Categoria: English

How Much Sustainability Will the Green Economy Tolerate?

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

Three are the main actors in Rio+20: the official State and government representatives, the business community, and The Peoples’ Leadership. Each group brings a proposal and a vision for the future.

The Official Representatives, considering the First Draft and the Definitv Text once again propose the empty sustainable development, now colored green. They forgot to acknowledge, however, that sustainable development has failed miserably. Mikhail Gorbachov says: “the present model of economic growth is unsustainable; it engenders crises, social injustice and the danger of an environmental catastrophe” (O Globo 8/6/2012). The Systemic Evaluation of the Ecosystems of the Millennium revealed in 2005 that the principal elements that sustain life are being degraded. That was reiterated in the recent PNUMA Report. The First Draft of Rio+20 recognizes that «sustainable development continues to be a distant goal» (n.13). But with their dogmatic faith in sustainable development that, in fact, is material growth, they continue to propose more of the same.

Gorbachov emphatically states: «twenty years after Rio-92 we are surrounded by cynicism and, for many, desperation». Have the agents of the present world system suffered some kind of lobotomy? They do not feel the urgency of the environmental threat. They prefer to save the financial system and the banks than to guarantee life and protect the Earth. The red light and special check warning are already on.

The Businessmen, important actors, are becoming aware of the limits of the Earth, and of population growth and global warming. They are not waiting for a virtually impossible consensus from the UN and government gatherings. More than a hundred business leaders gathered in Rio before the formal event. They purported to create a G-0, in opposition to the G-2, G-7 or G-20. They confidently declare: «we need to take charge». The agreed collective agenda is in line with green economy, not as a new model, but by lowering the production of carbon and preserving nature as much as possible. However, they comprise only 1% of enterprises with assets of more than a billion dollars, as the Financial Times recently noted. They understand that the problem cannot be solved within the current model: by reconciling sustainability and profit. Those in charge do not want to renounce profit in the name of sustainability. Sustainability ends up being so fragile that it almost vanishes. These businessmen at least have grasped the problem: either they change, or they will go down with everyone else.

The third actor is the Peoples’ Leadership. Thousands have come from all over the world, the altermundisters (those who seek a different world), those who want to show what they are doing with solidarian economy and fair trade, with the preservation of semillas criollas (native seeds), with the struggle against transgenics, with organic family farms, with the ecoaldeas (eco-villages) and alternative energies. Here one sees a different form of production and consumption, more in consonance with the rhythms of nature, the result of a new way of looking at the Earth, as possessing dignity and rights.

To summarize, I would say that in the first group, resignation reigns, in the second, agitation, and in the third, hope.

This is the following outcome of Rio+20: the formal gathering of the UN aproved green economy, with the same basic capitalistic mode of production. This will allow business to trade in the goods and services of nature. A World Organization of the Environment was not created, along the lines of the World Organization of Commerce.

The business community will pressure the governments not to interfere with the business of the green economy. They want a free hand, because it is all about a low carbon economy and therefore it is eco-friendly, even though it retains the current model.

The Peoples’ Leadership  launched  an alternative to Green Economy: the Solidarian Economy. They will create global movements against the marketing of goods and services, such as water, soil, seeds, jungles, oceans and others, which are understood as goods that are common to all humanity.

For now, there will be no steps towards a new paradigm of world society, but it will be a must in the face of the environmental crises that are approaching. Collective suffering will provide bitter lessons. We will learn, from those agonies, a love and caring for life, for humanity and for Mother Earth, all of which are pre-conditions to the future we want.

Green Economy versus Solidarian Economy

Leonardo Boff2 Comentários

The UN’s main document for Rio +20 is still held hostage to the old paradigm of dominating nature in order to extract from her the greatest possible benefits for business and the markets. By and through it, the human being seeks the means of life and subsistence. The green economy radicalizes this tendency, because, as Bolivian diplomat and ecologist Pablo Solon wrote, «the green economy seeks to market not only the timber of the jungle, but also its capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide». All this can be transformed into negotiable bonds by the markets and banks. In this way the document definitively reveals itself as anthropocentric, as if everything were destined to the exclusive use of humans, and the Earth had created them exclusively for human use, and not for other living beings that also demand ecological sustainability in order to survive on this planet.

Summarizing: \”the future we want\”, the central motto of the UN document, is nothing more than the continuation of the present. It seems threatening, and negates a hopeful future. In such a context, not moving forward is to go backwards, and to close the door to the new.

Worse yet: the entire text revolves around the economy. Whether we paint it green or brown, it maintains its internal logic, expressed by the question: how much can I make in the shortest time, with the least possible investment, and maintaining strong competitiveness? Let’s not be ingenuous: the business of today’s economy is business. It does not offer a new relationship with nature, or a sense of being part of nature and responsible for her vitality and integrity. To the contrary, it makes open war on nature, as explained by the philosopher of ecology Michel Serres. In this war there is no possibility of success. It ignores our efforts, and continues its course even without our presence. The task of the intelligentsia is to decipher what nature is trying to tell us (through extreme events, the tsunamis, etc.), to defend ourselves against their damaging effects and to put their energies to work for us. Nature offers us information but does not tell us how to behave. We ourselves must determine that. Our behavior will be good and sound only if it conforms to nature’s rhythms and cycles.

As an alternative to this economy of devastation, if we want to have a future, we need to oppose this with a different paradigm: one of economy of preservation, conservation and sustainability for all life. We need to produce, yes, but starting from the goods and services that nature offers us for free, respecting the reach and limits of each bio-region, distributing equitably the fruits obtained, considering the rights of future generations and of the other beings within the community of life. Nature now takes form through a bio-centered economy, solidarian, agro-ecologic, familiar and organic. Each community seeks to guarantee food sovereignty: produce what is consumed, relating producers and consumers in a true food democracy.

Rio 92 consecrated the anthropocentric and reductionist concept of sustainable development, elaborated by the 1987 Brundland UN report. It was transformed into a dogma professed by official documents, by states and enterprises, without ever being subjected to serious criticism. It coopted sustainability for its field only, thus distorting the relationships with nature. The disasters that were caused were seen as externalities, not worthy of note. But it so happens that these turned dark, capable of destroying the physical-chemical basis that sustains human life and a great part of the bio-sphere. They have not been overcome by the green economy. It has become a trap by the rich countries, especially of the Organization for Econmic Cooperation and development, (OCDE, from the Spanish, Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico), that produced the theoretical text of PNUMA, Initiative of the Green Economy. Through this they cleverly avoided a discussion of sustainability, social and psychological justice, global warming, the failed economic model and the changed point of view, a different view of the planet that may project a real future for humanity and for the Earth.

Along with Rio +20, it would be very useful to rescue Stockholm +40. In that first UN world conference on the Human Environment, from July 5 to 15, 1972, in Stockholm, Sweden, the focus was not development, but caring and collective responsibility for all that surrounds us and that is in an accelerated process of degradation, affecting all, especially the poor countries. It was a humanistic and generous perspective that got lost in the closed briefcase of sustainable development, and, now, of the green economy.

The Lack onf a New Vision in Rio+20

Leonardo Boff7 Comentários

The fundamental defect in the UN’s document for Rio+20 is the total absence of a new vision or new cosmology that would create the hope of the «future that we want», the motto of the great gathering. As such, it belies a promising future.

To those who drafted it, the future depends on the economy. There is little value in the adjectives they attach to it: sustainable or green. The green economy in particular constitutes a great assault on the last bastion of nature: transforming into merchandise and putting a price on everything that is common, natural, vital and indispensable to life, such water, the soil, fertility, jungles, genes, etcetera. That which pertains to life is sacred and must not be passed to the sphere of business. Instead, it becomes part of the market place, under the categorical imperative: take all you want, make business with everything, especially with nature and with her goods and services.

This is the supreme egocentrism and arrogance of the human being, or, as it is also called, anthropocentrism. Human beings see the Earth as a warehouse of resources only for them, without realizing that we are not the only ones who inhabit the Earth, nor do we own her; we do not feel that we are part of nature, but outside and above her, as her «lords and masters». We forget, however, that there exists a whole visible community of life (5% of the biosphere) and quadrillions of quadrillions of invisible microorganisms (95%) that guarantee the vitality and fecundity of the Earth. They all belong to the Earth/condominium and have the right to live and coexist with us. Without interdependent relationships with them, we could not even exist. The Rio+20 document does not take any of this into account. We can then safely say that with that document there is no salvation. It opens a path towards the abyss. So long as we have time, it is urgent that we avoid it.

Our present vision or cosmology is one of conquering the world and of unlimited growth. It is characterized by being mechanical, deterministic, atomized and reductionist. Thanks to that vision, 20% of the world population controls and consumes 80% of all the natural resources, half of the great jungles have been destroyed, 65% of available arable lands ruined, 27,000 to 100,000 species of living beings disappear each year (Wilson) and more than 1,000 synthetic chemical agents, mostly toxic, are being released into nature. We build weapons of mass destruction, capable of eliminating all human life. The final effect is the dis-equilibrium of the Earth-system, as seen in global warming. With the gasses already accumulated, by 2035 we are destined to see a rise of 3-4° C, that will make life as we know it practically impossible.

The present economic-financial crisis, that is plunging whole nations into misery, obscures the danger and works against any needed change of course.

On the other hand, there has appeared the potentially redeeming vision or cosmology of caring and universal responsibility. It is best expressed in The Earthcharter. It places our reality within the cosmogenic, that immense process of evolution that began some 13.7 billion years ago. The universe is expanding, self-organizing, and continuously self-creating. In the universe everything is related through networks, and nothing exists outside these relationships. That is why all beings are inter-dependent and must cooperate among themselves to guarantee the equilibrium of all factors. The human mission resides in caring and maintaining that symphonic harmony. We need to produce not for private accumulation and enrichment, but what is enough and decent for all, respecting the limits and cycles of nature.

Behind all beings throbs the background Energy that gave origin to and sustains the universe, allowing new emergences. The most spectacular of all is the living Earth and human beings, the conscious part of the Earth, with the mission of caring and of being responsible for her.

This new vision would guarantee the «future that we want». Otherwise, we will inevitably be pushed into collective chaos, with disastrous consequences. This vision is inspiring. Instead of making business with nature, we put ourselves in her womb, in profound harmony and synergy, respecting her limits and seeking the «good living», that is the harmony with all and with Mother Earth. This new cosmology is characterized by caring rather than domination, and by the recognition of the intrinsic value of all beings and not its mere utilization by man, by respect for all life and for the rights of nature instead of her exploitation, and by the marriage of ecological and social justice.

This vision is more in tune with real human needs and with the logic of the universe itself. If the Rio +20 document were to adopt it as background, it would create the opportunity of a planetary civilization, in which caring, cooperation, love, respect, joy and spirituality would be central. Such an option would lead not to the abyss but towards the future that we want: a real hope for a bio-civilization.

Cf. L.Boff and M.Hathaway, The Tao of Liberation– Exploring the Ecology of Transformtion, Orbis Books, N.Y. 2011.

Reinventing Education

Leonardo Boff8 Comentários

Muniz Sodre, titular professor of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, is a well learned person. But what is different about him is that he, as few others, thinks about what he knows. The fruit of his thinking is a just released, very notable, book: Reinventing education: diversity, decolonization and networks, (Reinventando la educación: diversidad, descolonización y redes, Vozes, 2012).

In that book, he tries to confront the challenges to pedagogy and education that derive from the different types of knowledge, from the new technologies and transformations advanced by capitalism. All of this begins with our social place: the Southern hemisphere, once colonized, that is undergoing an interesting process of neo-decolonization, and a confrontation with the weakened neo-Eurocentrism, now devastated by the crisis of the Euro.

Muniz Sodre analyzes different currents of pedagogy and education, from the Greek paideia to the world market of education, that represent a crass conception of utilitarian education, transforming education into an enterprise and a market, at the service of world domination.

He unmasks the mechanisms of economic and political power that hide behind expressions that are on everyone’s lips, such as, «a society of knowledge or of information». In other words, informational-cognitive-capitalism constitutes the new basis of capital accumulation. Everything has become capital: natural capital, human capital, cultural capital, intellectual capital, social capital, symbolic capital, religious capital… Capital and more capital. But underneath, there lurks a mono-culture of mechanical knowledge, expressed as the «economy of knowledge» at the service of the market.

Nowadays a type of education has been planned that seeks to create cadres to perform «symbolic-analytic services», cadres endowed with a high capability to invent, identify and solve problems. This education distributes knowledge in the same manner that a factory installs components in an assembly line.

In this way, education loses its formative character. It falls under the criticism of Hannah Arendt, who said: we can continue learning until the end of life without ever being educated. To educate implies learning to know and to do, but above all, learning to be, to coexist and to care. It implies building meaning into life, to know how to deal with the complex human condition and to define one’s self, facing the paths of history.

What aggravates all the process of education is the predominance of the only one way of thinking. Northamericans live on a myth and on «manifest destiny». They imagine that God reserved a destiny for them, of being the «new chosen people» to bring to the world their style, their ways of limitless production and consumption, their type of democracy and their free market values. In the name of this exceptionality, they intervene around the world, including with war, to guarantee their imperial hegemony all around the Earth.

 Nor has Europe yet renounced her arrogance. The 1999 Bologna Declaration, that gathered 29 ministers of education of all Europe, asserted that only she, Europe, could produce the universal knowledge, capable of offering the citizens the necessary capabilities to face the challenges of the new millennium. Previously, a supposed universality supported human rights and was even found in Christianity, with her pretensions of being the only true religion. Now, the vision is of a lesser scope; only Europe guarantees managerial efficiency, competence, abilities and skills that will bring about the globalization of business. The present financial economic crisis is opening this claim to ridicule. Most of the countries do not know how to get out of the crises they have created. They prefer to drive whole societies into unemployment and misery, in order to save the speculative, cruel and pitiless financial system.

In his book, Muniz Sodre presents these questions to the Brazilian reality, to show the challenges to our education that must be confronted in the coming years. The time has come to stand as a free and creative people and not like the mere echo of another’s voice. Sodre rescues the names of educators who imagined an education fitting to our potentialities, such as Joaquim Nabuco, Anisio Teixeira and particularly Paulo Freire. Darcy Ribeiro would speak with enthusiasm about the re-invention of Brazil, starting from the richness of the mestizaje (co-mingling) of the representatives of all the 60 peoples who came to our country.

This re-invented education should help us with decolonization, and overcoming the one-thought-only, learning from the diverse cultures and benefiting from the social networks. From this effort could be born among us the first buds of a different paradigm of civilization, also called biocentric civilization, that will have at its center, life, humanity and the Earth.