205. Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good…
This document is one of the most personally uplifting I have
had the privilege to read.
102...
The modification of nature for useful purposes has distinguished the human family from the beginning; technology itself “expresses the inner tension that impels man gradually to overcome material limitations”.[82]
The Laudato Si’ does not address geoengineering studies, AKA
climate engineering or ‘climate intervention directly. The philosophical and scientific concepts are devastatingly nuanced and highly readable for lay people like me. It argues for the acknowledgment
of man’s capacity to alter earth systems, including climate, both in
non-intentional and intentional ways. (Geoengineering may be included in the
latter)
4...
“the most extraordinary scientific advances, the most amazing technical abilities, the most astonishing economic growth, unless they are accompanied by authentic social and moral progress, will definitively turn against man”.[3]
The rather strong message of support for science and
technology in the encyclical exults man’s prowess in science and technology as
“wonderful products of a God-given human creativity”.[81]” , but a prowess that
must be tempered by the proper respect and caution given man’s checkered
history for the use of powerful technologies.
14…“Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and universal solidarity. As the bishops of Southern Africa have stated: “Everyone’s talents and involvement are needed to redress the damage caused by human abuse of God’s creation”. [22] All of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements and talents.”
My personal take is that by neither condemning, nor by
endorsing geoengineering directly it leaves open the door for more knowledge
acquisition but within certain limits. This may also give the Vatican
flexibility in a highly complex debate. I think that
could be good, not necessarily for the advancement of the science in itself,
but to gain a deeper understanding of
humanity’s climate and environmental impacts and modern technical capabilities both
desired and undesired.
Hugely important: the support for renewable altenatives to fossil fuel energy.
And to further balance its support for science and technology
the Laudato Si’ is highly critical of technocracy, ‘anthropocentrism’, consumerism
and ‘Eco-modernism’.
Some reactions would paint this encyclical as ‘pessimistic’
and others as ‘apocalyptic’ (I would agree with the latter only if it is meant
as ‘revealing’).
I describe the Laudato Si's as uplifting, because while not shying away
from acknowledging humanity’s responsibility for ongoing environmental crises
and man’s propensity for hubris and exploitation, the whole of the document embodies
a message of hope, that ‘we’ can rise above
those same propensities when given the opportunity to make educated choices, guided by a strong moral code. Yes! An uplifting message, specially at times when all evidence -in the crises- may seem to point to the contrary.
The complete Laudato Si’ can be found here:
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME
En Español:
CARTA ENCÍCLICA
LAUDATO SI’
DEL SANTO PADRE
FRANCISCO
SOBRE EL CUIDADO
DE LA CASA COMÚN
An excerpt:
CHAPTER THREE
THE HUMAN ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
101. It would hardly be helpful to describe symptoms without
acknowledging the human origins of the ecological crisis. A certain way of
understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment
of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I
propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of
human beings and of human action in the world.
I. TECHNOLOGY: CREATIVITY AND POWER
102. Humanity has entered a new era in which our technical
prowess has brought us to a crossroads. We are the beneficiaries of two
centuries of enormous waves of change: steam engines, railways, the telegraph,
electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, chemical industries, modern medicine,
information technology and, more recently, the digital revolution, robotics,
biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. It is right to rejoice in these advances
and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up
before us, for “science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given
human creativity”.[81] The modification of nature for useful purposes has
distinguished the human family from the beginning; technology itself “expresses
the inner tension that impels man gradually to overcome material limitations”.[82]
Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human
beings. How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress,
especially in the fields of medicine, engineering and communications? How could
we not acknowledge the work of many scientists and engineers who have provided
alternatives to make development sustainable?
103. Technoscience, when well directed, can produce
important means of improving the quality of human life, from useful domestic
appliances to great transportation systems, bridges, buildings and public
spaces. It can also produce art and enable men and women immersed in the
material world to “leap” into the world of beauty. Who can deny the beauty of
an aircraft or a skyscraper? Valuable works of art and music now make use of
new technologies. So, in the beauty intended by the one who uses new technical
instruments and in the contemplation of such beauty, a quantum leap occurs,
resulting in a fulfilment which is uniquely human.
104. Yet it must also be recognized that nuclear energy,
biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our DNA, and many other
abilities which we have acquired, have given us tremendous power. More
precisely, they have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic
resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and
the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing
ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is
currently being used. We need but think of the nuclear bombs dropped in the
middle of the twentieth century, or the array of technology which Nazism,
Communism and other totalitarian regimes have employed to kill millions of
people, to say nothing of the increasingly deadly arsenal of weapons available
for modern warfare. In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it
eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have
it.
105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in
power means “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into the stream
of culture”,[83] as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from
technological and economic power as such. The fact is that “contemporary man
has not been trained to use power well”,[84] because our immense technological
development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility,
values and conscience. Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its
own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. “The risk is growing day by day that man will not use
his power as he should”; in effect, “power is never considered in terms of the
responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom” since its “only norms
are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security”.[85] But
human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed
over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of
self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in
the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.
We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound
ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and
teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that
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. This subject makes every
effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is
already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the
subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely
open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but
for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities
offered by the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature
itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to
lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them
while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human
beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another;
the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept
the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to
economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that
there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet
being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that “an infinite
quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew
them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural
order can be easily absorbed”.[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem
from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science
and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of
individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on
reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the
environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every
aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products
are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning
lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests
of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in
reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and
employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable. The
technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do
without its resources and even more difficult to utilize them without being
dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a
lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology, of its costs
and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends to absorb
everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with
technology “know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither
for profit nor for the well-being of the human race”, that “in the most radical
sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all”.[87] As a result,
“man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature”.[88]
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each
one’s alternative creativity are diminished.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate
economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology
with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on
human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The lessons of the global
financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly
the lessons of environmental deterioration. Some circles maintain that current
economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in
popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty
will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned with certain
economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their
actual operation in the functioning of the economy. They may not affirm such
theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing
no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of
wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations. Their
behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the
market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion.[89] At
the same time, we have “a sort of ‘superdevelopment’ of a wasteful and
consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations
of dehumanizing deprivation”,[90] while we are all too slow in developing
economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular
access to basic resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present
failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
110. The specialization which belongs to technology makes it
difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge proves
helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of
appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the
broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This very fact makes it hard to
find adequate ways of solving the more complex problems of today’s world,
particularly those regarding the environment and the poor; these problems
cannot be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of
interests. A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would
necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of
knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but this is a difficult
habit to acquire today. Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can
appeal. Life gradually becomes a surrender to situations conditioned by
technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In
the concrete situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which
point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety, a loss of
the purpose of life and of community living. Once more we see that “realities
are more important than ideas”.[91]
111. 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. Otherwise, even the
best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same
globalized logic. To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem
which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the
true and deepest problems of the global system.
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the
freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of
another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more
integral. Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact
happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less
polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life,
recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to resolving
people’s concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less
suffering. Or indeed when the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages
to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and
in those who behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis,
seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed,
like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in
spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising up in stubborn
resistance?
113. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to
believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better tomorrow
based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a
growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated
with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a
better future lies elsewhere. This is not to reject the possibilities which
technology continues to offer us. But humanity has changed profoundly, and the
accumulation of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in
one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If
architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab
apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant
flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign
ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of
everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need
new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move
forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral;
from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and
possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting
a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a
different way, 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.
III. THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up
prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees
nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an
object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views
the cosmos similarly as a mere ‘space’ into which objects can be thrown with
complete indifference”.[92] The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus
compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world,
they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves: “Not only
has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original
good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God’s gift to man. He must
therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been
endowed”.[93]
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive
anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the
way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The
time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the limits it imposes;
this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of
individuals and society. An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology
gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and
the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over
the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was
something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over
the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible
stewardship.[94]
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the
environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a
disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we
fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human
embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes
difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the
human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute
dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of
carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man
sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the
part of nature”.[95]
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia,
wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists
with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one
cannot prescind from humanity. 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. When the human person is considered as simply one being
among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall
sense of responsibility wanes”.[96] A misguided anthropocentrism need not
necessarily yield to “biocentrism”, for that would entail adding yet another
imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings
cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same
time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility
are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism
underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present
ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual
crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and
the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian
thought sees human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other
creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for others.
Our openness to others, each of whom is a “thou” capable of knowing, loving and
entering into dialogue, remains the source of our nobility as human persons. A
correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social
dimension of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our
openness to the “Thou” of God. Our relationship with the environment can never
be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would
be nothing more than romantic individualism dressed up in ecological garb,
locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the
protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.
How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable
beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect
a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates
difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the
new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society
also wither away”.[97]
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of
overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity to
its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus
Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in fruitful dialogue with changing
historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided
lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the
practical relativism typical of our age is “even more dangerous than doctrinal
relativism”.[99] When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give
absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence
we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent
technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a
relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own
immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes
can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which
drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere
objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts.
The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and
abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the
mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to
regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral
damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the
satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed
on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood
diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic
logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in
experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their
parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste,
because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary.
We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be
sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture
itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no
longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles
to be avoided.
The need to protect employment
124. Any approach to an integral ecology, which by
definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value of
labour, as Saint John Paul II wisely noted in his Encyclical Laborem Exercens.
According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the
garden he had created (cf. Gen 2:15) not only to preserve it (“keep”) but also
to make it fruitful (“till”). Labourers and craftsmen thus “maintain the fabric
of the world” (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way is the
best way of caring for it, as this means that we ourselves become the
instrument used by God to bring out the potential which he himself inscribed in
things: “The Lord created medicines out of the earth, and a sensible man will
not despise them” (Sir 38:4).
125. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human
beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding of
work; if we talk about the relationship between human beings and things, the
question arises as to the meaning and purpose of all human activity. This has
to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity
involving a modification of existing reality, from producing a social report to
the design of a technological development. Underlying every form of work is a
concept of the relationship which we can and must have with what is other than
ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation of creation which we find
in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also
developed a rich and balanced understanding of the meaning of work, as, for
example, in the life of Blessed Charles de Foucauld and his followers.
126. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism.
Originally, it was a kind of flight from the world, an escape from the
decadence of the cities. The monks sought the desert, convinced that it was the
best place for encountering the presence of God. Later, Saint Benedict of
Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and
spiritual reading with manual labour (ora et labora). Seeing manual labour as
spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification
came to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of
experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of the environment;
it imbues our relationship to the world with a healthy sobriety.
127. We are convinced that “man is the source, the focus and
the aim of all economic and social life”.[100] Nonetheless, once our human
capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the
meaning of work to be misunderstood.[101] We need to remember that men and
women have “the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth
and to develop their spiritual endowments”.[102] Work should be the setting for
this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play:
creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our
values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the
reality of today’s global society, it is essential that “we continue to
prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone”,[103] no
matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal
should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for
this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning
of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal
fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution
in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow
them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy has
favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are
reduced by laying off workers and replacing them with machines. This is yet
another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs
also has a negative impact on the economy “through the progressive erosion of social
capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for
rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence”.[104]
In other words, “human costs always include economic costs, and economic
dysfunctions always involve human costs”.[105] To stop investing in people, in
order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is
imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and
business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food
production systems which feed the greater part of the world’s peoples, using a
modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural
parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing.
Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing
smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their
attempts to move to other, more diversified, means of production prove
fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global
markets, or because the infrastructure for sales and transport is geared to
larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and
firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To
ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints
occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and
financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many
people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment
continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into
disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and
improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in
which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential
part of its service to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the
human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the human
person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be
excluded. While human intervention on plants and animals is permissible when it
pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it
remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human
lives”.[106] The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that
“it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
needlessly”.[107] All such use and experimentation “requires a religious
respect for the integrity of creation”.[108]
131. Here I would recall the balanced position of Saint John
Paul II, who stressed the benefits of scientific and technological progress as
evidence of “the nobility of the human vocation to participate responsibly in
God’s creative action”, while also noting that “we cannot interfere in one area
of the ecosystem without paying due attention to the consequences of such
interference in other areas”.[109] He made it clear that the Church values the
benefits which result “from the study and applications of molecular biology,
supplemented by other disciplines such as genetics, and its technological
application in agriculture and industry”.[110] But he also pointed out that
this should not lead to “indiscriminate genetic manipulation”[111] which ignores
the negative effects of such interventions. Human creativity cannot be
suppressed. If an artist cannot be stopped from using his or her creativity,
neither should those who possess particular gifts for the advancement of
science and technology be prevented from using their God-given talents for the
service of others. We need constantly to rethink the goals, effects, overall
context and ethical limits of this human activity, which is a form of power
involving considerable risks.
132. This, then, is the correct framework for any reflection
concerning human intervention on plants and animals, which at present includes
genetic manipulation by biotechnology for the sake of exploiting the potential
present in material reality. The respect owed by faith to reason calls for
close attention to what the biological sciences, through research uninfluenced
by economic interests, can teach us about biological structures, their
possibilities and their mutations. Any legitimate intervention will act on
nature only in order “to favour its development in its own line, that of
creation, as intended by God”.[112]
133. It is difficult to make a general judgement about
genetic modification (GM), whether vegetable or animal, medical or
agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific
considerations. The risks involved are not always due to the techniques used,
but rather to their improper or excessive application. Genetic mutations, in
fact, have often been, and continue to be, caused by nature itself. Nor are
mutations caused by human intervention a modern phenomenon. The domestication
of animals, the crossbreeding of species and other older and universally
accepted practices can be mentioned as examples. We need but recall that
scientific developments in GM cereals began with the observation of natural
bacteria which spontaneously modified plant genomes. In nature, however, this
process is slow and cannot be compared to the fast pace induced by contemporary
technological advances, even when the latter build upon several centuries of
scientific progress.
134. Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may
be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about
economic growth which has helped to resolve problems, there remain a number of
significant difficulties which should not be underestimated. In many places,
following the introduction of these crops, productive land is concentrated in
the hands of a few owners due to “the progressive disappearance of small
producers, who, as a consequence of the loss of the exploited lands, are
obliged to withdraw from direct production”.[113] The most vulnerable of these
become temporary labourers, and many rural workers end up moving to
poverty-stricken urban areas. The expansion of these crops has the effect of
destroying the complex network of ecosystems, diminishing the diversity of
production and affecting regional economies, now and in the future. In various
countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and
other products needed for their cultivation. This dependency would be
aggravated were the production of infertile seeds to be considered; the effect
would be to force farmers to purchase them from larger producers.
135. Certainly, these issues require constant attention and
a concern for their ethical implications. A broad, responsible scientific and
social debate needs to take place, one capable of considering all the available
information and of calling things by their name. It sometimes happens that
complete information is not put on the table; a selection is made on the basis
of particular interests, be they politico-economic or ideological. This makes
it difficult to reach a balanced and prudent judgement on different questions,
one which takes into account all the pertinent variables. Discussions are
needed in which all those directly or indirectly affected (farmers, consumers,
civil authorities, scientists, seed producers, people living near fumigated
fields, and others) can make known their problems and concerns, and have access
to adequate and reliable information in order to make decisions for the common
good, present and future. This is a complex environmental issue; it calls for a
comprehensive approach which would require, at the very least, greater efforts
to finance various lines of independent, interdisciplinary research capable of
shedding new light on the problem.
136. On the other hand, it is troubling that, when some
ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding
that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to
apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify
transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living
human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends
his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards
the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as
licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will
not easily be able to limit its own power.
Last update
June 29, 2015
-in the crises- may seem to point to the contrary.
Last update
June 29, 2015
-in the crises- may seem to point to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment