The ultimate cause of the ecological crisis: the destruction of the universal relationship

There are many causes of the ecological crisis. Here we address the most basic: the permanent rupture with the ultimate connectivity of the universe and its Creator that humans have introduced, nourished and perpetuated.

There is a profoundly mysterious and tragic dimension to the history of humanity and the universe. The Judeo-Christian tradition calls that fundamental frustration the sin of the world, and theology, following Saint Augustine, who invented the expression, calls it the original sin or original fall. Original here has nothing to do with the historical origins of this anti-phenomenon, or consequently, with the past. Rather, it relates to that which is original in the human being, which affects the fundamental and radical reason for human existence, and therefore, the present human condition.

This sin can neither be reduced to a mere moral dimension, or to an unsuccessful action by the human being. It refers to a globalized attitude, and thus, to a subversion of all human relations. It is about an ontological dimension to the human being, understood as a web of relationships. That web is distorted and corrupted, damaging all types of relationships.

It is important to emphasize that original sin is an interpretation of a fundamental experience, an answer to a challenging enigma. For example, the splendor of a blooming cherry tree in Japan exists simultaneously with a tsunami in Fukushima that devastates everything. There is a Mother Teresa of Calcutta who rescues desperate street people, and a Hitler who sends six million Jews to the gas chambers. Why this contradiction? Philosophers and theologians have long sought an answer. So far, without success.

Without going into the many possible interpretations, we accept one that is gaining ever greater consensus among religious thinkers: that is imperfection seen as a moment in the process of evolution. God did not create a universe that was instantaneously finished, a past event, totally perfect. Rather, God unleashed an open-ended and perfectible process that tends towards forms that are ever more complex, subtle and perfect. We hope that one day it will reach its Omega point.

Imperfection is not a defect, but a process of evolution. It does not express God’s final design for His creation, but a moment within an immense process. The earthly paradise does not mean nostalgia for a lost golden age, but the promise of a future yet to come. The first page of the Bible is actually the last. It comes at the beginning as a kind of scaled down model of the future, so that the readers are filled with hope for a happy ending to all of creation.

Saint Paul saw the sad condition of creation as a submission “to vanity” (mataiótes), not because of the human being, but because of God Himself. The exegetic sense of “vanity” points to the process of maturity.  Nature has not yet reached maturity. That is why in the present phase it is still far from the final goal. Because of that “all of creation still groans and suffers with labor pains” (Rm 8,22). The human being participates in this process of maturation, and also groans (Rm 8,23). All of creation anxiously awaits the full maturity of the sons and daughters of God, because between them and the rest of creation there exists a profound interdependency and connection. When that occurs, creation will also reach maturity, because, as Saint Paul says, “it will participate in the glorious freedom of the sons and daughters of God” (cf Rm 8,20).

Then the final design of God will be realized. Only then will God be able to speak the longed for words: “and He saw that all was good”. Now, these words are prophesies and promises for the future, because not all is good. Ernst Bloch, the philosopher of the hope principle put it well: «genesis is at the end, not the beginning». The human being’s delay in maturing implies a delay in creation. Human advances imply an advance of the whole. Humanity can be an instrument of liberation or an obstacle to the process of evolution.

And here is where the drama lies: when evolution reached the level of humanity, it attained a state of consciousness and liberty. The human being was created as a creator. Humans can intervene in nature for good, caring for her, or for bad, devastating her. It began, perhaps with the appearance of the homo habilis, 2.7 million years ago, when the instruments were created with which humans could intervene in nature, without respecting her rhythms. At the beginning it could have been a single act. But its repetition created an attitude of lack of caring. Instead of being together with everything, living together, humans set themselves above things, dominating them. And so it has been in crescendo, up to our times.

With this humans broke from the natural solidarity among all beings. They contravened the design of the Creator who wanted the human being as co-creator, whose genius would complete the imperfect creation. But instead, the human being assumed the place of God. The strength of human intelligence and will enabled humanity to feel like a small “god” and to behave as if in fact it were God.

This is the great separation from nature and the Creator that underlies the ecological crisis. The problem is in the type of human being that developed through history, more a «geophysical force of destruction» (E. Wilson) than a force for caring and preservation.

The remedy lies in re-connecting with all things. It is not necessary to be more religious, but more humble, more a part of nature, responsible for her sustainability, and more careful in all human activity.  Humanity must return to the Earth, from which it has exiled itself, and become her guardian. Then the natural contract will be remade. And by also opening up to the Creator, humanity’s infinite thirst would be satiated, and the reward would be peace.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

What is the place of the religious in the world?

As worldly and apparently materialistic as society has become, we cannot deny that recently there has been a strong turn towards the religious, towards mysticism and the esoteric.  It seems that excessive rationalization and the functioning of our complex societies is becoming tiresome. The return to the religious just shows that the human being seeks something greater. There is an invisible side to the visible that we would like to uncover. Perhaps therein lies a secret meaning that fulfills our tireless search for something that we cannot identify. In that non-confessional horizon perhaps it makes sense to talk of the religious or the spiritual. It has endured all forms of attack but managed to survive. The early moderns saw it as something pre-modern, a fantastic knowledge that had to give way to positive and critical knowledge (Auguste Comte). Then it was read as a disease: an opiate, alienation and false consciousness for the one who has not yet found himself, or if he did find himself, has gotten lost again (Karl Marx). Afterwards, it was interpreted as an illusion of the neurotic mind that seeks to pacify the desire for protection and to make bearable our contradictory world (Sigmund Freud). Later on, it was interpreted as a reality that, due to the process of rationalization and the disenchantment of the world, tends to disappear (Max Weber). Finally, some had it as something meaningless, since it can neither be proven nor disprove, (Karl Popper and Rudolf Carnap).

I believe the great mistake of these diverse interpretations lies in the fact that the religious has been assigned  an incorrect location: within reason. The reasons for this begin with reason. Reason itself is not a fact of reason. It is an unknown. The Upanishad already prayed wisely: «that for which all thought thinks, cannot be thought». Perhaps the cradle of the religious lies in this «not thought», that is, in those matters exorcised by modern rationality: fantasy, the imaginary, that background of desire from which arise all the dreams and the utopias that populate our minds, fill our hearts with enthusiasm, and light the fuse of the great transformations of history. Its place is in what philosopher Ernst Bloch called, the hope principle.

It is characteristic of these matters –of the utopic, of fantasy and the imaginary– not to be satisfied with concrete, rational data. More accurately, they dispute this data, because they suspect that data are always facts; the data and the facts as well are not all that is real. The real is even greater. To the real also belongs the potential, what is not yet, but could be. Because of that, utopia does not contradict reality; it reveals the potential and ideal dimension of that reality. As the wise Emile Durkheim said at the conclusion of his famous book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: «the ideal society is not outside of the real society; it is part of it». And he ended: «only the human being has the faculty of conceiving the ideal and of adding it to the real». I would say, of detecting it within the real, ensuring that this real within which is the ideal, is always greater than the data we have at hand.

It is within this experience of the potential, of the utopic, that the religious arises. This is why Rubem Alves, who has best studied in Brazil “the enigma of religion”  (the title of his book), would say: «The intention of religion is not to explain the world. Religion is born precisely from the protest against this world that can be described and explained by science. Scientific description, by rigorously maintaining itself within the limits of the given reality, consecrates the established order of things. Religion, by contrast, is the voice of a conscience that finds no rest in the world as it is, and seeks to transcend it».

For this reason, the religious is the oldest and most systematic organization of the utopic dimension, which is inherent to the human being. As Bloch put it well: «where there is religion, there is hope» that not all is lost. This hope is love for that which still is not, “the conviction of realities that are not seen,”  as the Epistle to the Hebrews, (11,1), says, but that are the fundation of what is hoped for.

It was the philosopher and mathematician Ludwig Wittgenstein who saw with lucidity this singular characteristic of the religious, and said: in the human being does not only exist the rational and scientific attitude that always questions how things are and seeks an answer for everything. There also exists the capacity to be entranced: «to be entranced cannot be expressed by a question; because of that, neither does an answer exist». The mystical exists: «the mystical does not reside in how the world is, but in the fact that it exists». The limitation of reason and of the scientific spirit lie in the fact that there is nothing about which they must remain silent.

The religious and mystical always end up in noble silence, because in no dictionary is there a word that can define it.

Up to now we have spoken of the religious in its good, sane nature. But it can become sick, and then is born the disease of fundamentalism, dogmatism and the exclusivity of truth. As any disease references health, the religious must be analyzed starting from its healthy state, and not from its disease. Consequently the healthy religious makes us more sensible and human. Its healthy return is urgent now, because it helps us love the invisible and to make real that which still is not, but can be.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Now, revolution means activating the emergency brake

The following pertinent phrase is attributed to Karl Marx: «the only revolutions that are made are those that happen». That is, a revolution does not occur as a subjective and voluntary act. When that happens, it is soon defeated, for being immature and inconsistent.  A revolution takes place when conditions are objectively mature, and the people simultaneously have the subjective desire for it. Then, it bursts forth, with the possibility, not always secure, of triumph and consolidation.

We may presently have all the objective conditions for a revolution. Revolution is thought of here in its classic meaning, as a change in the overall goals of a society, that creates the means necessary to attain them, which implies a change in the social, judicial, economic and spiritual structure of that society.

Today the general degradation of almost every aspect, especially in the natural infrastructure that sustains life, is so profound that, by itself, it requires a radical revolution. Otherwise, we could be too late and witness ecological-social catastrophes of magnitudes never before experienced in human history.

But there does not yet exist in the “holders of power”  a subjective consciousness of this urgency. They do not want it. They prefer to maintain their power, even at the risk that they themselves may succumb to an eventual Armageddon. The Titanic is sinking, but their obsession with profit is so great that they continue buying and selling jewels as if nothing were happening.

The “revolutions” are generally created by the powerful, who act before the oppressed do, saying, as is usually done in Brazil: «let us make a revolution before the people do». Of course it is not a revolution but a coup de class, using the armed forces for this purpose, as in the case of the “revolution of 1964”. The winners have their acolytes who sing their praise, erect monuments, and name streets, bridges and squares after those who led the coup, as it still occurs in Brazil.

The history of the defeated is rarely written. Their memory is erased. But sometimes this memory comes back as a force of dangerous denunciation. Mexican historian Miguel Leon-Portilla has had the merit of narrating The Other Side of the Conquest of Latin America by the Iberians. There he gathers the dramatic and hurtful testimonies of Aztec, Maya and Inca victims. It has been translated into Portuguese as, The Conquest of Latin America as seen by the Indians (Vozes 1987). Let us look at just one Indigenous testimony about the fall of Tlatelolco (near the capital Tenochtitlán, now Mexico City). It simply makes one cry:

«On the roads there are broken arrows, pieces of dispersed heads of hair; roofless houses, walls in flames, worms abound in the streets and in the squares and the walls are spattered with blown-up brains; the waters run red, as if they had been painted; we have chewed on salty herbs, pieces of adobe bricks, lizards, rats and the dusty earth, besides the worms» (Leon-Portilla, p. 41).

Such tragedies pose the never satisfactorily answered question: Does history have meaning? Meaning for whom? There are all types of interpretations, from the most pessimistic, that sees history as a series of wars, murders and genocides, to the more optimistic, such as that of the enlightened, who thought of history as the growth of endless progress, towards ever more civilized societies.

The two World Wars, of 1914 and 1939, and the wars that were came later, killed nearly 200 million people and have pulverized optimism. Now no one can tell us which way we are going: not even the wise and holy Dalai Lama and Pope Francis.  Events happen, in all their ambiguity, some filled with hope, others frightening.

I join in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that holds that history can only be thought of starting from two principles: the principle of the negation of the negative and that of the fulfillment of the promises. The negation of the negative means that the criminal will never triumph over the victim. The weight of the negative in history will not be its definitive meaning. To the contrary, the Creator  “will wipe all the tears from the eyes, death will no longer exist and there will no longer be either mourning or tears, or pain, because all of that has already passed” (Apocalypse 21,4).

The principle of the fulfillment of the promises affirms: “Behold I make all things anew; there will be a new heaven and a new Earth; God will live among us and all the peoples will be peoples of God” (Apocalypse 21, 5; 1 and 3). That is the immortal hope of the Biblical tradition that did not vanish when the Jews were taken to the Nazi death chambers.

Regarding the present situation, I refer to a phrase of Walter Benjamin, quoted by one of his scholars, Michael Löwy: «Marx said that revolutions are the engine of world history. But things perhaps present themselves in a completely different manner now. It is possible that revolutions are, for those of humanity who travel in that train, the act of pulling the emergency brake» (Walter Benjamin: warning of fire, Boitempo 2005, p. 93-94). Our time requires putting on the brakes, before the train explodes at the end of the line.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, cybermelinaalfaro@bandalibre.com,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

We are flying blind: where are we going?

Those who read my previous articles, “The deadly corporate world empire” and “The worst form of global government: that of businessmen”, surely would have concluded that passengers in this spacecraft-Earth travel under totally different conditions. A small group of the super-rich occupy first class, with scandalous luxury; other lucky ones travel in economy class, and are served reasonable food and drinks. The rest of humanity, and there are millions, travel in the cargo hold, where the temperature is many degrees below zero, almost dying of hunger, thirst and desperation. They bang on the walls of those above them screaming: “either we share what we have in this unique spacecraft or at some point the resources will be exhausted and regardless of social class, we will all die”. But who will listen to them? The comfortable ones sleep undisturbed after a very generous banquet.

This is, metaphorically, humanity’s real situation. We are truly lost and flying blind.  How have we reached this threatening situation?

We have experimented with two models of production and of utilization of natural goods and services to fulfill human demands: socialism and capitalism. Both have failed. There is no need to go into detail of how that happened. In practice, the socialist system was one of a centralized state planned economy. It reached reasonable levels of equality-equity in the fields of education, health, and housing, but due to internal and external reasons, especially its dictatorial character, it was unable to resolve its contradictions, and it collapsed.

The neo-liberal capitalist system of free markets with scant control by the State also failed due to its internal logic, that of accumulating material goods without limit, or any other considerations. It produced two grave injustices: social injustice, where the wealthiest 20% controls 82.4% of the riches of the Earth, and the poorest 20% must make do with only 1.6%; and an ecological injustice, devastating whole ecosystems and eliminating species of living beings at the rate of 70-100 thousand per year. This system collapsed in 2008, precisely in the heart of the central countries.

Chinese communism is sui generis: it pragmatically combines all modes of production, from the use of the physical labor of people and animals, to the highest technology, joining state, private or mixed properties, so that the final result is better production with only a minimal sense of social or ecological justice.

But is important to recognize that there is a growing certainty that the system-Earth, limited in goods and services, small and over-populated, no longer can support unlimited growth. She has lost the conditions necessary to replenish that which we take away, and therefore the Earth-system is becoming more and more unsustainable. But as a living super-entity, the Earth reacts ever more violently: with sudden climate changes, hurricanes, tsunamis, thaws, terrifying depopulations, erosion of biodiversity and an ever increasing global warming. When will this process stop? If it continues, where will it take us?

It is urgent that we change course, this is, that we adopt new principles and values, capable of organizing in an amicable form our relations with nature and with our Common Home. The most inspiring document certainly is The Earth Charter, born of a world consultation that lasted eight years, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev and approved in 2003 by UNESCO. The Charter incorporates the best data of the new cosmology, that shows the Earth as a moment in a vast universe in evolution, alive and endowed with a complex community of life. All living beings are carriers of the same basic genetic code, making all of us relatives.

Four fundamental principles structure The Charter: (1) respect and caring for the community of life; (2) ecological integrity; (3) social and economic justice; (4) democracy, non-violence and peace. The document warns severely: «either we form a global alliance to care for the Earth and for one another, or we risk our own destruction and that of the community of life» (preamble).

The final words of The Charter call on us to retake humanity: «as never before in history, the common destiny calls on us to search for a new beginning. This requires a change of mind and heart. It calls for a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. Only in this way will we reach a way of living sustainably, at the local, regional, national and global levels» (conclusion).

Let us note that it does not speak of reforms, but of a new beginning. It is about re-inventing humanity. Such a purpose demands a new way of looking at the Earth (mind), seen as a living entity, Gaia, and a new relationship of caring and love (heart), obeying the universal logic of interdependency of all with all and of a collective responsibility for the common future.

This is the path to follow that will serve as the navigation map so that the vessel-Earth lands safely in a different type of world.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, cybermelinaalfaro@bandalibre.com,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.