\magnification=\magstep1
\overfullrule=0pt
\centerline{MONT 100N -- Modeling the Environment}
\centerline{Reading/Study Questions on {\it Laudato Si'}}
\centerline{September 1,4,8, 2017}
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Background}
\bigskip
Our first reading of the semester in this Montserrat seminar
will be the Papal Encyclical Letter {\it Laudato Si'} 
published by Pope Francis in 2015, which is posted in electronic
form on the course homepage.  The title comes from the 
first words of a song attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, ``Praise be to you, my Lord,''
in which St. Francis expresses his love for everything in the natural world.  

Encyclical letters are, {\it traditionally}, documents sent
by Popes to the bishops and then often relayed to the clergy of the Catholic Church.  They 
deal with some aspect of Church teaching and are used to clarify or amplify some doctrine, or
to condemn or promote some issue.  Because they are issued through the authority of 
the Pope to articulate Church doctrine, it is sometimes asserted that 
they are not to be questioned.  Some of you may in fact have heard homilies or 
participated in discussions about this letter after it was released in 2015.  

{\it At the present time}, however, encyclical letters are also distributed in print and 
electronic forms so that they are available directly to all interested people. 
I think it is now fair to say they (and especially this letter in particular) are 
often intended in part as ways to provoke discussion among the faithful and 
others and provide calls to action where some pressing issue needs to be 
addressed.

To be clear, {\it I do not think we are bound to accept everything in this document} 
just because it comes from a Pope.  In fact, I want to be very open 
and acknowledge that I was not raised in the Catholic Church and I am not particularly 
religious.  However, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for Pope Francis 
(the first Jesuit Pope!) and I think his point of view in this letter deserves to be heard
by everyone.  

Whatever beliefs and perspectives {\it you} bring to this discussion 
are {\it welcome}, as long as you listen to others, try to understand
their points of view, and present your own views in a respectful and
civil manner.  

We will be reading and discussing Chapters 1, 3, and 5 of the letter in 
class.  I have decided not to ask you to read the other sections because
they deal more with the religious justifications for Pope Francis's 
ideas.  You are free, of course, to read those other sections if you
wish.

Some of the following questions are adapted from the study guide from
\bigskip
\centerline{\tt https://www3.nd.edu/\~{}pweithma/justice\_seminar/}
\centerline{\tt PopeFrancis/StudyQuestionsonLaudatoSi.pdf}
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Questions -- Chapter 1}
\bigskip  
\item{1.}  Much of Chapter 1 is devoted to a fairly detailed 
discussion of a collection of intertwined environmental issues.
Outline what these issues are and how they relate to each other.
\item{2.}  Do you feel some of the ``rapidification'' that Francis mentions 
in \S 18?  Have you ever discussed this with a parent or grandparent?
\item{3.}  Near the start of Chapter 1, Francis says
``Our goal is not to amass information or to satisfy curiosity,
but rather to become painfully aware, to dare 
to turn what is happening to the world into our own personal suffering 
and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.'' (\S 19)
Does what is happening in the world {\it have} to become personal suffering
for things to change?   
What kind of attitude toward the world would make that possible?
What is the opposite of this?  
\item{4.} Francis says ``access to safe drinkable  
water is a basic and universal human right, since it 
is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition
 for the exercise of other human rights.'' (\S 30) Is this realistic?
What happens if there is not enough to go around?  What would it
take to ensure that every human being had access to safe
drinkable water when water resources don't necessarily respect
national boundaries?  (If necessary, look up water resource
issues in the Middle East.) 
\item{5.}  One of the most potentially controversial aspects
of this letter is the way Francis claims that the environmental
problems we are facing and {\it economic inequality} are connected.
Part of this comes from the fact that ``many professionals, opinion makers, 
communications media and centres of power, being located in 
affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct 
contact with their problems.''  Would more contact with the lives
lived by the poor change anything?  What would it take to have more
such contact?  Is that harder or easier in our current technological
society than it was in the past?
\item{6.}  At the end of Chapter 1, Francis says:
``As often occurs in periods of deep crisis which require
bold decisions, we are tempted to think that 
what is happening is not entirely clear. Superficially,
apart from a few obvious signs of pollution and 
deterioration, things do not look that serious,
and the planet could continue as it is for some 
time.  Such evasiveness serves as a licence to carrying
on with our present lifestyles and models of 
production and consumption. This is the way
human beings contrive to feed their self-destructive
vices: trying not to see them, trying not to
acknowledge them, delaying the important decisions
and pretending that nothing will happen.''  Is this 
a fair characterization of the way things stand in the U.S. at present?  
What is Francis referring to with the ``we are tempted to think that what 
is happening is not entirely clear?''  How can powerful economic interests
exaggerate and exploit that uncertainty?
\bigskip
\noindent 
{\it Questions -- Chapter 3 (The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis)}
\bigskip
\item{7.}  How would you characterize Francis's general view of technology?
Of information and communication technology in particular?
Has our wisdom in using our technology kept up with our progress in 
learning how to do things?
\item{8.}  In \S 106, what does Francis mean by ``an undifferentiated
and one-dimensional paradigm'' that of ``a subject, who using logical
and rational procedures progressively approaches and gains control
over an external object''?  What does he think is {\it wrong} about 
this purely scientific, ``technocratic'' approach?  Is it always 
wrong to apply that kind of approach to questions about nature? to 
questions about political and economic life (\S 109)?
\item{9.}  Francis argues that the ultimate source of this point of 
view is what he calls ``modern anthropocentrism'' (\S 115).  What
does he mean by this?  How does he see a religious aspect here -- a 
misunderstanding of scripture (at least within Christianity?)    
What does he think is a healthier way to understand the place of 
human beings?  
\item{10.}  In \S 113, Francis says that ``people no longer seem to believe in 
a happy future.''  Is he right?  Do you think you will be better off
economically than your parents are?  What do you think the world
will be like when you are Prof. Little's age (61)?   If people 
don't believe in a happy future, why don't they?  If they don't believe
in a happy future because growth has slowed and middle class wages have stagnated 
(as is certainly true in the U.S.), would that in fact go against Francis's 
point rather than work in favor of it?
\item{11.}  What does Francis mean by ``practical relativism'' in \S\S 122 - 123?
How is ``throwaway culture'' and a ``disordered desire to consume 
more that what is really necessary'' related to this?  Do you agree with
this criticism of our consumer culture?
\item{12.}  Francis sees {\it work} as a basic human {\it vocation}, or calling. 
But this is deeper than just saying everyone should have a job and make
enough money to have a decent lifestyle.  What are the dimensions of this human 
need?  
\item{13.}  What do you think of the Francis's 
remarks about business at the end of \S 129?  
What would most business people think of them? 
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Questions -- Chapter 5 (Lines of Approach and Action)}
\bigskip
\item{14.}  Francis summarizes some efforts to develop international 
agreements to address greenhouse gas emissions at the start of this
chapter.  This was written before the Paris Climate Accords in 2015. (Look
these up if you need to.)  Do you think those accords would have changed
his point of view somewhat?  What about more recent developments (e.g. from
June 2017)?  
\item{15.}  Francis rejects the ``cap and trade'' idea in \S 171.  What
is his rationale for that rejection?  Do you agree with it?  Is his general
distaste for financial markets leading him down the wrong path here?
\item{16.}  A longstanding principle of Catholic thought is ``subsidiarity''
 (see \S 196), according to which problems should 
be handled at the lowest or most local level competent to handle them.  
In \S 175, though, what does Francis seem to say about the level solutions
to these problems must come from?
\item{17.}  In \S 178, Francis criticizes the short-sightedness of much political 
decision-making.  Isn't short-sightedness the price we pay for democracy?
\item{18.}  In \S 189, the Pope is highly critical of the world's response to 
the financial crisis of 2008.   Is he right to be so critical?  His criticism seems to 
depend upon a distinction between the real economy and the financial one.
What is this distinction?  Is it tenable?
\item{19.}  In \S 193, Francis seems to suggest
 that economic growth be contained or reversed
 in order to achieve ``sustainable development.'' But economic growth in the developing 
world has lifted millions into the ``global middle class'' in recent decades and there
is strong sentiment in countries like India that they {\it deserve} to experience
the benefits of economic development like that that has occurred in North America
and Europe.  Do more developed countries have the right to say ``no'' to that?  
Francis suggests redefining what we mean by ``progress''  (\S 194) but is that
 realistic or desirable? 
\item{20.}  In \S 195, Francis says 
``The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other 
considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy.'' 
Is the Pope right about this?  
Consider, in this connection, that the word {\it economy} comes from a Greek 
word meaning ``the household'' and management of a home.  If the earth is, as 
Francis says, our ``common home,'' than maybe economics is--literally or at least etymologically--
about stewardship of the earth.
\bye



