Vatican City, Mar 2, 2017 / 08:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A Vatican conference on biodiversity has found that wasteful attitudes when it comes to consumption could be leading to the extinction of certain species, and that changing personal habits and a promoting more equal distribution of the earth’s resources could make the difference.
“We’re consuming more than is what available…there’s no doubt that in the richer countries in the world, we’re wasting an enormous amount and that’s all adding to the total,” Professor Peter Hamilton Raven said March 2.
Part of the reason for this waste, he said, is because “we don’t really understand the value of what we’re wasting. It appears to be a free commodity, like air, or space or fuel.”
“According to our standard of living we’re sucking resources from all over the world,” he said, noting that with the current rate of consumption, half of the world’s biodiversity could be extinct by the end of the century.
Based on the science, this hypothesis “is entirely possible if we continue with our greedy and unequal habits,” Raven said, adding that the loss is “something we cannot recover from easily.”
He stressed the importance learning to value the resources available to us, saying that to prevent the loss of biodiversity can’t happen “without having exhibited the reverence for life which must be a characteristic of our species.”
Raven, a professor at the Missouri Botanical Garden and research institute, spoke at a news briefing on a Feb. 27-March 1 study week on biological extinction, subtitled “How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend.”
Hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the main aim of the gathering was to “review what we know about biological extinction, its causes and the ways in which we might limit its extent,” according to the final March 2 statement released by participants.
Alongside Raven at the briefing was Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Professor Werner Arber, President of the Academy, and Professor Partha Sarathi Dasgupta, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences.
In comments to journalists, Dasgupta echoed Raven’s concern about waste, saying that when it comes to biodiversity, “an enormous proportion of lifeforms are invisible…the microbes, the soil, the decomposers” and critters that we don’t typically think about.
“If you are only looking at the final goods and services,” he said, “you forget” the resources that go into producing them.
Particularly in urban areas that are more “detached” from the natural world, a person might see an earthworm crawling around on the ground, “but you forget how important they are,” he said, adding that the purpose of the conference was to take a look at some of the invisible organisms that might have gone missing.
For much of mankind, particularly in developed countries, “we think there is an unlimited pool of resources so we can take what we like,” he said, but stressed that this is not the case.
In their final statement, participants concluded that that based on comparisons with the fossil record, the current loss of species rate “is approximately 1,000 times the historical rate, with perhaps a quarter of all species in danger of extinction now and as many as half of them may be gone by the end of the present century.”
Due to man’s dependency on living organisms for necessities such as food and medicine to climate and even beauty, these losses “will inflict incalculable damage on our common prospects unless we control them.”
In their discussion, participants said the danger isn’t isolated to the extinction of species, but also effects the how the earth functions in general.
The “enormous increase” in human activity in the past 200 years alone not only threatens various species, but the use of fossil fuels “is putting huge strains on the earth’s capacity to function sustainably,” they said, and citing rising sea levels, higher global temperatures and ocean acidification as examples.
Discussion also focused at length on the topic of inequality, particularly the disparity between rich versus developing countries, linking the issue of poverty to an imbalance in consumption which results in the endangerment of certain species.
Participants argued that the 19 percent of the world’s richest people use “well over” half of the world’s resources, and because of this, wealthier nations are “substantially responsible for the increase in global warming and, consequently, the decrease in biodiversity.”
On the other hand, they said the world’s poor, “who do not enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels, are indirectly responsible for deforestation and some destruction of biodiversity, because their actions take place within a world economic system dominated by demands made by the wealthy, who have much higher overall consumption levels without paying any externalities to conserve global biodiversity.”
Given the vast difference between the rich and the poor on a global plane, participants suggested “wealth redistribution” as one positive action that could be taken.
“Ending extreme poverty, which would cost about $175 billion or less than 1 percent of the combined income of the richest countries in the world, is one major route to protecting our global environment and saving as much biodiversity as possible for the future,” they said, adding that this can be done differently in individual poor regions.
The panel present at the news briefing also addressed the point of population growth, saying conference participants across the board recognized that the loss of biodiversity and the negative effects of climate change don’t have to do with the number of people on the planet, so much as their habits and behavior.
In comments to journalists, Archbishop Sorondo said that throughout the conference, “what was clear is that the population is not the cause of climate change, but it’s the human activity and use of fossil fuels that produces climate change.”
“Consequently the population isn’t the cause, but human activity, which uses those resources,” he said, adding that it’s not a question “of how many human beings, but the activity and use of the materials consumed.”
“So today, to conserve biodiversity and to have an integral environment, this depends on human activity,” he said, and stressed the importance of educating families on the issue.
Dasgupta echoed the statement, encouraging people “not to translate the sustainable output” that nature offers as solely up to human numbers, because a sustainable number of people “depends on the standard of living, the quality of life that we have on average.”
Consumption is a key to this point, he said, adding that the disparity between rich and poor compounds the issue. On this point, “growth doesn’t seem to change the distribution amongst us,” he said, adding that “if the distribution doesn’t change it’s as if you’re becoming richer.”
In his comments, Raven noted that while the earth can’t sustain “an infinite” number of people, “no one really knows the number of people the world will really support.”
But when it comes to the issue of consumption, Raven said a sense of solidarity, “love and charity” ought to guide our actions, encouraging people to not just care about the future of “their own children and grandchildren,” but also “for others.”
[…]
Yah, soon we will have Cardinal Fernandez. Perhaps the next Pope Francis II? Then Tucho can heal us all with his poetry! This will develop our understanding of the kiss of peace. What an Amoris it is to synodal.
I’m sad and angry my favorites among the “anti-Pope Francis Catholics” are not included here: San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, and “America’s Bishop” Joseph Strickland.
The spasmodic appointments of the last week are like watching the death throes of some baby boomer ideology. It is as if we are witnessing Arius burst a gut in the streets of Constantinople. It is asi if an old man is screaming at the end: I’ll make this permanent!”. “All will know that 2+2=5!” “I am the god of gravity; it’s laws are suspended; we are all now free to jump off buildings.” Yada yada yada. What a bother. It puts me in such a theological bad mood.
Speaking of permanency. Francis’ attempt to make a church in his image and likeness reminds me of Peter wanting to erect tents at the Transfiguration. Remember what happened after Peter impetuously spoke such ridiculous words? God spoke from the cloud: “Listen to Him!” (Jesus).
God the Father, the Son and their Spirit will have the final word…as to what becomes Francis’ legacy. In that we may rest assured.
Here’s what I think is a relevant standard by which to judge any cleric – but especially bishops and that includes the one in charge of the Rome diocese. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls carried out by the evangelization of peoples. A rating of A+ should be assigned to a cleric who is so effective in proclaiming the Gospel that the culture is converted – including its values, morals and lifestyle such that they reflect those of Christ. An “F” is assigned to those clerics who, rather than converting the culture by their teaching, preaching and orthopraxis are instead converted by the culture. Clerics who deserve an “F” reflect in their preaching, teaching and witness the values and morals of a secular, atheistic culture.
Now, I invite Catholics to rate those prelates who have been invited to participate in this Sinod on Synodidolotry – especially the recently-named cardinals.
The new and unscheduled cardinal appointments might be more about stacking a future conclave than about the two synods (2023, 2024). It might be that there’s more anxiety than we know—and that the momentum behind the dark side in the two synods is vulnerable to the real Holy Spirit.
After all, it was probably momentum more than sober consensus that led to the so-called “Trinity” nuclear bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, and that cratered two cities within three days (!) in 1945 Japan.
Is the perennial Catholic Church to be cratered by the momentum of two synods? In 1945, the long-term and warned result was a half century nuclear arms race with all the chips on the table. Likewise, with the momentum of “walking together,” as if the momentum of ersatz and backside religion can really dispose of the perennial Catholic Church and the natural law. And, as if we can simply edit away the fact that “philosophy always buries its undertakers” (Etienne Gilson, a lay theologian!).
About which, the Second Vatican Council: “The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation [!] before the glorious manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf 1 Tim 6:14, Tit. 2:13)” (Dei Verbum, n. 4).
And, about the welcomed (!) wedding guest who then showed up without a wedding gown, see Matt 22:13.
Just in case the Holy Spirit can’t hear the “listening” church well enough, it’s best to make sure that the next enclave is in the bag for the “progressives”, eh? There’s a 67% chance that the next pope will carry on the current pope’s “legacy”. But wait. There’s more! You, too, can show your support for the current pontiff! Get thee to a Latin Mass Community or Chapel. Stay there. Enjoy Catholicism while you still can. O, and don’t bother calling this “pope” the Vicar of Christ, and don’t dare kiss his ring, unless you wish to unleash his wrath. Come, Lord Jesus!
I also have named a number of Bergoglio’s new appointees. And the names I have given them are both amusing and descriptive, especially the one for Archbishop Fernandez.
(Yes, it absolutely does reference his best known work on theology, ‘Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing’.)
Unfortunately, in light of the standards enunciated by CWR governing comments by readers — specifically, “comments containing obscene language or personal attacks, or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory, will not be published” — I will not be able to share those amusing names here.
Sorry.
This papacy reminds me of the Trump administration, perhaps with a pinch of Kim Jung Un.
Actually the Trump administration appointed PRO LIFE JUDGES to the Supreme Court. BTW, those judges overturned R V W
Doesn’t prove anything. Over turn and eventually turn back again.
and he actually talked to some nuns on the White House lawn
Wokester:)
Funny. This papacy reminds me more of the Biden administration.
Except for the fact that Trump was NEVER invited to meet with the Pope; meanwhile, Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Biden/Kerry all have. Let’s keep the LEFTIST pro-paganda OUT of the religion section in the news, shall we?
It’s possible that he is throwing boomerangs.. The Holy Spirit has a sense of humor! 😂
Mongolia has a cardinal with less than 5 thousand Catholics, Australia has over 5 million Catholics and no cardinal. I guess Archbishop Fisher of Sydney is too orthodox for the Vatican.
Wishing Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández and his brand new fellow colleagues – wisdom, inspiration, strength, stamina, and divine blessings in the challenges ahead.
It’s amazing that, even with the death of Cdl. Pell, Australia is not worthy of a cardinal. If pope Francis should pass away before any further consistory, them Australia will have no vote for a new pope. but smaller places like Tonga an Papua New Guinea will.
Who stood for what in the COVID-vaccination impostures.