Laudato Si'-encyclical

[jacob]

Encyclical - English version

I read all of it and from a scientific, systems-theoretic, and ecological perspective, there's nothing to object to. There's also a lot of discussion about the systemic problems with the democratic and capitalist systems as their short-term (next quarter, next election) focus makes it hard to solve longer-timescale problem. This was also much more insightful in realizing the complexities of these governing systems than I expected. There's a recognition that consumerism and technocratic optimism is the moral foundation that caused the origin of the problems facing us now and for the next several hundred years.

Summarizing:

1) There's an accurate description of the scientific and ecological facts.
2) The description of the shortfalls of democratic and capitalistic institutions pulls no punches(*).
3) The problems are attributed a morality based on consumerism and technocratic optimism.
4) Basically (3) leads to (1) given the shortfalls of (2).

(*) This is the first time I've seen such a strong wording and understanding from someone so high up. One should think he was channelling CHS or similar.

The encyclical aims to give a solution by changing the global morality away from consumerism and techno-optimism. Much of the deeper stuff (about 1/3 of the last part of the document) goes rather deep in Biblical scholarship (above my head) but the general gist as we (humans presently alive) should change our morality from individualistic exploitation into one that considers all humans now (social equity instead of personal accumulation) and in the future (caretaking substitutes for dominion) as well as all of nature (other beings have inherent worth beyond being "economic resources"). In short, it's a moral prescription based on the reality of the present planetary situation and its weaknesses in the governing systems of democracy and capitalism.

Hence, the last part is:
5) Poor ethics is the real problem facing us, so substitute (3) with another set of ethics as presented in this document.

There's not really anything I disagree with here and ERE would fit right in there with the solutions. Having realized that relying on the entire global population to self-educate to a sufficient degree on all these issues AND everybody taking personal action to go against the prevailing morality (of worshipping growth and technology) is EXTREMELY unlikely, I've thought for a long time that the only way for humanity to bootstrap our way out of being in deep ... to our neck would be a religious approach.

I am very pleased to see this document. I hope it'll be taken seriously!!

And I can see why certain politicians of the worst kind literally can't afford to embrace it.

[J_]

From my own I would never read an encyclic. This was the first I read. I skipped the biblical part and I read in some parts 'nature' in stead of God, just as Spinoza did.
I agree Jacob, ere fits perfect in this credo for a joyful life style combined with sobriety. Thanks for posting.

[enigmaT120]

These guys have a different reaction than Jacob's:

http://www.theonion.com/article/frustra ... -sci-50701

I see us as stewards of the Earth.

[Dragline]

Nice book review, for someone who doesn't do book reviews.

More seriously, thanks for the summary -- I have not had time to read it. It confirms my belief that religion/spirituality and science actually need each other more than either camp likes to admit to be persuasive in the marketplace of ideas.

Now is PF the "Gray Champion" alluded to in the Fourth Turning or what!

[jacob]

Grrrrr, touche! Maybe it's more that I dislike deadlines. Or maybe I'll suffer book reviews but not book reports. Historically during the torture years of K12, reports were the second worst, only superceded by poems/verse analysis. The encyclic ends with one btw ;-P

Since a long time, I've been reading most book for the benefits of a few paragraphs or even single sentences of additional insight. Apparently a common affliction for those who've read way too much already.

[DSKla]

Everything this pope does is just surreal to me. I find it unfathomable that he slipped through the cracks of Catholicism into the papacy. It would be as if Ralph Nader somehow found himself in charge of the Republican National Convention, but only if the RNC Had been around since the end of the Roman Empire without altering their doctrine very much. I chuckle endlessly every time he does something cool as I imagine his handlers running around doing damage control. Especially that time he told some kid his dead dog might go to Heaven. Classic.

[jacob]

Indeed, if all the bishops and their followers were similar to the pope, I might even become religious again (figuring that I'd made a type II error on religious matters rather than everybody else making type I errors). This Pontifex gives me hope.

[Dragline]

The Jesuits are known for being a little more engaged with the physical world than some of the other orders:

"A Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit were sitting in a room when the lights went out. The Franciscan said, “My brothers, let us take this opportunity to consider the debt we owe to our sister, the light.” The Dominican said, “Yes, but let us also take this opportunity to contemplate the difference between light and dark.” Meanwhile, the Jesuit went to the basement, found the fuse box, and reset the breaker."

- See more at: http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/dot ... G7Em8.dpuf

[jacob]

Didn't know that the Pope was a Jesuit.

http://thinkjesuit.org/home/become-a-je ... it-for-me/

I answered yes to most of these questions ...

[GandK]

@Dragline LOL!

I saw this opinion piece on CNN this afternoon: A message from the Pope: Hey you, stop ignoring climate change

An excerpt:

It starts with paying attention.

I was forced to wrestle with some of these difficult questions on a recent trip to the Marshall Islands, a low-lying country in the Pacific, about halfway between Hawaii and Australia. The entire nation may not exist in just a few decades if carbon emissions aren't cut drastically -- and people there are painfully aware of those facts. Marshallese people see the floods that have claimed homes and eroded beaches. They hear the roar of the ocean. It used to be a comfort, and now it frightens some people on the coast.

...

I wandered around the islands for several days asking people about migration: What happens if this nation disappears? Where will you go? When will you go? Do you have a Plan B?

Then I met a young woman who helped show me how wrongheaded that was.

"When people ask that, it feels like defeat," Milañ Loeak, a climate activist in Majuro, the capital, told me. "And I don't want to feel defeated. I don't want to entertain that question. I think people should be saying, 'What can we do to help?' instead of saying, 'When will you go?' "

What can we do, though? Not being glib... AFAIK, only cutting our own carbon footprints and painting our roofs white are demonstrably effective actions that don't involve either a literal or figurative bullhorn.

Are there others?

[jacob]

Sure, there are others. First, one should internalize the fact that any CO2 emitted stays up there doing damage for many hundreds of years. (Note, scientific fact, no debatable ... it is what it is, because reality). That means each time any kind of CO2 is emitted by e.g. driving a car, importing/moving goods, using electricity, ... or partaking in any kind of activity that requires these things, you're cumulatively adding to the problem.

E.g. if you turn the ignition on your Prius to drive 2M to, you've added to the problem. A small fraction, admittedly, but nevertheless, you've added PERMANENTLY to the problem.

It's not a matter or flow or rate of use. It's a stock problem. Everything you do today is going to 100% contribute to increasing the predicament. Everything you do tomorrow, ditto, etc. CUMULATIVELY!

That's tough!!

I realize that this is somewhat beyond normal human experience ... that damage simple adds and adds ... but unfortunately that doesn't change it. It is what it is.

Standard advice ...

Do not leverage the problem by adding to the population. Adding one person requires a sacrifice of reducing your own consumption by 50%! That's a lot! Adding two requires you to reduce your (as well as your children's) contribution to 33% of your previous contribution. And so on. (I chose not to procreate. To be fair, that was easy since I have little interest in parenthood for other reasons)

Use local stuff, transporting stuff around the globe is pretty bad and adds significantly to the atmospheric cost. (I try to be local/American but this is an area where I'm not that impressive... but generally, I try to keep things local. Still, I get in a car for fun whereas the moral thing to do would be to reserve such things for medical emergencies.)

Reuse ... don't throw away. Producing the product already caused most of the problem. If you adopt a used product, your additional contribution will be much smaller. (I've been extremely good in this department. The only things I buy new are socks and underwear.)

If everybody in the developed(*) world met the "1 jacob"(**) standard, we'll manage to stay under the 2C limit. As it is, we're heading much higher.

(*) This is rapidly becoming an outdated/ouldfashioned term. Parts of the "developing" world are actually more developed than the first world in several dimensions.

(**) $7000/person/year in the US. I'm currently below this.

[Tyler9000]

Do not leverage the problem by adding to the population. Adding one person requires a sacrifice of reducing your own consumption by 50%! That's a lot! Adding two requires you to reduce your (as well as your children's) contribution to 33% of your previous contribution. And so on. (I chose not to procreate. To be fair, that was easy since I have little interest in parenthood for other reasons)

To be clear, PF directly refuted the call for population control in the same encyclical. “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate... To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues."

http://tinyurl.com/nojzl8d

[jacob]

Yeah ... the pope prefers a high population at a lower individual impact (prioritize the poor) rather than a restraining population to allow a higher individual impact. That choice is a matter of opinion. The absolute limit as determined by the product of population times impact is not.

What's harder?

1) Telling people to have less cute babies?
2) Telling people to stop wasting resources?

The Pope's encyclical is clearly in (2) in order to avoid (1) which would violate dogma. I personally favor (1), but then again. I was never heavily inclined to be in (2) anyway, so (1) is easy for me. Given human nature/inclination towards procreation, I understand why (2) is preferred/more popular.

In any case, one can pick (1) or (2) but not both.

Would you have one child if it meant reducing your consumption by 2/3=66%? Would you have two children if it means reducing by 2/4=50%?

It's tough. But necessary if you want humanity to have a future beyond just some additional generations (according to our best logical understanding of how reality works).

[jacob]

Oh ... I should note that about 1/7 of the population (that's be 300+M Americans and 600+M EUropeans still use 50% of the global resources ... This is also the Pontifex position which then leads to his conclusion that we should be more equitable. That is, his solution is that we (US+EU) should use substantially less so that the other 6 billion people can use more than their present $2/day income.

Physically, however, that's still not quite enough the solve the ecological boundary problem. Politically though I remain supremely impressed! (My political standards are quite low )

[black_son_of_gray]

Yeah ... the pope prefers a high population at a lower individual impact (prioritize the poor) rather than a restraining population to allow a higher individual impact. That choice is a matter of opinion. The absolute limit as determined by the product of population times impact is not.

Cliffs Notes for the unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

[7Wannabe5]

Jacob said: Would you have one child if it meant reducing your consumption by 2/3=66%? Would you have two children if it means reducing by 2/4=50%?

Yes. BTDT. I mostly stayed home with my 2 kids for the first 7 years (instead of embarking on a career as an actuary for which I was qualified) and we mostly survived just on the earnings of my proto-hipster ex-husband (maybe $24,000/year in 2015 dollars on a good year -lol- but I still give him credit for manning up as best as he was able given his MBTI) The funny/interesting thing is that our financial situation became worse after I started working/commuting full-time and was less well able to substitute creativity for cash and I wouldn't say that our standard-of-living improved overall except in some superficial ways such as bigger home and acquisition of 2 cars. I didn't make myself super-popular washing loads of cloth diapers in a shared laundry room but it was mostly fun and everybody was reasonably well-fed (too many homemade muffins) and learned to read early and got to run around naked with finger paints and take naps together in the afternoon etc. etc. The only thing I regret is that I was too cheap to buy a good quality collapsible double stroller so I was always having to chase a toddler with a 30 lb. baby on my back while carrying a bag of groceries from the co-op and attempting to board the bus.

I'm basically still in the same lifestyle now, I suppose, because I support myself on less than $10,000/yr doing part-time work I mostly feel is fun and worthwhile. Of course, I do feel bad that somebody is having to man up and do some horrible boring job like being an actuary from 9-5 in order to pay the taxes that pay for me to be paid $12/hr. for teaching poor children how to do long-division. Except, I don't feel too bad because whenever I tell one of these poor fellows that he could quit his job and sell his big house, cars, motorcycles, riding lawnmowers, garage fridge full of beer and meat and come live with me in a yurt on my vacant lot and eat mulberry crisp and bean soup, they just laugh and tell me that I am impractical.

[Papers of Indenture]

Interesting read on the Pope's PR man

http://www.vice.com/read/greg-burke-pope-pr

[jennypenny]

I think the Pope's position on population comes not only from catholic doctrine but also from his adopted role of defender of the poor. From that perspective, it's easy to view the issue as the over-consuming rich telling the under-consuming poor that they (the poor) should consume even less, which can seem grossly unfair since one Trump offspring consumes a lot more than entire families from poorer countries. In essence, when it comes to current* overconsumption, the poor aren't the problem.


*Obviously, another way to look at it is that they could be a future problem, but it's hard to dismiss Pope Francis's view as baseless.

[enigmaT120]

E.g. if you turn the ignition on your Prius to drive 2M to, you've added to the problem. A small fraction, admittedly, but nevertheless, you've added PERMANENTLY to the problem.

I have about 31 acres of forest growing. That has to help.

[jennypenny]

Here's the transcript from a speech Pope Francis gave in South America recently. I like his insistence that people are not helpless and that they shouldn't wait around for politicians to fix things.

I also liked this quote ...
"The economy should not be a mechanism for accumulating goods, but rather the proper administration of our common home. ... It is an economy where human beings, in harmony with nature, structure the entire system of production and distribution in such a way that the abilities and needs of each individual find suitable expression in social life. You, and other peoples as well, sum up this desire in a simple and beautiful expression: “to live well”, which is not the same as “to have a good time”."