Autor: Leonardo Boff

Leonardo Boff (*1938) doutorou-se em teologia pela Universidade de Munique. Foi professor de teologia sistemática e ecumênica com os Franciscanos em Petrópolis e depois professor de ética, filosofia da religião e de ecologia filosófica na Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Conta-se entre um dos iniciadores da teologia da libertação. É assessor de movimentos populares. Conhecido como professor e conferencista no pais e no estrangeiro nas áreas de teologia, filosofia, ética, espiritualidade e ecologia. Em 1985 foi condenado a um ano de silêncio obsequioso pelo ex-Santo Ofício, por suas teses no livro Igreja: carisma e poder (Record). A partir dos anos 80 começou a aprofundar a questão ecológica como prolongamento da teologia da libertação, pois não somente se deve ouvir o grito do oprimido mas também o grito da Terra porque ambos devem ser libertados. Em razão deste compromisso participou da redação da Carta da Terra junto com M.Gorbachev, S.Rockfeller e outros. Escreveu vários livros e foi agraciado com vários prêmios. Salientamos alguns títulos: Ecologia: Ecologia, Mundialização, Espiritualidade (Record), Civilização planetária (Sextante), A voz do arco-iris (Sextante), Saber cuidar (Vozes), Ética e ecoespiritualidade (Verus), Homem: satã ou anjo bom (Record), Evangelho do Cristo cósmico (Record); Do iceberg à Arca de Noé (Sextante); Opção Terra. A solução da Terra não cái do céu (Sextante); Proteger a Terra-cuidar a vida.Como evitar o fim do mundo (Record); Ecologia: grito da Terra, grito do pobre (Sextante) pelo qual recebeu o prêmio Sérgio Buarque de Holanda como o melhor ensaio social do ano de 1994 e em 1997 nos EUA foi considerado um dos três livros publicados naquele ano que mais favorecia o dialogo entre ciência e religião. Junto com Mark Hathaway escreveu nos USA The Tao of Liberation. Exploring the Ecogoy of Transformation com Prefácio de Fritjof Capra, ganhando a medalha de ouro da instituição Nautilus para criatividade intelectual e o primeiro lugar do livro religioso do ano. Recebeu os títulos de dr.honoris causa em política pela Universidade de Turin em 1991, dr.honoris causa em teologia pela Universidade de Lund (Suécia) em 1992 e dr.honoris causa em teologia, ecumenismo, direitos humanos, ecologia e entendimento entre os povos pelas Faculdades EST de São Leopoldo em 2008 e dr.horis pela Cátedra del Água da Universidade de Rosário na Argentina em 2010. Em 2008 pela Universidade de São Carlos em Guatemala e pela Universidade de Cuenca no Equador, recebeu o titulo de Professor Honorário. Foi assesssor da Presidência da Assembléia da ONU ao tempo da administração de Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann (2008-2009) e participa atualmente do grupo de reforma da ONU, especialmente quanto à Declaração Universal do Bem Comum da Terra e da Humanidade.

The Conceptual Deficiencies of Rio+20

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

To say that Rio+20 was a success is a fantasy, because not a single binding measure was reached, and neither funds to eradicate poverty, nor mechanisms to control global warming was created. No decisions were taken regarding the purpose of the Conference, which was to create conditions for the «future we want». The logic of the governments is not to admit failures, but failures still exist. Given the general degradation of all the eco-systemic services, failing to make progress is to regress.

Deep down Rio+20 affirmed that if the crisis lies in growth, then the solution is still more growth. This necessarily means greater use of nature’s goods and services, which accelerates their exhaustion, and puts more pressure on the ecosystems, which have already reached their limit. Data by the very UN organs show that since Rio 92 there has been a 12% loss of biodiversity, 3 million square meters of forests and jungles were destroyed, 40% more green house gasses were released, and about half of the world reserves of fish have been depleted.

What is surprising is that neither the final document nor its draft reveal any self criticism. They neither question how we have come to the present situation, nor clearly recognize the systemic character of the crisis. This is the theoretical weakness and conceptual deficiency of this, and in general, other official UN documents. Let’s enumerate some critical points.

Those who continue within the old cultural and social structure that places the human being in an Adam-like position, above nature, as her dominator and exploiter, are the fundamental cause of the present ecological crisis. They fail to understand humans as being part of nature, and responsible for the common destiny. They have not incorporated the vision of the new cosmology that sees the Earth as alive, and the human being as the conscious and intelligent portion of the Earth itself, with the mission of caring for her and guaranteeing sustainability. The Earth is seen only as a warehouse of resources, with neither intelligence nor purpose.

They adopted the «great transformation» (Polanyi), when they annulled ethics, set aside politics, and made the economy the sole axis for structuring all of society. From a market economy we have transitioned to a market society, separating the real economy from the financial speculative economy, with the latter directing the former.

They confuse development with growth, whereas development is the collection of values and conditions that foster the realization of human existence, and growth is the mere production of goods to be commercialized and consumed. They understand sustainability as the means of guaranteeing the continuity and the reproduction of the same, of the institutions, the enterprises and other organizations, without changing their internal logic or questioning their impact on the eco-systemic services. They are hostage to an anthropocentric point of view, according to which all other beings have meaning only to the extent they are ordained for human use, thus ignoring the community of life, also generated, as are we ourselves, by Mother Earth. They have a utilitarian relationship with all beings, denying their intrinsic value, because of which they are due respect, and have rights, especially planet Earth.

Viewing everything through the economic vision of competition rather than cooperation, they abolished the ethical and spiritual dimension from the reflections on lifestyles, and the means by which societies produce and consume. Without ethics or spirituality we turn ourselves into barbarians, insensitive to the suffering of millions and millions of starving and miserable human beings. Therefore, a radical individualism reigns, with each country seeking its own particular good above the global common good, thus precluding consensus and the convergence of the diversities in UN Conferences. And so, content and alienated, we head towards an encounter with the abyss created by our lack of sensible reason, wisdom, and a transcendent sense of existence.

With these conceptual deficiencies, we will never emerge from the crises that destroy us. This was the cry of the Leadership of the Peoples that offered alternatives of hope. In the worst case scenario, the Earth will continue, but without us. May the Divine not let that happen, because God is «the sovereign lover of life», as the Judeo-Christian Scriptures affirm.

See L.Boff & M.Hathaway,The Tao of Liberation– Exploring the Ecology of Transformation, Orbis Books, N.Y. 2010.

Insuficiencias conceptuales de la Rio+20

Leonardo Boff3 Comentários

Decir que la Río+20 fue un éxito no corresponde a la realidad, pues no se llegó a ninguna medida vinculante, ni se crearon fondos para la erradicación de la pobreza ni mecanismos para el control del calentamiento global. No se tomaron decisiones para hacer efectivo el propósito de la Conferencia que era crear las condiciones para el «futuro que queremos». En la lógica de los gobiernos está no admitir fracasos, pero no por eso dejan de serlo. Dada la degradación general de todos los servicios ecosistémicos, no progresar significa retroceder.

En el fondo se afirma: si la crisis se encuentra en el crecimiento, entonces la solución se obtiene con más crecimiento todavía. Esto concretamente significa más uso de los bienes y servicios de la naturaleza, lo que acelera su agotamiento, y más presión sobre los ecosistemas, ya en sus límites. Datos de los propios organismos de la ONU informan que desde la Río 92 ha habido una pérdida del 12% de la biodiversidad, 3 millones de metros cuadrados de bosques y selvas fueron derribados, se emitió un 40% más de gases de efecto invernadero y cerca de la mitad de las reservas mundiales de pesca han sido agotadas.

Lo que sorprende es que ni el documento final ni el borrador muestren ningún sentido de autocrítica. No se preguntan por qué hemos llegado a la situación actual, ni perciben, claramente, el carácter sistémico de la crisis. Aquí reside la debilidad teórica y la insuficiencia conceptual de éste y, en general, de otros documentos oficiales de la ONU. Enumeremos algunos puntos críticos.

Los que deciden continúan dentro del viejo software cultural y social que coloca al ser humano en una posición adánica, sobre la naturaleza, como su dominador y explotador, razón fundamental de la actual crisis ecológica. No entienden al ser humano como parte de la naturaleza y responsable por el destino común. No han incorporado la visión de la nueva cosmología que ve la Tierra como viva y al ser humano como la porción consciente e inteligente de la propia Tierra, con la misión de cuidar de ella y garantizarle sostenibilidad. La Tierra es vista tan solo como un depósito de recursos, sin inteligencia ni propósito.

Acogieron la «gran transformación» (Polanyi) al anular la ética, marginalizar la política e instaurar como único eje estructurador de toda la sociedad la economía. De una economía de mercado hemos pasado a una sociedad de mercado, separando la economía real de la economía financiera especulativa, ésta dirigiendo a aquella.

Confundieron desarrollo con crecimiento, aquel como el conjunto de valores y condiciones que permiten el la realización de la existencia humana, y éste como mera producción de bienes a ser comercializados en el mercado y consumidos. Entienden la sostenibilidad como la manera de garantizar la continuidad y la reproducción de lo mismo, de las instituciones, de las empresas y de otras instancias, sin cambiar su lógica interna y sin cuestionar los impactos que causan sobre todos los servicios ecosistémicos. Son rehenes de una concepción antropocéntrica, según la cual todos los demás seres solamente tienen sentido en la medida en que se ordenan al ser humano, desconociendo la comunidad de vida, también generada, como nosotros, por la Madre Tierra. Mantienen una relación utilitarista con todos los seres, negándoles valor intrínseco y por eso calidad de sujetos de respeto y de derechos, especialmente al planeta Tierra.

Por considerar todo bajo la óptica de lo económico que se rige por la competición y no por la cooperación, abolieron la ética y la dimensión espiritual en la reflexión sobre el estilo de vida, de producción y de consumo de las sociedades. Sin ética ni espiritualidad, nos hicimos bárbaros, insensibles a la pasión de millones y millones de hambrientos y miserables. Por eso impera un individualismo radical; cada país busca su bien particular por encima del bien común global, lo que impide, en las Conferencias de la ONU, consensos y convergencias en la diversidad. Y así, contentos y alienados, vamos al encuentro de un abismo, cavado por nuestra falta de razón sensible, de sabiduría y de sentido transcendente de la existencia.

Con estas insuficiencias conceptuales, nunca saldremos bien de las crisis que nos asolan. Este era el clamor de la Cúpula de los Pueblos que presentaba alternativas de esperanza. En la peor de las hipótesis, la Tierra podrá continuar, pero sin nosotros.

Que no lo permita Dios, porque es «el soberano amante de la vida», como afirman las Escrituras judeocristianas.

Begriffe aus der derzeitigen ökologischen Debatte

Leonardo Boff1 comentário

Rio +20 hat eine umfassende Debatte über ökologische Themen ausgelöst. Da nicht alle die Fachbegriffe der Debatte verstehen, veröffentlichen wir hier einen Artikel des bekanntesten Ökologen des Staates Rio, Arthur Soffiati aus Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, dem Gründer des Centro Norte Fluminense für die Bewahrung der Natur. Dieser Artikel erschien am 14. Mai 2012 in Rio de Janeiros Zeitung La Folha da  Manhã.  Die wichtigsten Schlagworte sind: nachhaltige, ökologische Entwicklung, grüne Wirtschaft, ökologischer Fußabdruck und anthropogen (vom Menschen bedingt).

Vor ca. 11 000 Jahren begann die Erdtemperatur auf natürliche Weise zu steigen und verursachte somit das allmähliche Auftauen der letzten Eiszeit. Ein Großteil dieses Wassers, das durch die Eisschmelze entstand, ließ die Meeresspiegel steigen, spaltete Teile von den Kontinenten ab, bildete Inseln und förderte die Entstehung von Wäldern, Urwäldern und anderen Ökosysteme. Wissenschaftler nannten dieses neue Zeitalter „Holozän“.

In den vergangenen 11 000 Jahren überlebte von den Hominiden nur der Homo sapiens, der sich selbst zum Herrscher über den ganzen Planeten erhob. Mit einem gut entwickelten Gehirn wurde er durch die neuen klimatischen Bedingungen herausgefordert,  lernte Pflanzen zu kultivieren, zähmte Tiere, erfand die Landwirtschaft, schuf Technologien um Steine zu schleifen, erfand das Rad, den Webstuhl und die Metallurgie. Dann schuf er Städte, Reiche, Dämme, die Abwasserkanalisation und Bewässerungssysteme. Einige Zivilisationen überschritten die Grenzen des Ökosystems, in dem sie gewachsen waren, und verursachten so ökologische Krisen, die zu ihrem Untergang beitrugen.

Hier kommt der Begriff des ökologischen Fußabdrucks ins Spiel. Er bezieht sich auf das Ausmaß der ökologischen Belastung, die durch einen Einzelnen, durch eine Aktivität, ein Wirtschaftssystem oder eine Gesellschaft verursacht wird. Der ökologische Fußabdruck der Zivilisationen, die noch nicht den westlichen Lebensstil hatten, hatte immer nur regionale Auswirkungen, die manchmal reversibel waren, manchmal auch nicht. Die westliche Zivilisation trägt die bisher schwersten Stiefel, was den Fußabdruck betrifft. Diese gewannen durch den Kapitalismus, der die ganze Welt umgewandelt hat, an Gewicht.

Im 15. Jahrhundert begann die westliche (d. h. die europäische) Zivilisation durch ihre Verbreitung über die Meere, eine tiefe Spur zu hinterlassen. Sie zwang ihre Kultur anderen Bereichen des Planeten auf. Die Welt wurde verwestlicht und begann ebenfalls, die Umwelt mit Füßen zu treten.

Eine weitere große Umwälzung begann mit der industriellen Revolution, die ihren Ursprung im England des 18. Jahrhunderts nahm. Sie verbreitete sich über die ganze Welt und spaltete diese dadurch in Industrieländer und in Rohstoff exportierende Länder auf. Von dort aus begann sich eine andere planetarische Wirklichkeit zu entfalten: mit gasförmigen Emissionen, die zu Erderwärmung führen, Urwälder und Wälder verwüsten und die Artenvielfalt der Erde verarmen lässt durch ihren unrechtmäßigen Gebrauch der Böden, starker Verstädterung, tiefen Veränderungen in den Zyklen von Stickstoff und Phosphor, Kontamination des Trinkwassers, Verdünnung der Ozonschicht, exzessiven Abbau nichterneuerbarer Ressourcen und gleichzeitig der Produktion von noch nie dagewesenen Mengen an Müll.

Wissenschaftler weisen nach, dass innerhalb des Holozäns (holos = ganz + koinos = neu)  das Agieren der gesamten Menschheit in Kapitalismus und Sozialismus eine Umweltkrise ohne Präzedenzfall in der Erdgeschichte hervorgerufen hat, denn sie wurde durch eine einzige Spezies verursacht. Sie nannten die Phase der postindustriellen Revolution des 18. Jahrhunderts das „Anthropozän“ oder ein geologisches Zeitalter, das durch den Menschen verursacht wurde (antropos = Mensch + koinos = neu).

Angesichts dieser tiefen Krise und dieses neuen Zeitalters, berufen die Vereinten Nationen riesige internationale Konferenzen ein, wie die Konferenz von Stockholm (1972), Rio 92 und jetzt Rio +20. Ihr Zweck besteht darin, eine Lösung des anthropogenen Problems zu finden, sei es durch Harmonisierung der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung mit dem Umweltschutz oder im Suchen nach anderen Formen von Entwicklung. Rio 92 prägte den Begriff von nachhaltiger Entwicklung, die verschiedene Bedeutungen annahm, von denen einige selbst dem ursprünglichen Sinn widersprechen.

Die Konferenz Rio +20 strebt ein Gleichgewicht der ökologischen, sozialen und ökonomischen Dimensionen an. Das Zauberwort heißt nun grüne Wirtschaft, dessen Bedeutung unklar ist. Man vermutet dass es zumindest den sukzessiven Ersatz von Kohlenstoff-intensiven Energien durch erneuerbare Energien und von nichterneuerbaren Rohstoffen durch erneuerbare Rohstoffe bedeutet.

Rio +20 hat gezeigt, dass die Industrieländer nicht von ihrer Position abweichen wollen. Die Schwellenländer wollen den Vorsprung der Industrieländer einholen, und die armen Länder wollen zu Schwellenländern werden. Solange die Grenzen der Belastbarkeit der Erde nicht anerkannt werden, ist es nutzlos, über soziale Gerechtigkeit und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung nachzudenken. Folglich ist die Umwelt wichtiger als soziale oder wirtschaftliche Aspekte, denn ohne die Umwelt ist es unmöglich, für diese anderen beiden eine Lösung zu finden. Andererseits scheint der Begriff einer ökologischen Entwicklung als Taktik und Strategie am treffendsten.

Übersetzt von Bettina Gold-Hartnack

The terms of the present ecological debate

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Rio+20 has provoked a wide debate about ecological issues. Since not everyone understands the technical terms of the debate, we are publishing an article by the best known ecologist of the State of Rio, Arthur Soffiati, of Campos de Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, founder of the Centro Norte Fluminense for the Conservation of Nature, published on May 14, 2012 in Rio de Janeiro’s La Folha da Manhã. These are the principal terms: sustainable eco-development, green economy, ecological footprint, and anthropocenic.

Some 11,000 years ago, the temperature of the Earth began to increase naturally, causing the progressive thawing of the last glaciation. Most of this water, as it passed from solid to liquid, raised the sea levels, separating the continental masses, forming islands, fostering the formation of forest and jungles and other ecosystems. Scientists named this new phase “Holocene.”

In the last 11,000 years, of the Hominids, there remained only Homo sapiens, who turned himself into the sovereign of the whole planet. With a well developed brain, which was challenged by the new climatic conditions, he domesticated plants and animals, invented farming, created technologies to polish the rock, invented the wheel, the loom and metallurgy. Then he built cities, empires, dams, and drainage and irrigation systems. Several civilizations exceeded the limitations of the ecosystems where they were built, causing environmental crises that contributed to their demise.

Enter, then, the concept of ecological footprint. It refers to the degree of ecological impact produced by an individual, an activity, an economy, a society. The ecological footprint of the civilizations before Western civilization always had a regional character, which was sometimes reversible and sometimes not. Western civilization wore the heaviest boots to date. This pressure began with capitalism, that transformed the world.

Starting in the XV century, Western (read European) civilization left a profound mark, through maritime expansion. It imposed its culture on other sectors of the planet. The world became Westernized, and began trampling the environment as well.

Another great transformation followed the industrial revolution, which originated in XVIII century England, and was expanded throughout the world, which it divided into industrialized countries and those that exported raw materials. From there, another planetary reality began to be develop, with the gaseous emissions that drive global warming, devastating jungles and impoverishing Earth’s biodiversity, with the unwise use of the soil, widespread urbanization, profound alterations in the cycles of nitrogen and phosphorous, contamination of drinking water, weakening of the ozone layer, excessive extraction of non-renewable natural resources, and simultaneously, production of unprecedented quantities of garbage.

Scientists are showing that within the Holocene (holos = whole + koinos = new), collective human action through capitalism and socialism have provoked an environmental crisis that is unprecedented in the history of the Earth, because it has been created by a single species. They have denominated the phase of the post industrial revolution of the XVIII century, Anthropocene, or, a geologic period caused by the collective action of the human being (antropos = man + koinos = new).

Given this great crisis and this new epoch, the United Nations is promoting huge international conferences, such as the Conferences of Stockholm (1972), Rio-92 and now Rio+20. The objective is to solve the Anthropocene problems, be it by harmonizing economic development and environmental protection, or by seeking other forms of development. Rio-92 adopted the formula of sustainable development, which has acquired different meanings, some of which even contradict the original.

The Rio+20 Conference hopes to establish the equality of the environmental, social and economic dimensions. The magic phrase now is green economy, the meaning of which is unclear. It is supposed that, as a minimum, it means the progressive substitution of renewable sources of energy for carbon-intensive ones, and renewable resources for non-renewable ones.

Río+20 showed that the industrialized countries do not want to abdicate their position; the emerging countries want to catch up with the industrialized ones, and the poor countries want to emerge. As long as there is no appreciation of the limits of the planet, it is useless to think of social justice and economic development. Thus the environment is more important than social aspects or the economy, because without the environment it is not possible to find solutions for the other two. Rather, the concept of eco-development seems to be more correct as a tactic and as a strategy.