No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.

The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.

The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».

The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».

The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.

A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.

Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.

The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.

They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.

There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.

A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.

Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.

The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.

What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.

Translation: Melina Alfaro” alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.

The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.

The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».

The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».

The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.

A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.

Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.

The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.

They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.

There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.

A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.

Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.

The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.

What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.

Translation: Melina Alfaro:  alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

From Saint Augustine (“in every man there simultaneously exists an Adam and a Christ”), through Abelard (“Sic et non”), Hegel and Marx, up to Leandro Konder, we know that reality is dialectic. That is, reality iincludes contradictions, because the opposites do not annul each other but are in permanent tension, and coexist, generating dynamism in history. This is not a defect in construction, but the trade mark of reality. No one has expressed it better than the poverello from Assisi, when he prayed: “where there is hatred that I bring love, where there is darkness that I bring light, where there is error that I bring truth…” It is not about denying or annulling one of the poles, but of opting for one, the luminous one, and strengthening it to the point of preventing the other, the negative one, from being so destructive.

Why this reflection? It is an attempt to show that evil is never so evil that it precludes the presence of the good; and that the good is never so good that it suppresses the force of evil. We must learn to deal with these contradictions. In a previous article I attempted to make a global, negative, balance sheet: showing that we are going from bad to worse. But dialectically there is a positive side that is also important to point out. A local balance sheet will show that, filled with hope, we are witnessing the blossoming of flowers in the desert. And this is happening all over the planet. One need only attend the World Social Forums and popular bases in many places to note that new life is springing up among the victims of the system, even in businesses, and the leaders who are abandoning the old paradigm and starting to build a Noah’s Arc.

We should note some points of change that could safeguard the vitality of the Earth and guarantee our civilization.

The first is overcoming the dictatorship of the instrumental analytic reason that is principally responsible for the devastation of nature, by incorporating the emotional or cordial intelligence that involves us with the destiny of life and the Earth, by caring, loving and seeking the good life.

The second is the worldwide strengthening of solidarian economics, agro-ecology, organic agriculture, bio-economics and eco-development, alternatives to material growth through the GNP.

The third is democratic eco-socialism that proposes new forms of production, with nature rather than against nature, and the required accompanying global governance.

The fourth is the bio-regionalism that is arising as an alternative to homogenizing globalization, valuing the goods and services of each region with its population and culture.

The fifth is the good living of the Andean original nations, that involves creating an equilibrium between humans and nature through a community democracy and respect for the rights of nature and Mother Earth, or the Gross Happiness Index of the government of Bhutan.

The sixth is shared sobriety or voluntary simplicity, that strengthens food sovereignty for all, the just measure and self-control over the obsessive desire to consume.

The seventh is the visible leadership of women and the original nations that offers a new benevolence towards nature and more solidarian forms of production and consumption.

The eighth is the slow but growing acceptance of the categories of caring as preconditions for true sustainability. This means separation from the category of development, and is seen as the logic of the web of life that guarantees the interdependency of all with all, thus assuring life on Earth.

The ninth is the penetration of the ethics of universal responsibility, because we are all responsible for the common destiny, our destiny and the destiny of Mother Earth.

The tenth is the retaking of the spiritual dimension, beyond religion, that allows us to feel part of the Whole, to perceive the universal Energy that penetrates and sustains everything, and makes us the caretakers and guardians of the sacred inheritance we received from the universe and from God.

All these initiatives are more than just seeds. There already are shoots that show the possible flowering of a new Earth, with a humanity that is learning to be responsible, to care for and to love, which strengthens the sustainability of this our small planet.

See Leonardo Boff and Mark Hathaway, The Tao of Liberation: Exploring the Ecology of Transformation, (El Tao de la Liberación, explorando la ecología de la transformación, Trotta 2013).

Translation: Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.