Laudato Si

[Thomas_White]

I believe what Pope Francis is saying is that science, technology and its methods cannot solve the problems it has created by using only its current paradigm. In his view it has, after all, resulted in the current crisis.

 

[lynnvinc]

I agree that the use of AC is important in those areas which have excessive nighttime temps. Does the encyclical have any recommendations for alternatives to AC? I personally think that homes or apartments could be designed to make use of such things as cross-drafts by placing windows in the right areas. A lot of old houses (like mine) were designed with this in mind. I agree that settings for AC could be put higher, as you’ve suggested.

He has pretty much left all the particular measures up to us, and there is a lot about building to avoid extreme heat and cold.

Plus some people without ACs use fans and evaporative coolers (which work well in some areas).

There’s a CAF thread where they are asking for & receiving suggestions for personal measures to solve environmental problems – forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=966018

 

[lynnvinc]

Reading on, Chapt 2, #80, something we cannot hear often enough:

“Creating a world in need of development, God in some way sought to limit himself
in such a way that many of the things we think of as evils, dangers or sources of suffering, are in reality part of the pains of childbirth which he uses to draw us into the act of cooperation with the Creator.49 God is intimately present to each being, without impinging on the autonomy of his creature, and this gives rise to the rightful autonomy of earthly affairs.50”

As a Secular Carmelite (OCDS) we come to understand everything that happens in daily life – positive and negative things – are what God is allowing for our own benefit, and that indeed good can come out of bad. Or, as they say in sports, “No pain, no gain.” There was a friar in St. Teresa’s time who when they were traveling (I think to start a new foundation) stepped on a thorn and made a big fuss about it; later that evening he came to regret that it had been an opportunity granted by God for spiritual growth

One of our members talks about how community is important so that our rough edges by dashing again each other can be smoothed and perfected (like rocks in a tumbler).

Or, I told my niece, who is about to marry but caught up on issues that the relationship is not “perfect”: You have some choices – you can enter a convent to do penance for your spiritual growth, or you can enter into a marriage to do penance for your spiritual growth. Even single life has its own penances for spiritual growth.

 

[Denise1957]

He has pretty much left all the particular measures up to us, and there is a lot about building to avoid extreme heat and cold.

Plus some people without ACs use fans and evaporative coolers (which work well in some areas).

There’s a CAF thread where they are asking for & receiving suggestions for personal measures to solve environmental problems – forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=966018

Thanks for the info. I’d not seen that thread before - looking forward to participating on it.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So many wonderful thoughts to mediate upon.

“92. Moreover, when our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one. It follows that our indifference or cruelty towards fellow creatures of this world sooner or later affects the treatment we mete out to other human beings. We have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. Every act of cruelty towards any creature is “contrary to human dignity”. We can hardly consider ourselves to be fully loving if we disregard any aspect of reality: “Peace, justice and the preservation of creation are three absolutely interconnected themes, which cannot be separated and treated individually without once again falling into reductionism”. 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.”

 

[lynnvinc]

So many wonderful thoughts to mediate upon.

“92. Moreover, when our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one. It follows that our indifference or cruelty towards fellow creatures of this world sooner or later affects the treatment we mete out to other human beings. We have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. Every act of cruelty towards any creature is “contrary to human dignity”. We can hardly consider ourselves to be fully loving if we disregard any aspect of reality: “Peace, justice and the preservation of creation are three absolutely interconnected themes, which cannot be separated and treated individually without once again falling into reductionism”. 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.”

A real gem!

 

[lynnvinc]

Of course all the popes since JPII have been calling on us to mitigate climate change and other environmental problems – there basic messages have been the same.

However, I did have a few problems with BXVI’s “If You Want Peace, Protect Creation” – not that message itself, which was fine, but the potential loopholes in it that anti-environmentalists were very quick to latch onto and use as weapons against environmentalism and environmentalists (they are trying to do the same with Pope Francis’s Encyclical, but they have to totally bend it out of shape to do that).

So I was sincerely hoping two thing with this Encyclical:

1. That Pope Francis not even mention pantheism or neopaganism (which is really a separate issue and could be, if thought a serious threat to Catholicism or the world, addressed in a separate writing). BXVI’s letter put it in clearly as a caveat – basically saying while we should not be destroying the earth (the main message), we should not go to the other extreme of getting into pantheism and neopaganism (the caveat). Anti-environmentalists in the Church, some in influential position, latched on to that and said the neopagan thing was the most important thing, more important than environmental issues themselves.

Quite frankly I don’t know of any environmentalists at the grass roots level that are pantheists or neopagans – they are mostly moms concerned about their children’s future. And among the 4 neopagans I have met, none appeared to be concerned about environmental problems, certainly not as much as I am (a Catholic).

It became a way for the anti-environmentalists to dismiss any responsibility for doing right by the environment, except for some vague platitudes like, of course, we need to be good stewards.

One speaker was on EWTN, and I was thinking that there probably wouldn’t be many neopagans (or those likely to become neopagan) watching to hear the anti-neopagan message, and what the viewers really needed was some practical advice on what they could do to save the earth.

1. Both Pope Francis and BXVI use the terms “anthropocentrism,” “ecocentrism,” and “biocentrism” a bit differently from how I use them when teaching environmental courses. I use anthropocentrism to indicate that type of environmentalism in which people are focused on harm to people – like local pollution causing diseases; biocentrism for those focused on the non-human world (which I also explain that most of them would also be concerned about humans, as well – members of WWF, etc); and ecocentrism – those who understand that everything is connected and we can’t be destroying one part without destroying other parts, they have a more ecological perspective and want to save the whole.

BXVI basically knocked biocentrism and ecocentrism as being anti-human.

Now it is true that a few of those who are more into biocentrism and ecocentism could be anti-human, understanding the humans have caused the problems and are to them the scum of the earth. And I think perhaps some environmentalists of those strands might slip into that thinking now and then – mainly out of frustration.

But I also mention that those who are truly anthropocentric would have to be ecocentric, since we cannot save the people without saving the total systems on which they rely.

I think Pope Francis’s message gets to that latter idea about an ecocentric-anthropocentrism very well, and I appreciate that. He is very brilliant and has given a lot of thought to it.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree that the use of AC is important in those areas which have excessive nighttime temps. Does the encyclical have any recommendations for alternatives to AC? I personally think that homes or apartments could be designed to make use of such things as cross-drafts by placing windows in the right areas. A lot of old houses (like mine) were designed with this in mind. I agree that settings for AC could be put higher, as you’ve suggested.

Just an observation on my part but it seems A/C has allowed expansion of Catholic Masses well into the afternoon and evening, especially in the summer months. When Masses were celebrated in the mornings, it used to be fans and open windows but now of course, people can celebrate the evening before Sunday.

That said, it’s like everything else. Common sense is in order. People do die because of the heat; Chicago one summer had 700-800 deaths attributed to the heat and in many countries a heat wave can kill much more than that. The technology is there; we must use it wisely.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just an observation on my part but it seems A/C has allowed expansion of Catholic Masses well into the afternoon and evening, especially in the summer months. When Masses were celebrated in the mornings, it used to be fans and open windows but now of course, people can celebrate the evening before Sunday.

That said, it’s like everything else. Common sense is in order. People do die because of the heat; Chicago one summer had 700-800 deaths attributed to the heat and in many countries a heat wave can kill much more than that. The technology is there; we must use it wisely.

I remember that Chicago heat wave. 1995. I lived in Aurora, IL at the time (45 miles west of Chicago). It was the same year the first studies reached 95% confidence on global warming, and I thought it might be due to that. However, “attribution science” was not that well developed as it is now, so they couldn’t say it was. Maybe now they might be saying that, as they are with various floods, droughts, storm and heat waves around the world (not all, but many).

 

[Hans_W]

I believe what Pope Francis is saying is that science, technology and its methods cannot solve the problems it has created by using only its current paradigm. In his view it has, after all, resulted in the current crisis.

Science and technology could solve the problem by using one of many options of pulling the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But it’s simply not feasible. There is no economic way of doing that. Has got to do with the chemical stability of the CO2 molecule.

 

[ProVobis]

Science and technology could solve the problem by using one of many options of pulling the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But it’s simply not feasible. There is no economic way of doing that. Has got to do with the chemical stability of the CO2 molecule.

That’s why deadwood has be eliminated as soon as it’s discovered.

 

[lynnvinc]

Science and technology could solve the problem by using one of many options of pulling the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But it’s simply not feasible. There is no economic way of doing that. Has got to do with the chemical stability of the CO2 molecule.

The main thing that pulls CO2 out quickly is plants, but they are now being harmed by the warming, tho there is still some benefit to them from CO2 fertilization (tho too much of a good thing becomes bad) and longer seasons, etc. My understanding is that by 2050 GW (despite these positive effects) will be having a net negative effect on plants, turning it into a positive feedback into more GW.

So we have to act right now to reduce our emissions. Right now plant life draws down about half of our emissions. There is hope in God and His creation, but we also have to cooperate.

Another method that may be promising (tho BiofuelWatch.org has some concerns & doubts) is bio-char or pyrolysis – that is a special combustion of plants and plant waste that does not release hardly any CO2, but puts it into the charcoal, and that charcoal becomes an excellent soil amendment (AKA terra preta), improving crops.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

I think all sorts of plant materials could be used: agriculture waste, food waste, invasive plant species we are getting rid of anyway, some quick growing plants/trees (I’m thinking moringa) that draw down CO2 quickly.

There is NO SILVER BULLET – we need to do everything that works, no matter how small. For instance I take a hanky with me to wipe my hand in public restrooms, instead of using their paper or hand dryers. Everything that is feasible. Some tech is low tech – for instance clothes drying racks. I told the students I was bringing my “solar clothes dryer” to an Earth Day event they were hosting, and they were surprised to see my clothes drying rack from yester-year, with cloth hankies, napkins, and diapers with the words REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.

But the Pope is right, bec as he well knows the tech has been there for decades to solve the problem, but people are not implementing it hardly at all. What we need is a true spiritual conversion and deep humility to face the problem, and a trust in God that He will help us not to have to swelter in the dark, which I think is one of the main blockages for people to accept AGW is happening and then do something about it.

We need religion and moral guidance and a true inner conversion to do right, despite our fears and political ideologies, etc. Sci and tech are clearly not enough.

 

[Thomas_White]

Science and technology could solve the problem by using one of many options of pulling the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But it’s simply not feasible. There is no economic way of doing that. Has got to do with the chemical stability of the CO2 molecule.

Yes, I understand. My comment was not meant as critical of science or the scientific method. Science and technology can and in fact must address many of the existing environmental problems if they are to be solved. What I believe Pope Francis is saying, however (and most directly at the beginning of Chapter Three of the encyclical), is that the methods of science and technology have become a cultural paradigm where the problem is not science but the misuse of its methods by man. It is in that sense that science, technology and its methods, as they have been misused within the existing cultural paradigm, cannot in the long-term solve the problem.

Simply stated, the particular problem of excess CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be solved if humans continue to release excess CO2 into the atmosphere, even when the environmental harm that will result is known. This is then no longer a scientific issue; it becomes an ethical and moral one. Something will first have to change, and it will necessarily involve not pure science but rather the way man relates to the environment and to all other life forms that share the earth. This is the larger theological issue Pope Francis addresses in the encyclical. And it involves far more than AGW.

 

[ProVobis]

It was the same year the first studies reached 95% confidence on global warming, and I thought it might be due to that. However, “attribution science” was not that well developed as it is now, so they couldn’t say it was. Maybe now they might be saying that, as they are with various floods, droughts, storm and heat waves around the world (not all, but many).

Except that the perception from that theory, if I’m reading it right, is that man (or any mammal, for that matter) by his very presence is a heavy contributor to global warming. IMO this is damaging to the desire of propagation of human life, not exactly the position we want to take. Reminiscent of the encyclical Populorum Progressio perhaps?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Here are a few Ideas that will not be popular:

1. The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty. A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions. The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.[129] Diplomacy also takes on new importance in the work of developing international strategies which can anticipate serious problems affecting us all.
2. In some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. This simple example shows that, while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals and groups can make a real difference. They are able to instil a greater sense of responsibility, a strong sense of community, a readiness to protect others, a spirit of creativity and a deep love for the land. They are also concerned about what they will eventually leave to their children and grandchildren. These values are deeply rooted in indigenous peoples. Because the enforcement of laws is at times inadequate due to corruption, public pressure has to be exerted in order to bring about decisive political action. Society, through non-governmental organizations and intermediate groups, must put pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls. Unless citizens control political power – national, regional and municipal – it will not be possible to control damage to the environment. Local legislation can be more effective, too, if agreements exist between neighbouring communities to support the same environmental policies.

 

[lynnvinc]

Except that the perception from that theory, if I’m reading it right, is that man (or any mammal, for that matter) by his very presence is a heavy contributor to global warming. IMO this is damaging to the desire of propagation of human life, not exactly the position we want to take. Reminiscent of the encyclical Populorum Progressio perhaps?

No one counts animals & humans breathing out CO2. Without THAT CO2 what would plants do? They are referring to the extra CO2 from digging up fossil fuels & burning them lickity-split as if there’s no tomorrow and as if no one invented alt energy, passive solar construction (which has been around for over 2500 years, except for the past couple of centuries*). Sort of an ethos of eat, drink, be merry, and burn up all the fossil fuels, for tomorrow we shall die (and who cares about future generations). Or some addiction to oil (which even Pres. Bush warned us of).

There are tremendous amounts of solutions just sitting there collecting dust for over 20, 30, 40 years. We really just need to start implementing them so as to leave a life-viable world for the children and the poor. I really don’t see what so wrong about that.

For instance my husband and I have been selecting homes within 1 to 2 miles of work and shops our entire 45 years of marriage so as to leave some finite resources for future generations. And for the past 25 years have been implementing various measures to reduce our GHG emissions and other pollution so as to reduce our environmental harms to people now, esp the poor, and future generations.

It was NOT our motive to save $1000s from that – which we ended up doing – but to save lives. That’s why the Pope says we need more than tech; we need religion and a strong desire to do what is right, good, and just, thinking of other people.

That motive, to save lives (actually reduce my harm to others), has been like a fire under me for decades that keeps me going, despite all the demoralizing naysayers out there. Luckily my mother taught me very strongly not to follow the crowd, but to do what is right.

---

*A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technology

 

[ProVobis]

…digging up fossil fuels & burning them lickity-split as if there’s no tomorrow and as if no one invented alt energy, passive solar construction (which has been around for over 2500 years, except for the past couple of centuries*). Sort of an ethos of eat, drink, be merry, and burn up all the fossil fuels, for tomorrow we shall die (and who cares about future generations). Or some addiction to oil (which even Pres. Bush warned us of).

I think we had this discussion during the Nixon and Carter years. It seems high oil prices cut down the demand for fossil fuels back then. Maybe not so much for the supply.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think we had this discussion during the Nixon and Carter years. It seems high oil prices cut down the demand for fossil fuels back then. Maybe not so much for the supply.

Again it was not the price of oil or any other economic consideration that drove us to buy a Chevy Volt and plug it into our 40% solar, 60% wind-generated electricity. But the love of God, other people, and God’s creation.

Afterward we realized it was the smart economic thing to do, and we’re saving $$ from the solar panels, the wind part of our electricity, and the Volt, but we had actually thought we’d be spending and sacrificing, rather than gaining. People do still give charity and do acts of kindness without reward…or in our case reduce our harm to people even tho we think it will be costing us.

We’ve got to get out of the economic mentality we are in – supply, demand, price, what’s in it for me mentality – and become more religious 24/7. There are very serious flaws with neoclassical economics (which is worse than Adam Smith classical econ, which also had serious problems), and now I just read about “behavioral economics” from a critique of the World Bank’s new report based on that field, which is even much much worse than neoclassical economics, a basically blame everything on the poor (so we don’t have to do anything for them) strategy.

Things are getting really worse in the secular world, in case no one has noticed, and we need to get into not only alt energy, but the alt world view and ethos of real Catholicism and Christianity, cling to the Church, seek refuge in it, and stop following the crowd into a very bad place.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

The thread has deviated into a discussion on science and technology. The encyclical is on moral obligations. Please stick to that subject and avoid detailed discussions on science and technology. A quick reference to either is not the problem. Several posts are a problem.

Secondly, remember that CAF has a rule. The Holy Father must always be spoken about with reverence. Offensive and condescending language are prohibited. You can disagree with him on any matter that is not about moral duty or dogma, but you may never speak of him irreverently.

Thank You

 

[lynnvinc]

Not sure to which posts the moderator is referring.

I think the Pope was also addressing the shortcomings of the technological approach – I think perhaps referring to geo-engineering or sitting by and waiting for technology to solve the problem. Or, that even with the tech available and off-the-shelf to solve the problems, people are not solving them.

I don’t think he meant science are technology are NOT solutions, only that they are inadequate to the task and what we need is (in JPII’s words) an “ecological conversion,” that it has to come from the heart.

We can’t really separate science and technology (like my “solar clothes drying rack” or solar panels) from discussion of the Encyclical, only that the Holy Father has left particular mitigation measures up to us to implement what we can according to what is feasible for us individually, and that the governments should gear us toward implementing these. He also suggested that we’re using too much air conditioning, wasting too much, and a few other things.