To touch on one principal nerve center of the encyclical, I
copy Francis’ evaluation of the reduction of reality to a manipulable object:
(The basic philosophic source is Guardini and his “The End of the Modern World”)
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE
TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. 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”.[86]
107. 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.
108. 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”.[87] As a result, “man seizes hold of the
naked elements of both nature and human nature”.[88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more
genuine freedom and the space for each one’s alternative creativity are
diminished.
109. 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.[89] 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”,[90] 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.
110. 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”.[91]
No comments:
Post a Comment