Chapter 5. Principles, Priorities, and Spirituality
I am glad that I was “raised in the church,” as they used to say around home. I was raised in a small, country Methodist church, but the preaching was more like the “hell, fire, and brimstone” of Southern Baptists. As an adult, I attended Baptist, Church of Christ, and Methodist Churches. Baptists believe in the Holy Bible as the “gospel truth.” As a Baptist, I learned a lot from reading the Bible and even taught a Sunday School class for a while. The Church of Christ was more theologically liberal, but the church we attended became intolerable when the preacher joined the Moral Majority and began campaigning for Ronald Reagan. A Methodist church in Georgia was warm and welcoming when we were visitors. However, the reception became indifferent and standoffish when we decided to become members, which I later learned is typical of Southern culture. I eventually decided to become a member of the SBNR church, which is known as “spiritual but not religious.”
I think of myself as a Christian “perennialist.” Perennialism is a philosophical perspective that all religions share a set of central or core beliefs from which all major belief systems, religious doctrines, and codes of ethics have evolved.[1] It’s as if we are all climbing the same mountain from different sides. A contemporary version of perennialism is universalism, which promotes the belief in one universal or absolute truth. This truth applies to all aspects of life, including all religions.[2] Transcendentalism is similar to perennialism. A core belief of transcendentalism is that an inherent goodness transcends humanity and the whole of creation.[3] Transcendentalists see the spiritual and divine in their everyday experiences rather than in religious doctrines, texts, and rituals. As we become more spiritual and less religious, we begin to realize that all major religions and philosophies share many of the same core beliefs. The Golden Rule is perhaps the best example of a shared belief system. Deep sustainability is rooted in spirituality.
My religious upbringing probably made it easier for me to understand and accept the fundamental flaws in “scientism” and “economism.” I believe the basic laws of science are valid, but I don’t believe all questions can be answered or all truths revealed by relying on the so-called scientific method of inquiry. I believe there are basic principles of ecological integrity and human behavior that are just as real and inviolable as the laws of science. Principles cannot be proven using accepted scientific methods but can still be used to anticipate the consequences of actions in the larger, ever-changing living world that eludes conventional scientific inquiry.
I believe in the principle of economics, but I do not accept that all personal choices, political decisions, and cultural phenomena can be explained in terms of individuals pursuing their self-interests. Everything does not ultimately “boil down to economics.” Economic well-being is important, but people make decisions and form relationships for purely social and ethical reasons that have nothing to do with economics. There are basic social and ethical principles of human behavior that are just as valid as economic principles.
Deep sustainability goes beyond the laws of scientism and principles of economism to address the philosophical and spiritual principles and priorities that must sustain the ecological, social, and economic integrity of human relationships with each other and with the Earth.
Principles
Principles are sometimes referred to as “laws of nature” or, when related to human behavior, as “natural law.” That is, the natural world ‘obeys’ the Laws of Nature.”[4] Philosophers refer to this as Necessitarian Theory, meaning such laws are necessary for nature to fulfill its purpose. Others define the laws of nature as statements or descriptions of the regularities in the world; the way the world works, period, denying the existence of purpose. Some of the more recognizable laws of nature accepted by science include the laws of gravity, motion, and thermodynamics. Regardless, the laws of nature are inviolable, meaning they cannot be altered or evaded and ultimately must be respected.
Principles of relationships among humans are called “natural law” rather than “laws of nature.” Natural Laws include ethical and moral principles, which determine whether human thoughts and actions are right or wrong, or good or bad.[5] Natural laws are not accepted as scientifically valid, since they cannot be proven using accepted scientific methods. The principles of natural law are variously attributed to the basic nature of human beings, to God or some other supreme being, or the nature of the cosmos and the place of humans within it.[6] Such principles exist independently of any given religion, culture, society, or political order. Principles of natural law are expressed in such historic documents as the Magna Carta and the American Declaration of Independence, where certain rights are described as being inherent or self-evident. Current interpretations of natural laws reflect the common sense of people regarding rightness in relationships and apply to all people of all times.
The basic principles or laws that both empower and restrain human life on earth are the same principles that define the functions of all other living and nonliving elements of the universe. Living organisms differ from nonliving mechanisms in that the living world does not function with the precision of the nonliving world. The principles of living systems can’t be captured in mathematical equations or precise formulas such as those that define mechanical, chemical, and electrical processes. The principles that govern living systems are no less true or inviolable than those that govern nonliving systems; they are less well known and appreciated. The laws of nature that guide the functioning of living ecosystems are commonly known as the principles of ecology. Human societies are communities are subsets or members of the Earth’s collection of living ecosystems.
The first principle of ecology is that everything is connected; you can’t do just one thing. The first principle of sustainability in general is holism, meaning everything is integrally connected; the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Whenever interconnections are weak or simple, as in mechanical, chemical, and electrical systems, ignoring holism doesn’t appear to be a critical concern. Mechanistic paradigms seem to work very well in matters related to physics, chemistry, engineering, and the industrial arts. The greatest advances during the modern era of science and industry have been in these areas. Where relationships are strong and systems are complex, as in ecological, social, or economic systems, ignoring holism has critical consequences. In these areas of application, mechanical paradigms have often created more problems than they have solved. The greatest challenges of sustainability are not mechanical or industrial, but ecological, social, and economic, where relationships matter.
The first principle of ecological sustainability is diversity. The whole of a thing is said to be diverse if it has a variety of different or dissimilar elements or parts. The ultimate state of entropy is characterized by the lack of diversity or uniformity of component elements; the absence of form, pattern, structure, or differentiation. Barren deserts receive an abundance of solar energy but support relatively little life because they lack ecological diversity. Ecosystems completely lacking in diversity are incapable of supporting life.
Diversity gives living systems their capacities to renew and regenerate – to live, grow, mature, produce, reproduce, and evolve. Diversity also provides the resilience needed to endure and recover from unexpected threats to health or life, such as physical attacks and diseases. Diversity allows living systems to adapt and evolve to adjust to their ever-changing environments. Even if the specific nature of a threat or species extinction is not fully understood, the loss of diversity in general represents a growing threat to the future of human life on earth.
The second principle of ecological sustainability is individuality. The diverse organisms and components of ecosystems, living and non-living, are distinct individuals or identities. No two ecosystems are the same, and no ecosystem is the same at two different points in time. Each ecosystem and organism has its niche within its larger whole and evolves to accommodate its ever-changing environment. They have distinct forms, structures, or bodies that are defined by distinct semi-permeable or selective boundaries that are essential in sustaining the health and life of individual organisms and ecosystems.
A third essential ecological principle of ecological sustainability is interdependence. Interdependent relationships are mutually beneficial. Dependent relationships are exploitative, and independence is self-limiting. Interdependent relationships are win-win relationships. Interdependence is the reward or payoff for respecting the principles of diversity and individuality. Within interdependent systems, the output of one process becomes input for others. The wastes of one species provide resources for other species. Interdependence allows the control of natural ecosystems to be decentralized or dispersed rather than centralized or consolidated. The mutually beneficial nature of interdependent relationships makes the whole of diverse living systems something more than the sum of their parts, rather than something less.
Social principles are the specific subset of laws of nature or natural law that apply to human relationships. Social principles or laws apply to all people of all times. As with the laws of physics or chemistry, if people misinterpret or ignore the basic laws of human nature, sooner or later, they will suffer the negative consequences. Social standards or norms of human behavior naturally evolve from a common understanding of what it takes to sustain positive personal relationships. Social values reflect attempts to translate the essential principles of personal relationships into practical guidelines for day-to-day living. Social values may be different for different communities and within different societies at different times in their social evolution. However, the most fundamental of social principles are the same for all communities, within all societies, over all times.
People in different cultures have different social values, but a common set of core values appears to be shared across virtually all cultures within civilized human society. These core values include honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, and compassion. Such values reflect deeper underlying social principles that transcend societies, cultures, and time. Social principles, like ecological principles, are defined at a higher level of organization beyond human observation or full understanding. Over time, however, humans have come to share a common sense or shared insight of what is necessary for positive personal relationships. Positive relationships cannot be maintained among people who are dishonest, unfair, irresponsible, disrespectful, and uncaring. Such propositions do not need to be proven; they are self-evident matters of consensus or common sense.
The first principle of social relationships is trust. Trust is a “rule-based” principle of human behavior, meaning it’s considered a universal standard of conduct. Trust is considered appropriate for all people under all conditions. Rule-based principles don’t consider the specific consequences of individual actions. Good behavior, by definition, is assumed to bring good results. The core values of honesty, fairness, and responsibility are all logical aspects of the principle of trust. To maintain positive personal relationships, people need to be honest and truthful in words and in actions. They need to be fair and impartial in their treatment of others, regardless of their race, age, gender, or any of the other particular social groups to which they might belong. They need to do their share of whatever needs to be done and to follow through with their promises or commitments. Whenever trusts are validated, relationships grow stronger. Whenever trusts are betrayed, relationships grow weaker. So, to sustain personal relationships, people must be willing to trust – and be trustworthy.
Positive social relationships must also be based on the principle of kindness. Sometimes, relationships can be sustained only through acting on core values such as empathy, respect, and compassion. We all face the possibilities of misfortunes such as ill health, natural disasters, and financial problems in our lives. We all make mistakes. Sometimes, we need mercy rather than justice. Kindness is a care-based rather than rule-based principle. Kindness is situational, in that what is appropriate depends on the specific context or conditions. People should do for others as they would have others do for them – if they were in the other person’s situation and the other person was in theirs.
Empathy is a precondition for kindness. To be kind, a person first must be able to put themselves in the other person’s situation. They must be able to imagine the other person’s specific conditions, with their unique obstacles and aspirations. We may not all agree on how others should be treated, but we know that to sustain personal relationships, we must treat others with compassion. We must be respectful of their beliefs and values, in the same ways as we would have them respect ours. This ideal of kindness, generally referred to as the “Golden Rule,” has been a fundamental aspect of virtually every enduring religion and philosophy throughout human history.
Positive social relationships also require commitment. It takes a personal commitment to be trustworthy and kind in today’s cynical culture, where trust and kindness are often seen as signs of weakness to be exploited. It takes a personal commitment and perseverance to carry out good intentions, even in the face of adversity and risks. However, commitment contributes to human well-being only when it is linked with the principles of trust and kindness. Some of the most evil and despicable acts in the history of humanity were carried out by people who were committed ot a common cause. Commitment must be rooted in ethical and moral values of trust and kindness. Commitment strengthens human relationships only when people are committed to persevering in fulfilling some positive purpose for the greater good of society and humanity.
Unfortunately, the global economy is dominated by a utilitarian or ends-based ethic. This ethic of economics places no value on human relationships unless something of material or tangible value is expected in return. The rightness or goodness of decisions and actions is judged solely by their consequences or results, and the economic consequences are the only ones that seem to matter. The supposed objective of such intentions is to do the “greatest good for the greatest number of people.” But the “greatest good” has become synonymous with greater personal wealth or economic growth. However, the “greatest goods” or greatest human benefits arising from trust and kindness are those that have no economic value. It takes a moral commitment to speak the truth about the dependence of economic sustainability on the essential social principles of trust and kindness.
The fundamental purpose of an economy is to meet the instrumental, impersonal needs of people as individuals. The essence of economics can be reduced to three basic principles: scarcity, efficiency, and sovereignty. These principles were not created by economists. They are basic principles of human behavior. These principles exist regardless of whether individuals live in market economies or planned economies. They define the functions people need to carry out to meet their impersonal, instrumental, individual needs, including the need to work or earn an economic livelihood. Few things are more real or relevant to the day-to-day lives of people.
The first principle of economics is scarcity. Things have economic value only if they are scarce, meaning there is not enough for everyone to have all they want. The economic or exchange value of something is different from its intrinsic or use value. Intrinsic value is determined by necessity; economic value is determined by scarcity. For example, air most certainly is valuable to human life, but it has no economic value. Air only becomes economically valuable when it becomes sufficiently restricted, polluted, or degraded to make good, clean air scarce. People are then forced to pay the costs of keeping clean air available to them. Air then has economic value. This may sound simple, but many people don’t seem to understand that the economy doesn’t necessarily value things that are important to society and humanity.
As something becomes less scarce, it has less economic value: The “law of diminishing returns.” The economic laws of supply and demand are derived directly from this basic economic principle. The first serving of food at a given meal may taste very good if a person is hungry. The second serving might taste okay, but by the third or fourth serving, most people would have had more than enough. As a result, the quantities or amounts of something consumers are willing to buy vary inversely with its price: The law of demand. As people expend more time and energy producing things, they require more pay to offset the increasing scarcity of their time and energy left for other uses. So, the amount of labor they are willing to supply varies directly with their wages or salaries. As a result, producers who hire workers are willing to produce larger amounts of things only if they can get higher prices to cover their increasing costs of production. Quantities supplied by producers or sellers vary directly in relation to prices: The law of supply. The laws of supply and demand are reflections of our humanness:
In market economies, prices are determined by the laws of supply and demand. As more of something is sold, the costs of producing it go up, but its value to buyers goes down, until buyers are willing to pay just enough to cover the added costs of production. At this point, buyers would buy more only if prices were lower, but sellers would sell more only if prices were higher. They have arrived at a market price. The most powerful economic concepts are these simple ideas of supply, demand, and market price. Certainly, the real world in which buyers and sellers operate is far more complex than this simple explanation, but the underlying principles are the same. The global economy has been brought to the verge of collapse by people who failed to understand or respect both the power and the limitations of the economic principle of scarcity.
The principle of efficiency is also essential to economic sustainability. Economic efficiency refers to economic value of something relative to its economic cost. The greater the value relative to costs, the greater the efficiency. The natural and human resources used to produce things of economic value often have a variety of alternative uses. Wood, coal, oil, and natural gas, for example, have a variety of alternative uses in manufacturing, the generation of electricity, transportation, and home heating. Many laborers and managers have a variety of employable skills and talents, and thus, a variety of employment opportunities. Economic efficiency is achieved by putting natural and human resources to their highest or best economic use, meaning their greatest economic value relative to their economic costs.
Sovereignty or “freedom to choose” is the first principle of economic sustainability. If people are not free to make economic choices, the concepts of scarcity and efficiency are of little consequence, at least not to them individually. People must be free to determine or discover their needs and wants for themselves, without persuasion or coercion from others. As with interdependence and commitment, economic sovereignty contributes to individual well-being only if it is used wisely. Buyers must have accurate information so they can know the ultimate value of things before they buy them. Otherwise, the choices may not meet their expectations, and they may regret the choices they have made.
Most economists assume that people are sovereign without questioning whether they actually are free to choose. After all, no one is forcing people to buy things. Perhaps people aren’t forced to buy anything, but billions of dollars are spent each year on advertising designed to persuade, coerce, and create social pressures to convince people to buy things they don’t need or even want. In addition, many people sacrifice their economic sovereignty through excessive borrowing, which limits their economic choices for the future. Economic sovereignty is essential for economic sustainability. To live and make a living in a sustainable society, people must respect the economic principles of scarcity, efficiency, and sovereignty.
Priorities
The basic principles or laws of nature, such as the laws of gravity, motion, and thermodynamics, apply to ecosystems, societies, and economies, as well as to all phenomena in the non-living world. The principles of ecology also apply to societies and economies, since they are biophysical subsets of nature. And the principles of social relationships also apply to economic organizations, since they are subsets of societies. The basic principles of economics also apply to social and ecological relationships, although with important differences from purely economic relationships. Social principles also apply to economies and ecosystems, again quite differently than purely social relationships.
Deep sustainability requires that the physical principles of nature be given priority over the principles of ecosystems. Sustainable ecosystems must function in harmony with nature. Sustainable societies must function in harmony with the natural ecosystem of which they are a part. And sustainable economies must function in harmony with the societies that create them. Differences in the ways the basic principles of nature are reflected in sustainable ecosystems, societies, and economies are matters of priorities. If economies violate the principles of societies, societies violate the principles of ecosystems, or ecosystems violate the basic laws of nature, neither the ecosystems, societies, nor economies will be sustainable over time.
The ecological principles of diversity, individuality, and interdependence are essential for social and economic, as well as for ecological, sustainability. At the most basic level, sustainable societies must include males and females of different ages, from young to old. Sustainability requires continual renewal and regeneration. Sustainability communities must also include people with a diversity of ideas, abilities, and inspirations to maintain resilience and avoid stagnation and decay. Business organizations need both experienced executives and younger employees with fresh perspectives and ideas. Sustainable economic organizations must also accommodate a diversity of aptitudes, aspirations, and motivations. Homogeneity in economic organizations may generate and support prosperity for a while, but uniformity is neither resilient nor conducive to economic regeneration. Sooner or later, such organizations degenerate into chaos or lethargy.
Sustainable societies and businesses must also be individualistic. No two sustainable communities or societies can be the same, as each must accommodate their unique niches within nature. Each community must be able to evolve to accommodate its ever-changing ecological environment. The leadership of sustainable communities and societies must be democratic to ensure that they function to meet the diverse needs of their members. No two sustainable businesses can be the same, as each depends on a unique set of natural and human resources to serve a unique set of customers. The organization and control of sustainable businesses must be decentralized the ensure that the business meets the diverse needs of all stakeholders rather than only the economic interests of its shareholders.
Sustainable societies and businesses must also prioritize interdependent or mutually beneficial relationships among their members and stakeholders. Dependent relationships are exploitative, and independent relationships are self-limiting. Interdependent relationships are relationships of choice among independent individuals who are free to depend or not depend on each other. Interdependence is what makes communities and societies something more than collections of independent individuals, rather than less. Interdependent relationships among employees, suppliers, and customers ensure that businesses contribute to the common good rather than extract and exploit.
The economic principles of scarcity, efficiency, and sovereignty are expressed differently in sustainable social and ecological relationships, but nevertheless exist. For example, an additional friend would be of greater value to a person with few, if any, friends than if the same person already had many friends. The marginal value of a friend cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but nonetheless is greater when friends are scarce rather than when abundant. Social relationships also require time and energy that are invested more efficiently and yield a greater social return when spent on relationships that grow stronger rather than those destined to fail. Finally, people need to be free to choose the people they relate to socially and who they avoid. They need to be socially sovereign.
Scarcity, efficiency, and sovereignty also apply to the sustainability of natural ecosystems. As species within ecosystems become fewer, ecosystems become less diverse, and at some point, become less resilient and able to absorb shocks or recover from disruptions. As species become endangered, they become more ecologically valuable. Species may have economic value, but often become ecologically valuable long before they become economically valuable. Natural ecosystems tend to move or evolve toward increasing efficiency, as individual species find their ideal ecological niche. Like economic organizations, however, as they become more efficient, at some point, they become less resilient and vulnerable to disruption or collapse. Finally, the species within natural ecosystems are sovereign, in the sense that they have selective boundaries to nourish and protect themselves from harm.
The social principles of trust, kindness, and commitment are expressed differently in sustainable economic and ecological relationships, but nevertheless exist. For example, economic relationships that are purely transactional and based on short-run economic self-interest are not sustainable over time. If each party consistently lies, cheats, or fails to fulfill their commitments, the relationship is not sustainable. For sustainability, there must be a mutual sense of honesty, fairness, and responsibility—of trust. Even in trusting economic relationships, there will be times when one party or the other is unable to fulfill a commitment or will inadvertently mislead the other. To sustain the relationship, there must be some sense of empathy, compassion, and respect. Finally, sustainable economic relationships require commitment by both parties to maintaining the relationship over the long run, rather than exploiting every short-run economic advantage.
The relationships among individuals and species within sustainable natural ecosystems reflect the same basic principles as human social relationships. There is no way of knowing whether they share the same motivations. Many animal species are social in the sense that they form families and live in communities. They often care for their offspring collectively and seem to trust each other to cooperate in foraging or hunting for food and protecting each other from harm. Plants, animals, and other species also form collaborative relationships in ecologically sustainable communities. The survival of species is not about the survival of the fittest individuals but of the most cooperative communities.
In summary, the principles of nature, including ecological, social, and economic principles, determine the ultimate consequences of our actions in organizing and managing our societies and economies. We can ignore or deny the existence of these principles, but we cannot avoid the ultimate consequences of our actions. There is a natural hierarchy of principles from the basic laws of nature, to ecosystems, societies, and down to the principles of economics. We can ignore the laws of nature, but we can’t avoid the consequences. We can also ignore the hierarchy of principles essential for sustainability, but we can’t avoid the ultimate consequences.
The so-called developed societies of the world have reversed the hierarchy of sustainable principles. The economic principles of scarcity and efficiency have been given priority over society and nature, and even over economic sovereignty. The abundant resources of nature and society have been privatized to create scarcity and economic value. Water has become a marketable commodity, and people hire other people to raise their children. Economic efficiency is given priority over social and ecological integrity, even over long-run economic sustainability. Essential government functions have been privatized to increase operational efficiency. Corporations have been allowed to grow, extract, and exploit to achieve “economies of scale.” There seems to be a blind faith that new technologies will emerge to solve any problem we create or replace any resource we use up, once there is an economic incentive to do so.
Deep sustainability is about a spiritual revolution, rather than a scientific, political, economic, or technological revolution. We not only have to get the principles right, but also get the priorities right. If we wait for the productive capacities of nature and society to become sufficiently depleted to take on economic value, it will be too late to reverse the degradation. We need a spiritual awakening to the realization that we humans are a part of nature, that our societies and economies are subsets of nature, and that nature’s laws, principles, and priorities ultimately must be acknowledged, respected, and obeyed. Deep sustainability is rooted in spirituality.
Spirituality
Spirituality has about as many definitions as there are attempts to define it. Most definitions refer to spirituality as a feeling that one’s life is integrally connected with a higher, intangible level of reality, beyond the material world or universe. The Latin word for spirit is “breath,” or that which sustains life or vitality. Merriam-Webster defines spirit as “an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms.”[7] For individuals, spirituality relates to the inner life, the soul or spirit, rather than the outer life of the body and mind. Spirit refers to the essence of life itself.
In philosophy, spirituality is often contrasted with materialism. The philosophy of materialism is based on the premise that everything that exists is material or tangible. Materialists view life as a mechanical sequence of predetermined or random biological and chemical reactions that unfold according to the basic laws of physics—inevitably, without intention, purpose, or meaning. Everything, including thoughts, feelings, emotions, and even consciousness, is explained as a materialistic, mechanical, mindless process. Humans are nothing more than highly sophisticated robots. Materialists believe the unfolding of reality was put in motion by the “big bang” or emergence of the universe and will continue until the universe collapses into a “big crunch or big freeze.”[8] Most people do not realize that modern science is grounded in, and its conclusions depend on, this philosophy of materialism.
Spiritualists, on the other hand, accept the existence of a reality that is both material and immaterial or intangible. Life is viewed as a process that emerges from conscious, intentional decisions and actions, neither predetermined nor random. Thoughts, feelings, emotions, and consciousness are spiritual as well as mental and physical. Humans are not sophisticated machines or robots but are intelligent, thoughtful, caring, spiritual beings. What we humans do or don’t do matters. The science of materialism is necessary to understand the nonliving world, but not sufficient to answer the social and ethical questions of sustainability. Science provides the means; spirituality provides the motives.
Rohana Ulluwishewa is the most insightful and prolific scholar of spirituality and sustainability that I have encountered.[9] He is a professor at Sri Jayewardenepura University in Sri Lanka and has written two books and numerous book chapters and articles linking spirituality to sustainability. In his book, Spirituality Demystified, he explains that while we and the things of nature are separate at the material level, we are all part of the same physical, mental, and spiritual whole at the quantum or deeper level of reality.
He explains that at the quantum level, the interconnections are not limited by space or time. We are interconnected with everything everywhere, for all times, present and future. At the deepest level, we are made up of energy: our bodies, minds, and spirits are just different forms or structures of the same universal, inseparable pool of energy. Ulluwishewa believes that quantum scientists may eventually bridge the gap between materialism and spirituality.
I agree with Ulluwishewa, but I believe we are connected at the macro or material level of reality as well as the quantum level. Our bodies and minds are all made up of the same molecules and energy waves that permeate everything on Earth, the Universe, and beyond. Over time, the materials that make up our bodies and the energy that fuels our bodies and minds flow through our bodies and return to the universal pool of matter and energy from which they came. The same materials and energy that flow through us flow through the whole of the universe. During our lifetime, however, we have distinct material structures that form our bodies and unique vibrations of energy that form our minds.
During our lifetime, we are spiritually connected with everything else. Our life is part of the life of the Earth, and our soul is part of the soul of the Earth. During our lifetime, our individualistic self is defined by the distinctive physical structures and functions of our bodies and our minds. The individual self or being emerges from the union of the physical, mental, and spiritual. The bodies and minds are ours alone, but our spirit is shared with everything, everywhere, of all time. Our self is an emergent property of the body, mind, and soul.
One of the most insightful examples of the relevance of spirituality to the challenges of sustainability is the encyclical letter, “Laudato Si’, Letter of Care of our Common Home” written by Pope Frances.[10] The Letter is frequently referred to as the “Pope’s Encyclical Letter on Climate Change,” but could be more accurately referred to as a “Spiritual Letter on Deep Sustainability.” The Pope begins with references to climate change, which he uses to link the letter to the most urgent ecological issue confronting humanity today. However, he quickly expands the focus of the letter to the care of our common home, the Earth. “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all” (Sec. 23). “Whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone” (Sec 93).
The Pope addresses environmental issues from the perspective of integral ecology.[11] When we speak of the “environment,” what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it (Sec 139).
Pope Francis challenges those who interpret the Bible as giving humans dominion over the earth to conquer it and exploit its resources. This [integral] rediscovery of nature can never be at the cost of the freedom and responsibility of human beings who, as part of the world, have the duty to cultivate their abilities in order to protect it and develop its potential. (Sec 78). The biblical texts are to be read in their context… they tell us to “till and keep” the garden of the world [Gen 2:15]. “Tilling” refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while “keeping” means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving (Sec 67).
He also challenges the philosophy of materialism. How wonderful is the certainty that each human life is not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos, in a world ruled by pure chance or endlessly recurring cycles! (Sec. 84). Each creature has its own purpose. None is superfluous (Sec 65). It is not enough, however, to think of different species merely as potential “resources” to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves (Sec. 33).
The encyclical also addresses the challenge of multigenerational sustainability and links the causes of environmental degradation with the causes of human and social degradation. The notion of the common good also extends to future generations… We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity (Sec 159). We cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation (Sec 48). The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development (Sec. 13).
Pope Francis challenges the ideas that technology is neutral and infinite growth is possible.
Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used (Sec 104). We have to accept that technological products are not neutral… Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build (Sec 107). The idea of infinite or unlimited growth… is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods (Sec 106).
He points out the shortcomings of “scientism.” The specialization that belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. 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 (Sec 110). Today’s technology relies on a “scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation” (Sec 106).
Pope Francis condemns the philosophy of “economism.” The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings… Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue… that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth… showing no interest in… a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations… 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 (Sec 109).
He also challenges “consumerism.” Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending (Sec 203). But… human intervention, often in the service of business interests and consumerism, is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, ever more limited and grey, even as technological advances and consumer goods continue to abound limitlessly (Sec 34).
Pope Francis extends the Golden Rule to our relationships with the Earth itself. Human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself (Sec 66). Everything is interconnected, and that genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others (Sec 70). When our hearts are authentically open to universal communion, this sense of fraternity excludes nothing and no one (Sec 92).
He closes the encyclical with a message of hope for a sustainable future rooted in spirituality.
Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out, that we can always redirect our steps, and that we can always do something to solve our problems (Sec 61). Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability (Sec 207). May our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope (Sec 244).
As might have been anticipated, the Laudato Si’ encyclical was either criticized or ignored by political and business leaders of the so-called developed Western nations. It was even publicly criticized by some leaders in the Catholic Church in the U.S. This response gives some indication of how deeply the philosophies of humanism, scientism, economism, and consumerism are ingrained in the economically dominant nations of the world. The rejection of Laudato Si’ was a rejection of the reality that we humans are integrally connected, physically and spiritually, with the whole of the Earth and that we each have a unique purpose or responsibility as overseers, protectors, and caretakers of the Earth.
Pope Francis was not deterred by criticisms and rejections. In 2023, he wrote another encyclical, Laudate Deum (“Praise God”), with an even more urgent call for action on climate change and even harsher criticism of the irresponsible lifestyles of the Western world.[12] “He also leveled blame at leaders and businesses, which he said prioritize short-term profits and gains over climate action. “Regrettably, the climate crisis is not exactly a matter that interests the great economic powers, whose concern is with the greatest profit possible at minimal cost and in the shortest amount of time.” [13]
A common thread of all expressions of spirituality is the existence of an unseen order or interconnected web that defines the oneness of all things within a unified whole. The boundaries separating oneself from the “ultimate” reality seem to dissolve in a profound sense of “oneness” or unity.[14] We may attempt to understand the whole and even influence it, but we did not create it and cannot control it. Thus, we must seek peace through harmony within a higher order that is beyond our control. This harmony may be defined as “doing the right things.” And, by “doing the right things” – for ourselves, for others around us, and for those of future generations – we create harmony and find inner peace.
There is no way to reconcile the materialistic conventional worldview of sustainability with the spiritual worldview of deep sustainability. Materialism is a rejection of spirituality and thus a rejection of deep sustainability. Those with a conventional worldview accept the physical laws of science, unless they conflict with their economic aspirations. They conveniently ignore the law of entropy when promoting perpetual growth and reject the science of climate change when it interferes with profitability. They prioritize the principles of economics, ignore the principles of ecology, and treat the principles of social relationships as nothing more than personal opinions and preferences. Their decisions and actions prioritize economism over scientism and scientism over social and moral responsibility.
Those who hold the worldview of shallow sustainability may reject some aspects of materialism and may be integral ecologists, intellectually. However, when challenged by materialists, they retreat to science and economics to defend their positions on sustainability. They implicitly accept the need for economic growth as a prerequisite for environmental and social responsibility, while conveniently ignoring that the pursuit of economic growth is the root cause of ecological and social degradation. They support the science of climate change as long as it supports a new “green economy.” The worldview of shallow sustainability focuses on the principles of ecological sustainability while marginalizing or ignoring the principles of social and long-run economic sustainability. They express no moral commitment to meeting the basic human needs of the present or future, simply because it is the right thing to do.
Attempting to define an ethic of sustainability, I wrote, “A thing is right when it tends to enhance the quality and integrity of both human and nonhuman life on earth by honoring the unique responsibilities and rewards of humans as members and caretakers of the Earth's integral community. A thing is wrong when it tends otherwise.”[15] We get our sense of how the world works and where we fit within it through an understanding of the basic laws of nature and the ecological, social, and economic principles of sustainability. We get our sense of how we should live from the natural hierarchy of the ecological, social, and economic principles of sustainability. We fulfill our responsibilities and realize our rewards through our spiritual sense of connectedness with the whole of creation. Deep sustainability is rooted in a deeper understanding of how the world works, where we humans fit within it, and how we should live our lives.
Endnotes:
[1] Wikipedia contributors, "Perennial philosophy," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perennial_philosophy&oldid=1185510540 (accessed December 16, 2023).
[2] Wikipedia contributors, "Universalism," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universalism&oldid=1190035617 (accessed December 17, 2023).
[3] Wikipedia contributors, "Transcendentalism," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendentalism&oldid=1187111226 (accessed December 17, 2023).
[4] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Laws of Nature,” <http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm#H1>.
[5] William Hamilton, Essays in Edinburgh Review, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Review, 1829), 32.
[6] Wikipedia, “Natural Law,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law>
[7] Merriam-Webster, “Spirit,” online dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit#:~:text
[8] Eric Betz, The Beginning to the End of the Universe: The Big Crunch vs. The Big Freeze, Astronomy, Published: January 31, 2021 https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-beginning-to-the-end-of-the-universe-the-big-crunch-vs-the-big-freeze/
[9] Rohana Ulluwishewa, Amazon Books, https://www.amazon.com/stores/Rohana-Ulluwishewa/author/B00INAQWWE?
[10] Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home [Encyclical], https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html .
[11] Thomas Reese, Integral ecology: everything is connected, The Catholic Reporter, (August 28 2015), https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/integral-ecology-everything-connected.
[12] Barbie Latza Nadeau Pope Francis lambasts climate change skeptics and ‘irresponsible’ Western lifestyles, CNN (Wed October 4, 2023). https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/world/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-intl/index.html .
[13] Barbie Latza Nadeau Pope Francis lambasts climate change skeptics and ‘irresponsible’ Western lifestyles, CNN (Wed October 4, 2023). https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/world/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-“intl/index.html .
[14] James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Barnes & Noble Books, New York. 1902, 2004.
[15] Ikerd, J. (2016). THE ECONOMIC PAMPHLETEER: Toward an Ethic of Sustainability. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 6(3), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.063.001