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

Quote of the day: Entropy and physical limits

In terms of entropy, the two most important physical limits are local over-heating due to limited entropy export capacity and the minimum entropy reduction requirement for concentration of very dispersed materials. The first may be a problem for the local environment around power plants and in cities. For the Earth as a whole, the limit on the rate of entropy export is inessential.

From:

Entropy and economic processes — physics perspectives by Tomas Kåberger and Bengt Månsson, Ecological Economics Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2001, Pages 165-179

Isolated systems may face absolute limits and 'collapse' under the weight of increased entropy. Open systems, like the Earth, with external sunlight and dissipating heat to space, does not.

Easter Island, societal collapse, the ecological crises and the state of economics

I have taken some time of to reflect on the ecological crises. My companion, amongst many others, was Ken Peacock, Living with the Earth. An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. It contains the stories of collapse in ancient Phoenician society as documented by Vernon Carter and Tome Dale and Eastern Island as written by Jared Diamond.

Although very interesting to read, it struck me that these case studies are illustrating only a very particular view on the ecological crises. This approach emphasises that society and social structures are underpinned, influenced and shaped by independent biophysical factors and forces. The line of argument in both articles is more or less that both the Phoenicians and Eastern Islanders were expanding their population and/or economic power in the face of obvious resource constraints. Their myopic focus brought destruction and ultimate collapse and their stupidity is there for all to see. It is implicated that we are no different and that these examples are chilling case studies of mankind’s current senseless race towards an ecological doomsday. It is a narrative of environmental mortality, and the main culprit, especially for Diamond, lies in overpopulation. Deforestation, soil erosion, unsustainable agricultural practices such as goats on marginal lands are cited as the ecological triggers for collapse which in turn are caused by the intrusion of ever-expanding human populations.

Before reflecting further on these two articles I first want to take a step back into the history of economic thought. The close etymological basis of the words economics ‘oikonomia’ and ecology ‘oikology’ is well-known. What is not so well known, at least outside of the field of economics, is that economics has long since developed in an empirical direction, as based on the approach used in the physical sciences. The idea of ‘nomos’, which was still in inherent in the earlier classical political economy, lost its allure. Economics, at least the dominant neo-classical version of it, become empirical, mathematical, reductionist and libertarian. Its moral philosophy rested in the self-interest of individual agents. Natural resources and the environment were assumed to be in abundant supply, and on the bigger scale of wealth creation, it did not really matter either.

This has not always been the case. In earlier schools of economic thought, especially the Physiocrats, agriculture was seen as the only really productive sector that could generate a surplus. This link to land was still important for later classical economists (Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Mill and Marx), but it was postulated that surplus is derived from broader production, including factors such as labour and capital. The idea of a natural law, pertinent in the developing physical sciences, was vigorously applied into economic thinking. State regulation was frowned upon as working against the natural forces of enterprise, the results of which is measured as economic growth.

The detachment of wealth creation from agriculture and later land in general, is in my opinion, an important feat in economic thinking. That the physical and material inputs of land and natural resources became effectively ignored in later neo-classical economic thinking is not. What is at least needed at this stage is an acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics, and an acceptance of an “external” ethics, which may culminate through positive (man-made) law. The physical reality is that materials and energy, at least in the forms we know them, are running out. Sunlight provides the ultimate source of energy, and the socio-ecological transition towards using energy “that is closer to the sun” will become an important economic imperative. We are not necessarily talking about absolute limits in the strictest sense here, but of limits in our ability to translate sun-power into energy. It is further not only the supply of energy and materials that matter, but also the rate at which by-products such as waste and pollution can be absorbed by nature. This transition may need to be sped-up in the face of these increased loadings of waste and pollution into the natural environment.

Socio-economic forces may again have a profound impact in how mankind is adapting to the ecological crises. Eastern Island, in fact, may have also experienced a socio-economic transition, one untold in the narrative of human ecology. Recent research published in the American Scientist argued that the island was populated by humans far later than initially thought, that alien rats brought havoc even before the island was really populated, and that it was the contact with Europeans, with their diseases, the ensuing conflict and enslavement which brought the societal collapse.

Tales of ecological destruction and human greed are certainly valid in certain contexts, as are tales of genocide and collapse, I have some difficulties with the current meta-narrative as presented by scholars such as Diamond. I have also serious reservations on the current neo-classical economic thought that ignores the importance of nature, and more, that dismisses the idea of ‘oikonomia’, or the management or stewardship of our dwelling or household. Human ecologists are right in seeing the deficiencies of economic culture, but in their solution portray a kind of biophysical moral philosophy which I find hard to accept.

What this all means and what the implications are for an acceptable socio-ecological theory forward is something that needs much more reflection.

Of to another few days of hard reading...