Creation order and hope as sources of ethical response to the crises?

The financial, economic and ecological crises calls for deeper reflection.

Here the abstract of a presentation held in at a Christian Philosophy conference in Amsterdam last week:

Abstract
The social injustice and ecological damage exacerbated by the financial, economic and ecological crises, as well as a limited ethical response, forces a deep reflection on the transformative potential of Christian ethics on a society largely shaped by the dominant economic culture. The aim of the paper is to explore how the concepts of underlying creation order and eschatological hope for creation may be helpful in the understanding and formulating an ethical response to the financial, economic and ecological crises. A conceptual framework, or an intermediate theory [Shields & Tajalli, 2006], is developed and presented to assist in further research on the topic. An initial review of the literature, as limited to insights from reformational philosophy and eco-theology to the concepts of creation order and eschatology, is presented. The main tensions within broader Christian environmental ethics, as well as with dominant ethical theories in ecological economics are highlighted and discussed. Some implications for the further explanation and development of a Christian ethics for economics and environment are outlined and further research questions are identified.

Keywords: ecological crises, economic crises, ethics, creation order, eschatology, reformational philosophy, eco-theology, ecological economics.

Here the links to full presentation and presentation notes.

A Cretan Commitment

What do economists have to say about the ecological and economic crises?

I had the fortune to visit the beautiful island of Crete during the first week of June with a group of people thinking and debating on the roots of the economic and ecological crises, how to respond to it and what the role of environmental ethics is in this regard.

The organiser asked me to draft a synopsis, a sort of an appeal to fellow economists. Here it is:

1. The current Keynesian economic response to the crises, with a focus on credit and spending does not recognise the deeper structural, ethical and ontological roots of the crises.

2. The ‘Green New Deal’, a response where green economy strategies are launched around the globe that promise jobs, a revitalized economy and at the same time intended to start addressing the ecological crises mostly through the deployment of cleaner technology, is not a sufficient response as it does not recognise the ethical and ontological dimensions of the crises.

3. It is recognised that ecological economics as an emerging interdisciplinary science includes elements of nature, justice and dynamics in its view of reality.

4. Ecological economists are called to challenge the problem of moral choice in the context of intellectual pluralism and the implications of a generalised theory of entropy that guides action-orientated decisions on sustainability.

5. Ecological economists are called to recognise the fragility of their discipline and build up a more resilient and integer theory to assist in transitions towards better sustainability.

6. Economists are called to further develop and build on theories that view individuals and communities as moral agents, and not as agents either naturalistically determined or endowed with unlimited freedom of individuality.

7. Economists are called to reflect on the paradigmatic implications of the idea that human beings are not autonomous, but stand in relation to God, to other human beings and to God’s creation.

8. Economists are called to recognise that theology, the study on the nature of God, as revealed in Word and creation, has a lot to offer on both the organisation/structure, as well as direction of such relationships.

9. Economists are called to recognise that ethics is not the outcome of self-interested choice.

10. Economists are called to reflect on the idea that the source of ethics is not revealed within human reason or in human experience, nor in the laws of nature, but is solely based in revelation by God as read in God’s own creation and in the written Word.

11. Economists are also called to study and respond to the ontological critique that economic science does not account for the wholeness of reality, as evident by its tendency to focus on the outcomes of a deductive, mathematical approach as a basis for real-world interventions.

12. Economists are called to develop approaches, models and tools that do better justice to complex realities, accepting the importance of the particular as well as the broader systematic unity of things.

13. Economists are called to realise that the power of the discipline in contemporary culture stand within a context, comes with an enormous responsibility to act for the improvement of the lot of humanity and of creation.

14. Economists are called, like anyone else, to take serious the idea that we are accountable to the living God, and should strive to come to wise decisions on how to manage the interrelationships amongst humans and the earth that God has created and sustains every day.

Note: This is a draft synopsis as based solely on my own interpretation and do not necessary represent those of others at the symposium

Preparing for Crete: Ecological crises and ethics

The following commitment to present at a conference on ecology, theology and environmental ethics in June is coming closer...

Abstract

The question how to approach practical, ‘messy’ problems where problems are not well-defined remains actual. The ongoing financial and economic crisis, as well as an emerging ecological crisis, is an opportunity to reflect on deeper questions on how to approach and inform decisions in the real world.

Reflecting on close to fifteen years of personal experience in the field of environmental economic research and consultancy, coupled with a synopsis of what ecological economic theory has to offer, it will be made clear that solutions are not forthcoming within the fields of economics of ecology itself. Working towards a solution to the financial and ecological crises would include developing an approach that builds on a richer interpretation of the fullness of reality on an ontological level, and on an epistemological level includes at least three specific focus areas namely a systems approach to reality that take account of both nature and culture, an acknowledgment of and internalization of normative-ethical frameworks and the importance of visionary leadership.

These areas will be explored against the backdrop of developments in mainly the economic, but also in the environmental and policy sciences and with a distinct focus on the contributions of the Protestant-Christian tradition to a sustainable management of the earth’s natural and environmental resources.

Key words: economics, ecology, crises, systems theory, ethics, leadership, decision-making, Christianity, theology, ecotheology

I can't wait, but what on earth (no pun) have I let myself in for?

On crises and the oversupply of bad news

Crises is a word that became part of our daily vocabulary in recent months. It can be defined as a time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger. It also seems as if there is an incentive (at least in some circles) to keep the fires of crises burning. Or to put it differently: bad news sells. 

Julian Simon, renowned resource optimist had this to say in an article in Science on the question why bad news dominate public discussion on topics such as natural resources, population and the environment, way back in 1980:

Why do false statements of bad news dominate public discussion of these topics? Here are some speculations. 

1) There is a funding incentive for scholars and institutions to produce bad news about population, resources, and the environment. The AID and the U.N.'s Fund for Population Activities disburse more than a hundred million dollars each year to bring about fertility decline. Much of this money goes to studies and publications that show why fertility decline is a good thing. There are no organizations that fund studies having the opposite aim.

2) Bad news sells books, newspapers, and magazines; good news is not half so interesting. Is it a wonder that there are lots of bad-news best-sellers warning about pollution, population growth, and natural-resource depletion but none telling us the facts about improvement?

3) There are a host of possible psychological explanations for this phenomenon about which I am reluctant to speculate. But these two seem reasonably sure: (i) Many people have a propensity to compare the present and the future with an ideal state of affairs rather than with the past or with some other feasible state; the present and future inevitably look bad in such a comparison. (ii) The cumulative nature of exponential growth models has the power to seduce and bewitch.

4) Some publicize dire predictions in the idealistic belief that such warnings can mobilize institutions and individuals to make things even better; they think that nothing bad can come of such prophecies. But we should not shrug off false bad news as harmless exaggeration. There will be a loss of credibility for real threats as they arise, and loss of public trust in public communication. As Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences, testified to congressmen. in the midst of the environmental panic of 1970: "The nations of the world may yet pay a dreadful price for the public behavior of scientists who depart from . . . fact to indulge ... in hyperbole".

Why does bad news flourish? In short, according to Simon,  due to R&D funding and media incentives, idealistic/utopian expectations of reality and a (dangerous) sense that communicating a crises/alarmism will lead to action or at least will not be harmful.

My apologies for not being able to finish this post. I have to run, have a project crises to attend to...

H/T: The Encyclopedia of the Earth

Image: tralfaz-archives

SAs response to the international crises

See this draft, from Business Day.