The Encyclical Letter Of The Holy Father Francis:
"On Care For Our Common Home".
Chapter 3: The Human Roots Of The Ecological Crisis
Section 2 (The Globalization Of The Technocratic Paradigm).
Translated by the Vatican. Read by Frank Blissett.
The basic problem goes even deeper:
it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development
according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm.
This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures,
progressively approaches and gains control over an external object.
This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method,
which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation.
It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless,
completely open to manipulation.
Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time
this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves.
It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand.
Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract
everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another;
the relationship has become confrontational.
This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth,
which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology.
It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods,
and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit.
It is the false notion that
"an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly,
and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".
It can be said that many problems of today's world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious,
to make the method and aims of science and technology
an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society.
The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social,
are seen in the deterioration of the environment,
but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life.
We have to accept that technological products are not neutral,
for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities
along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups.
Decisions which may seem purely instrumental
are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.
The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm
and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.
The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources
and even more difficult to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic.
It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology,
of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same.
Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology
"know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis
neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that
"in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all".
As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature".
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom
and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished.
The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life.
The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit,
without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings.
Finance overwhelms the real economy.
The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated,
and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration.
Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems,
and argue, in popular and non-technical terms,
that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth.
They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend,
than with their actual operation in the functioning of the economy.
They may not affirm such theories with words, but
nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels of production,
a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations.
Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough.
Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion.
At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind
which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives
which can give the poor regular access to basic resources.
We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the
direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological and economic growth.
The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture.
The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete applications,
and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things,
and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant.
This very fact makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving the more complex problems of today's world,
particularly those regarding the environment and the poor;
these problems cannot be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.
A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would necessarily have to take into account
the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics;
but this is a difficult habit to acquire today.
Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can appeal.
Life gradually becomes a surrender to situations conditioned by technology,
itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence.
In the concrete situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong,
such as environmental degradation, anxiety, a loss of the purpose of life and of community living.
Once more we see that "realities are more important than ideas".
Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to
the immediate problems of pollution, environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources.
There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational programme,
a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm.
Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic.
To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate
what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.
Yet we can once more broaden our vision.
We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology;
we can put it at the service of another type of progress,
one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.
Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes,
for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production,
and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community.
Or when technology is directed primarily to resolving people's concrete problems,
truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering.
Or indeed when the desire to create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism
through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who behold it.
An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture,
almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door.
Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising up in stubborn resistance?
There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future;
they no longer have blind trust in a better tomorrow
based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities.
There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress
cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history,
a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.
This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer us.
But humanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation of constant novelties
exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction.
It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life.
If architecture reflects the spirit of an age,
our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology,
where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony.
Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything.
Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation
and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution.
Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process,
various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age,
but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way,
to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made,
but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.
That was Section 2 (The Globalization Of The Technocratic Paradigm),
from Chapter 3: The Human Roots Of The Ecological Crisis,
from The Encyclical Letter Of The Holy Father Francis:
"On Care For Our Common Home".
Translated by the Vatican. Read by Frank Blissett.
