.” Politifact. June 3. See,http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-didcall-climate-change-chinese-h/#. Jamieson, Dale, Bonnie Nadzam. 2015. Love in the Anthropocene. New York: OR Books. Jamieson, Dale. 2014. Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2010. “Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice.” Science and Engineering Ethics 16, no. 3: 431-445. John of the Cross. 1991. The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross. Translated by K. Kavanaugh and O. Rodriguez. Washington, DC: ICS Publications. (Original work late 1500s).

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

271

Jordan, Matthew R., Dorsa Amir, Paul Bloom. 2016. “Are Empathy and Concern Psychologically Distinct?” Emotion 16, no. 8: 1115. Kasper, Debbie. 2009. “Ecological Habitus: Toward a Better Understanding of Socioecological Relations.” Organization and Environment 22, no. 3: 311-326. Keim, Mark E. 2008. “Building Human Resilience: The Role of Public Health Preparedness and Response as an Adaptation to Climate Change.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, no. 5: 508516. Keith, David W. 2010. “Photophoretic Levitation of Engineered Aerosols for Geoengineering.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 38: 16428–16431. Kelbessa, Workineh. 2005. “The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa.” Diogenes 52, no. 3: 17-34. Kellert, Stephen R., James Gustave Speth, eds. 2009. The Coming Transformation: Values to Sustain Human and Natural Communities. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. See, https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SPESoc-050.pdf. Kelly, Sean. 2017. “Five Principles of Integral Ecology,” chapter 8 in the same book. In, Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), 1-27. Keltner, Dacher, Jennifer L. Goetz. 2007. “Compassion.” In, Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs, eds., Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 159-161. King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1986. “A Christmas Sermon on Peace.” In, J.M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope. The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Harper Collins, 253254. (Original sermon delivered on Christmas Eve, 1967). Klein, Naomi. 2015. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Reprint edition. New York: Simon and Schuster. Klimecki, Olga M., et al. 2013. “Functional Neural Plasticity and Associated Changes in Positive Affect After Compassion Training.” Cerebral Cortex 23, no. 7: 1552-1561. Klimecki, Olga M., et al. 2013. “Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9, no. 6: 873-879. Klinsky, Sonja, Hadi Dowlatabadi. 2009. “Conceptualizations of Justice in Climate Policy.” Climate Policy 9, no. 1: 88–108.

272

Bibliography

Koester, Helmut, Thomas O. Lambdin. 1984. “The Gospel of Thomas.” In, J. M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper and Row), 126. Kriegler, Elmar, et al. 2014. “The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate Policy Objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies.” Climatic Change 123, no. 3–4: 353–367. Law Centre. 2016. “How Many Asylum Seekers and Refugees are There in Northern Ireland.” See,http://www.lawcentreni.org/Publications/Policy-Briefings/Howmanyrefugees-in-NI-Oct-2015.pdf. Liu, Jianguo, et al. 2007. “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems.” Science 317, 5844: 1513-1516. Lockwood, Patricia L. 2016. “The Anatomy of Empathy: Vicarious Experience and Disorders of Social Cognition.” Behavioural Brain Research 311: 255-266. Lopes, Priscilla, Alpina Begossi, eds. 2011. Current Trends in Human Ecology. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lorenzen, Janet A. 2012. “Going Green: The Process of Lifestyle Change.” Sociological Forum vol. 27, no. 1: 94-116. Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Updated and Expanded Edition. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Lu, Hang, Jonathon P. Schuldt. 2016. “Compassion for Climate Change Victims and Support for Mitigation Policy.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 192-200. Ludwig, Ralf, et al. 2011. “Towards an Inter-disciplinary Research Agenda on Climate Change, Water and Security in Southern Europe and Neighboring Countries.” Environmental Science and Policy 14, no. 7: 794-803. Macy, Joanna, Johnstone, Chris. 2012. Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We're in Without Going Crazy. Novato, CA: New World Library. Magill, Gerard, Kia Aramesh, eds. 2016. The Urgency of Climate Change. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. —. 2016. “The Urgency of Climate Change.” In, Gerard Magill, Kia Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 450-459. —. 2016. “Laudato Si’: A Commentary.” Spiritan Horizons 11: 80-91. Markowitz, Ezra M. 2012. “Is Climate Change an Ethical Issue? Examining Young Adults’ Beliefs About Climate and Morality.” Climate Change 114, no. 3-4: 479-495.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

273

Markowitz, Ezra M., Azim F. Shariff. 2012. “Climate Change and Moral Judgement.” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 4: 243-247. Martin-Schramm, James B., Robert L. Stivers. 2003. Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method Approach. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Mazama, Mambo Ama. 2002. “Afrocentricity and African Spirituality,” Journal of Black studies 32, no. 2: 218 - 234. McFague, Sally. 1993. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. No. 11. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. McIntosh, Robert. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mechthild of Magdeburg. 1998. The Flowing Light of the Godhead. New York: Paulist Press. (Original work 1250-1280). Melillo, Jerry M., Terese C. Richmond, G.W. Yohe, eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCR). See,http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_I mpacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf. Meltzer, Graham. 2005. Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model. Victoria: Trafford on Demand Publishing. Merriam-Webster. 2016a. “Definition of Compassion.” See, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion. —. 2016b. “Definition of Empathy.” Learner’s Dictionary. See, http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/empathy. Merton, Thomas. 1961. New Seeds of Contemplation. New York: New Directions. —. 1953. The Sign of Jonas. New York: Harvest. Metcalf, Gilbert E., et al. 2015. “The Role of Integrated Assessment Models in Climate Policy: A User’s Guide and Assessment.” The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Discussion Paper, 15–68. Mickey, Sam, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. 2017. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Mickey, Sam. 2014. On the Verge of Planetary Civilization: A Philosophy of Integral Ecology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 16-24. Miller, Barbara Stoler. 1986. The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War. New York: Bantam Classics. Morgan, M. Granger. 2011. “Certainty, Uncertainty, and Climate Change.” Climatic Change 108, no. 4: 707.

274

Bibliography

Morgan, M. Granger, et al. 1999. “Why Conventional Tools for Policy Analysis Are Often Inadequate for Problems of Global Change.” Climatic Change 41, no. 3: 271–281. Morgan, M. Granger, Max Henrion, Mitchell Small. 1992. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moss, Richard H., et al. 2010. “The next Generation of Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Assessment.” Nature 463, no. 7282: 747–756. Mullany, Gerry. 2017. “World’s 8 Richest Have as Much Wealth as Bottom Half, Oxfam Says.” The New York Times (January 16). See,https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealthoxfam.html?_r=1. Müller, Marc Francois, et al. 2016. “Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Land Use and Transboundary Freshwater Resources.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 52: 14932–14937. Murove, Munyaradzi Felix. 2004. “An African Commitment to Ecological Conservation: The Shona Concepts of Ukama and Ubuntu.” Mankind Quarterly 45, no. 2: 195 - 215. Mwiturubani, Donald Anthony, et al, eds. 2010. Climate Change and Natural Resources Conflicts in Africa. Institute for Security Studies Monographs 2010, no. 170. See, https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Mono170.pdf. Ngoong, David T. 2016. “The Environmental, Population, and Theology: A Perspective from Cameroon.” Bulletin of Ecumenical Theology 28: 22- 47. Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. 2016. Annual Report 2015, 60. See,http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNRAB7FHF12301623en/$File/Office%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Applications%20Comm issioner%20-%202015%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Ogungbemi, Segun. 2016. “Ethics of Nature-Relatedness.” (Accessed September 14). See, http://nkalaenvironmental.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-africanperspective-on-environmental.html. —. 1997. “An African Perspective on the Environmental Crisis.” In, Louis Pojman, ed., Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 2nd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth), 330-337. Ojomo, Philomena A. 2010. “An African Understanding of Environmental Ethics.” Thought and Practice 2, no. 2: 49-63.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

275

Ojukwu, C. C., Shopeju, J. O. 2010. “Elite Corruption and the Culture of Primitive Accumulation in 21st Century Nigeria.” International Journal of Peace and Development Studies 1, no. 2: 16. Okafor, Stephen O. 1982. “Bantu Philosophy: Placide Tempels Revisited.” Journal of Religion in Africa 13, no. 2: 83-100. Olupona, Jacob, Sulayman Nyang, eds. 1993. Religious Plurality in Africa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. O’Malley, Sean P. (Cardinal). 2015. “Laudato Si’: 'Our Common Home' and the Dignity of the Poor.” Spirituality (June 18). See, http://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?id=174073#. Opoku, Kofi Asare. 1993. “African Traditional Religion: An Enduring Heritage.” In, Jacob Olupona, Sulayman Nyang, eds., Religious Plurality in Africa (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 67-82. Oruka, Henry Odera, ed. 1994. Philosophy, Humankind, and Ecology. Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press. Osuji, Peter I. 2014. African Traditional Medicine: Autonomy and Informed Consent. New York: Springer. OXFAM. “An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can be Stopped.” OXFAM Briefing Paper. January 18, 2016. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp 210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf. Page, Edward A. 2008. “Distributing the Burdens of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 17, no. 4: 556-575. Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, Matt Hare. 2004. “Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14, no. 3: 193-206. Parenti, Christian. 2011. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation Books. Peelman, Achiel. 1995. Christ Is a Native American. Toronto: Novalis. Pelling, Mark, et al. 2008. “Shadow Spaces for Social Learning: A Relational Understanding of Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Within Organisations.” Environment and Planning A 40, no. 4: 867– 884. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. 2012. “The Global Religious Landscape.” See,http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscapeexec. Pindyck, Robert S. 2013. “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3: 860–72.

276

Bibliography

Pirsig, Robert. 2006. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. New York, NY: HarperTorch. Pojman, Louis, ed. 1997. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 2nd edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2005. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. London: Burn & Oaths. Pope Benedict XVI. 2009. Caritas in Veritate. London: Catholic Truth Society. —. 2007. “The Human Person, The Heart of Peace.” Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace. §8. See,https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedictxvi/en/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20061208_xlworld-day-peace.html. Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: Praise Be To You. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana (also published at, Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor). Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. 2016. Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics. June 10, 2002. Vatican Website. (November 29). See,http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/jun e/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020610_venice-declaration_en.html. Pope John Paul II. 2003. Pastores Gregis. London: Catholic Truth Society. —. 2000. Catechesis. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. —. 1990. “Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation.” Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace. See,http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/d ocuments/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html —. 1990. Redemptoris Missio. Rome, Italy: Libreria Editrice. —. 1988. Solicitudo Rei Socialis. Rome, Italy: Libreria Editrice. Porete, Marguerite. 1993. The Mirror of Simple Souls. Translated by E. Babinsky. New York: Paulist Press. (Original work published c. 1290s). Poverty. 2017. “Hunger and World Poverty.” See, http://www.poverty.com. Preston, Christopher J. 2011. “Re-Thinking the Unthinkable: Environmental Ethics and the Presumptive Argument against Geoengineering.” Environmental Values 20, no. 4: 457–479.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

277

Pyle, Robert Michael. 2005. “Cosmic convergence.” Orion, 24, no. 3: 6869. Raleigh, Clionadh, Lisa Jordan, Idean Salehyan. 2008. "Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Migration and Conflict." World Bank Group for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change workshop, Washington, DC. See,http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT /Resources/SDCCWorkingPaper_MigrationandConflict.pdf Raleigh, Clionadh, Henrik Urdal. 2007. “Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Armed Conflict.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 674694. Randall, Rosemary. 2009. “Loss and Climate Change: The Cost of Parallel Narratives.” Ecopsychology 1, no. 3: 118-129. Ranson, Matthew. 2014. “Crime, Weather, and Climate Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 67: 274-302. —. 2012. “Crime, Weather, and Climate Change.” Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series No. 8, Harvard Kennedy School. See,http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67660/1243450/ver sion/1/file/ranson_2012-8.FINAL.pdf. Redclift, Michael R., Graham Woodgate, eds. 1997. The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Reid, Charles. 2016. “Pope Francis, the Common Good and Global Climate Change.” The Huffington Post. (June 13). See,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/pope-francis-thecommon-g_b_7577306.html. Reuveny, Rafael. 2007. “Climate Change-induced Migration and Violent Conflict.” Political Geography 26, no. 6: 656-673. Risbey, James, et al. 2005. “Application of a Checklist for Quality Assistance in Environmental Modelling to an Energy Model.” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10, no. 1: 63–79. Risbey, James, Milind Kandlikar, Anand Patwardhan. 1996. “Assessing Integrated Assessments.” Climatic Change 34, no. 3–4: 369–95. Robock, Alan. 2008. “20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64, no. 2: 14–18. Robinson, J.M. ed. 1984. The Nag Hammadi Library. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Rodin, Judith. 2014. The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. New York: Public Affairs.

278

Bibliography

Roeser, Sabine. 2012. “Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions.” Risk Analysis 32, no. 6: 10331040. Rosen, Richard A., Edeltraud Guenther. 2015. “The Economics of Mitigating Climate Change: What Can We Know?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 91: 93–106. Rosenwald, Michael S. 2010. “Why Going Green Won’t Make You Better or Save You.” The Washington Post. July 18. See,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html. Rue, Loyal. 2006. Religion is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture our Biological Nature and What to Expect When They Fail. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. —. 2000. Everybody's Story: Wising up to the Epic of Evolution. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. SECAM. “Governance, Common Good, and Democratic Transitions in Africa.” February 15, 2013. No. 29, 5-7. Sagan, Carl. 1994. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. New York: Random House. Sassenrath, Claudia, Stefan Pfattheicher, Johannes Keller. 2016. “I Might Ease Your Pain, But Only If You’re Sad: The Impact of the Empathized Emotion in the Empathy-Helping Association.” Motivation and Emotion, 1-11. Scannone, Juan Carlos. 2016. “Pope Francis and the Theology of the People.” Theological Studies 77, no. 2: 118–35. Scheid, Daniel P. 2016. The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. —. 2013. “The Common Good, Human or Cosmic?” Journal of Religion and Society, Supplement 9: 5–15. Schneider, Stephen H. 1997. “Integrated Assessment Modeling of Global Climate Change: Transparent Rational Tool for Policy Making or Opaque Screen Hiding ValueǦladen Assumptions?” Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2, no. 4: 229–249. Schwanitz, Valeria Jana. 2013. “Evaluating Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change.” Environmental Modelling & Software 50: 120–131. Scott, Timothy. 2014. “Pope Francis and the Periphery.” CRC Bulletin 11, no. 1. See,http://www.crc-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/P_-10-11Pope-Francis-and-the-Periphery.pdf.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

279

SECAM. 2013. “Governance, Common Good, and Democratic Transitions in Africa.” (February 15) No. 29, 5-7. Sells, Michael A. 1994. The Mystical Languages of Unsaying. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Senghor, Leopold. 1964. On African Socialism. London, Macmillan. Shomali, Mohammad. 2008. “Aspects of Environmental Ethics: An Islamic Perspective.” See, http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20081111_1.htm. Shove, Elizabeth. 1997.“Revealing the Invisible: Sociology, Energy and the Environment.” In, Michael R. Redclift, Graham Woodgate, eds., The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing), 216-229. Shwom, Rachael, Janet A. Lorenzen. 2012. “Changing Household Consumption to Address Climate Change: Social Scientific Insights and Challenges.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3, no. 5: 379–395. Sindima, Harvey. 1990. “Community of Life: Ecological Theology in African Perspective” In, Charles Birch, William Eaken, Jay McDaniel, eds., Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books), 137-148. Singer, Tania. 2006. “The Neuronal Basis and Ontogeny of Empathy and Mind Reading: Review of Literature and Implications for Future Research.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6: 855863. Singer, Tania, Olga M. Klimecki. 2014. “Empathy and Compassion.” Current Biology, 24, no. 18: R875-R878. Singer, Tania, Claus Lamm. 2009. “The Social Neuroscience of Empathy.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1156, no. 1: 81-96. Spapens, Toine, Marieke Kluin, Rob White, eds., 2014. Environmental Crime and Its Victims. Surrey, England: Ashgate. Speigel, Lee. 2016. “Scientists May Have Just Discovered Another Earth.” Huffington Post. (August 25). See,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earth-planet-proximab_us_57bc6f68e4b03d51368ad735. Stern, Nicholas. 2013. “The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models.” Journal of Economic Literature 51, no. 3: 838–59. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Mark Pieth. 2016. “Overcoming the Shadow Economy.” International Policy Analysis, 1-6.

280

Bibliography

Stoll-Kleeman, Susanne, Tim O’Riodan, Carlo C. Jaeger. 2001. “The Psychology of Denial Concerning Climate Change Mitigation Measures: Evidence from Swiss Focus Groups.” Global Environmental Change 11, no. 2: 107-117. Stromberg, Joseph. 2013. “What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?” Smithsonian Magazine (January). See,http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-theanthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/. Sullivan, Bruce. 2001. The A to Z of Hinduism. London: The Scarecrow Press. Sullivan, Caroline A. 2012. “Calculating a Water Poverty Index.” World Development 30, no. 7: 1195-1210. Swearer, Donald K., ed. 2009. Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Swim, Janet K., et al. 2011. “Psychology’s Contributions to Understanding and Addressing Global Climate Change.” American Psychologist 66, no. 4: 241–250. Swimme, Brian Thomas, Mary Evelyn Tucker. 2011. The Journey of the Universe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Swimme, Brian, Thomas Berry. 1992. The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era-A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. Szulczewski, Michael L., et al. 2012. “Lifetime of Carbon Capture and Storage as a Climate-Change Mitigation Technology.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 14: 5185–5189. Tacoli, Cecilia. 2009. “Crisis or Adaptation? Migration and Climate Change in a Context of High Mobility.” Environment and Urbanization 21, no. 2: 513–525. Tangwa, Godfrey B. 2010. Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame. Mankon, Bamenda Cameroun: Langaa Research & Publishing. —. 2004. “Some African Reflections on Biomedical and Environmental Ethics.” In, Kwesi Wiredu, ed., A Companion to African Philosophy (Malden, MA: Blackwell) 387-403. —. 1996. "Bioethics: An African Perspective." Bioethics 10, no. 3: 183200. Tarvydas, Vilia, Lisa Lopez Levers, P. Teahen. (2018). “Ethics Narratives from Lived Experiences of Disaster and Trauma Counselors.” In, J. Webber, J. B. Mascari, eds., Disaster Mental Health Counseling: A Guide to Preparing and Responding, 4th ed. (Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association Foundation).

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

281

Tarvydas, Vilia, Lisa Lopez Levers, P. Teahen. 2017. “Ethical Guidelines for Mass Trauma and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies.” Journal of Counseling and Development 95: 260-268. Tavoni, Massimo, Robert Socolow. 2013. “Modeling Meets Science and Technology: An Introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions.” Climatic Change 118, no. 1: 1–14. Taylor, John Vernon 1963. The Primal Vision. London: SCM Press. Teahan, Peter, Lisa Lopez Levers, Vilia Tarvydas 2017. “Disaster, Climate Change, and Public Health: Building Social-ecological Resilience.” In, Gerard Magill, Kiarash Aramesh, eds., The Urgency of Climate Change (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 133-160. Tempels, Placide. 1959. Bantu Philosophy, Paris: Presence Africaine. Teresa of Avila. 2008. The Book of My Life. Translated by M. Starr. Boston: New Seeds. (Original work 1567). The Journal. 2015. “Asylum and Refugees: How Ireland Compares to the Rest of the World.” See, http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-asylum-refugee-status-comparedto-rest-of-world-2310580-Sep2015/. The Spiritans. 2017. “Revive: 2015 Annual Report.” See,http://www.revive-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Annualreport-2015.pdf. Thomas, David, et al. 2005. “ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to Climate Change Amongst Natural Resource-dependent Societies in the Developing World: Across the Southern African Climate Gradient.” Tyndall Centre Technical Report, No. 35 (November). See,http://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Thomas,%20D.,%20Osbahr, %20H.,%20Twyman,%20C.,%20Adger,%20W.%20N.%20and%20He witson,%20B.,%20(2005)%20ADAPTIVE%20-%20Adaptations%20 to%20climate%20change%20amongst%20natural%20resourcedependant%20societies%20in%20the%20developing%20world%20(tr 35).pdf. Thomas of Celano. 1999. The Life of Saint Francis, I, 29, 81. In, Regis J. Armstrong, Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New YorkLondon-Manila). ThoughtCo. 2014. “Definition of FDI/Foreign Investment.” See, https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-foreign-directinvestment-1146093 Tiefenbeck,Verena, et al. 2013. “For Better or for Worse? Empirical Evidence of Moral Licensing in a Behavioral Energy Conservation Campaign.” Energy Policy 57: 160–171.

282

Bibliography

Tinker, George. 2008. American Indian Liberation: A Theology of Sovereignty. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. —. 1991. “For All My Relations: Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Christmas Trees.” Sojourners 20, no. 1: 19-21. Tousignant, Lauren. 2016. “This is where humans will move when we destroy Earth.” New York Post. (August 24). See,http://nypost.com/2016/08/24/this-nearby-planet-could-supportalien-life/. Truelove, Heather Barnes, et al. 2014. “Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework.” Global Environmental Change 29: 127-138. Tschakert, Petra, Kathleen Ann Dietrich. 2010. “Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience.” Ecology and Society 15: no. 2. Tucker, Mary Evelyn. 2017. “Foreword.” In, Sam Mickey, Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert, eds. The Variety of Integral Ecologies: Nature Culture, and Knowledge in the Planetary Era (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), ixxi. Tucker, Mary Evelyn, John Grim. 2016. "II. Integrating Ecology and Justice: The Papal Encyclical." The Quarterly Review of Biology 91, no. 3: 261-270. Tucker, Mary Evelyn. 2003. Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. Tversky, Amos, Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211: 453-458. United Nations. 2017. “Basic Facts about the UPR.” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx. —. 2016. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. See, http://www.unhcr.org/43ce1cff2.html page 1. —. 2013. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva, Switzerland. United Nations General Assembly. 1965. “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.” See, http://www.un-documents.net/a20r2131.htm. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2017. “Forced Displacement in 2015.” Global Trends. See,http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcrglobal-trends-2015.html.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

283

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. 1984. “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Part 1. Article 1. See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx. —. 1951. “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.” See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugee s.aspx. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 2017. “About the SEC.” See, https://www.sec.gov/. van Asselt, Marjolein BA, Jan Rotmans. 2002. “Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling.” Climatic Change 54, no. 1: 75-105. van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. 2006. “Uncertainty, Assumptions, and Value Commitments in the Knowledge-Base of Complex Environmental Problems.” Interfaces between Science and Society, 64–81. Vanguard. 2016. “Nigeria Remains Africa’s Biggest Economy-IMF.” See,http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/10/nigeria-remains-africasbiggest-economy-imf. Vanman, Eric J. 2016. “The Role of Empathy in Intergroup Relations.” Current Opinion in Psychology 11: 59-63. Vatican II. 1965. Gaudium et Spes. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Vaughan, Naomi E., Timothy M. Lenton. 2011. “A Review of Climate Geoengineering Proposals.” Climatic Change 109, no. 3–4: 745–790. VIVAT International. “Membership.” 2017. See, http://vivatinternational.org/about/membership. VIVAT International. 2015. “Churches and Mining in Latin America: A Video of Outcry and Hope.” See,http://vivatinternational.org/blog/2015/05/21/churches-andmining-in-latin-america-a-video-of-outcry-and-hope. Walker, Warren E., et al. 2003. “Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support.” Integrated Assessment 4, no. 1 (2003): 5–17. Walsh, Kathy. 2016. Torture Survivors in Ireland: Needs Assessment for Overcoming Barriers to Rehabilitation. SPIRASI, Dublin. Webber, J., J. B. Mascari, eds. 2018. Disaster Mental Health Counseling: A Guide to Preparing and Responding. 4th ed. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association Foundation. Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. “Science and Trans-Science.” Minerva 10, no.2: 209–222.

284

Bibliography

Westra, Laura, Mirian Vilela, eds. 2014. The Earth Charter, Ecological Integrity, and Social Movements. New York: Routledge. White, Frank. 1987. The Overview Effect-Space Exploration and Human Evolution. Houghton-Mifflin. White, Rob. 2014a. “Eco-justice and Problem-solving Approaches to Environmental Crime and Victimisation.” In, Toine Spapens, Marieke Kluin, Rob White, eds., Environmental Crime and Its Victims (Surrey, England: Ashgate), 87-102. —. 2014b. “Green Criminology.” In, Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd, eds., Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1976-1984 (New York: Springer). —. 2013. “Environmental Crime and Problem-solving Courts.” Crime, Law and Social Change 59, no. 3: 267-278. White, Rob, ed. 2012. Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective. New York: Springer. Wilber, Ken. 2000. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. The Spirit of Evolution. 2nd Edition. Boston: Shambhala. Wilson, C., et al. 2013. “Future Capacity Growth of Energy Technologies: Are Scenarios Consistent with Historical Evidence?” Climatic Change 118, no. 2: 381–395. Wiredu, Kwesi, ed., 2004. A Companion to African Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wiredu, Kwesi. 1994. “Philosophy, Humankind, and the Environment.” In, Henry Odera Oruka, ed., Philosophy, Humankind, and Ecology (Nairobi, Kenya: ACTS Press), 30-48. Wolf, Johanna, Katrina Brown, Declan Conway. 2009. “Ecological Citizenship and Climate Change: Perceptions and Practice.” Environmental Politics 18, no. 4: 503-521. World Food Programme. 2017. “Zero Hunger.” See, https://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes. World Synod of Catholic Bishops. “Justice in the World.” August 19, 2012, §8. https://justmecatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/justice-in-theworld/. —. 2012. “Justice in the World.” §8. See,https://justmecatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/justice-inthe-world/. Wutich, Amber, Kathleen Ragsdale. 2008. “Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress: Coping with Supply, Access, and Seasonal Variability of Water in a Bolivian Squatter Settlement.” Social Science and Medicine 67, no. 12: 2116–2125.

Integral Ecology: Protecting Our Common Home

285

Yeh, Sonia, Edward S. Rubin. 2012. “A Review of Uncertainties in Technology Experience Curves.” Energy Economics 34, no. 3: 762– 771. YouTube. 2017. “#SPIRASI, #26June.” See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3qRIXJWbfw. Zaehner, R. C., trans. 1966. Bhagavad G߼tߞ. New York: Oxford University Press. Zia, Asim, Anne Marie Todd. 2010. “Evaluating the Effects of Ideology on Public Understanding of Climate Change Science: How to Improve Communication Across Ideological Divides?” Public Understanding of Science 19: 743–761. Zimmerman, Michael. 2009. “Interiority Regained: Integral Ecology and Environmental Ethics.” In, Donald K. Swearer, ed., Ecology and the Environment: Perspectives from the Humanities (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). Zoback, Mark D., Steven M. Gorelick. 2012. “Earthquake Triggering and Large-Scale Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 26: 10164–10168.