|
under
the auspices of
His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
His Excellency Mr. Jacques Santer,
President of the European Commission
20-28 SEPTEMBER 1997
SPEECH BY THE MOST REVEREND METROPOLITAN JOHN OF PERGAMON
University of Thessaloniki,
28 September 1997
The
title of our Symposium has been Religion, Science and the Environment
and its subtitle The Black Sea in Crisis.
The first question we reviewed is in what ways Religion and Science can
cooperate for the protection of the natural environment. For a long time
Religion and Science remained indifferent and at times hostile to each
other. This has in itself contributed to the ecological crisis. It is
customary to think of Religion as indifferent to material things and as
preoccupied only or basically with "spiritual" matters and with
life after death as if the material world were not God's creation blessed
with His love and with eternal divine meaning. Science on the other hand,
in the minds of many people, is becoming a kind of Religion which claims
to have access to the truth and promises solutions to all problems, including
that of the environment. Science alone cannot solve these problems and
there is a need for society to decide what science can and cannot do.
Our Symposium has noted that such a dichotomy between Religion and Science
is no longer supportable and that this dichotomy cannot serve the cause
of the protection of the environment. Neither Science without Religion
nor Religion without Science can solve the ecological problem. What is
needed is a close cooperation between the two, not simply by way of complementarily
but through a deep inter-penetration of the one into the other.
In an attempt to define ways of such an inter-penetration between Religion
and Science for the sake of protecting the natural environment our symposium
has pointed out as possible areas of cooperation the following:
a) The way of ethics.
This is probably the most obvious way of co-operation that comes immediately
to one's mind. Even during the time of total separation of Science from
Religion it was generally admitted that theology had an important contribution
to make to the life of society in terms of ethics. Religion is known as
a moral force in culture and it is normally expected that it has something
to say about the way people should behave. Especially with regard to science,
it is becoming customary to seek the view of the religious leaders on
how the scientific advances of our time could be controlled so that humanity
may be protected from the terrifying consequences that many of the achievements
of science may have for the human being.We believe the discipline of environmental
ethics must be rapidly developed and deepened, bringing together the contributions
of religion, science and philosophy. We support the establishment of an
international institute of environmental ethics that would bring together
representatives of religion, science and the humanities charged with the
responsibility of advising international and national leaders on questions
of environmental ethics, which would eventually be invested with the power
of national and international law. Here is a challenge of historic magnitude
before the religious and intellectual leaders of the world. We hew left
it to the politicians to deal with the ecological crisis. We must realize
that politics can not be effective without moral support. And moral support
cannot come from science alone or from religion alone; it can only be
the result of the cooperation of these two.
b) The way of motivation - or the 'inspirational way'.
Environmental awareness and behavior are not simply a matter of ethics.
Motivation is always needed in order to behave in a certain way. Religion
can undoubtedly provide motivation for ethical behavior but Science is
not necessarily a source of ethical conduct. A thoughtful scientist recognizes
the tentative, fragmentary and incomplete state of current knowledge and
the consequent hazards of a premature rush to apply it. The motivation
of the scientist and that of the religious person meet at the point of
understanding the world as an unbreakable organic unity whose integrity
has to be assumed and respected in order for any particular aspect or
fragment of its knowledge to be true. The known depends on its relation
with the unknown for its truthfulness.
Thus, with regard to the environment both Religion and Science, if they
wish to be true to themselves, accept that every revelation of reality
whether religious or scientific can only make sense if the world is respected
in its mysterious wholeness. If a certain fragmented knowledge advances
the welfare of a part of creation, human beings, at the expense of other
parts of the world, this in terms of religion offends God the Creator.
Religious motivation and scientific motivation both lead to respect for
the integrity of creation.
c) The conceptual way.
The environmental crisis may make it possible for Religion and Science
to speak the same language. In fact there was a time in history when they
did speak the same language, but this time is gone. For centuries the
scientists and the theologians have been using their separate esoteric
languages that only specialists can understand. This makes it difficult
for an environmental language to develop that would involve theologians,
philosophers and scientists at the same time. Technical language may have
to remain for internal use on both sides, but when it comes to the environment
language must be common.
Let me now outline the issues as our Symposium saw them.
We live in an era where the power over nature delivered by modern science
has given the scientific way of knowing a unique prestige. In response,
many religious thinkers have evacuated the world of nature and confined
themselves to questions about the divine in relation to the realm of persons.
As a result, peaceful co-existence has sometimes been achieved as the
price of mutual irrelevance. The ecological challenge facing humanity
as the close of the century raises a question about this dichotomy and
makes it urgent to explore afresh ways in which the knowledge available
through science and religion can be related and used in a service of a
common goal.
We live in an atomized world, in which knowledge and communities are increasingly
fragmented. The interconnections that held our lives together have gone
or been weakened. Even our education system has become fragmented. Those
who live in cities are so disconnected from nature it may not occur to
them that Mother Earth pays a price.
And we live in a time when the world is being changed faster than ever
before in human history. Between one third and one half of the land surface
of the planet has been transformed by human action. More than half of
all accessible, surface fresh water is used for human needs. Perhaps most
significant for this symposium, two thirds of all marine fisheries are
fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted. Yet the population of the
world is increasing by 80 million people a year. In truth we are living
on our ecological capital, especially of biodiversity, fossil water, forests
and soils, corals and estuaries, and will leave a deeply damaged planet
to our descendants.
The gravity of the environmental situation in a context of the extreme
economical hardships, such as those of societies in transition, obliges
us to question whether conventional approaches are adequate. The intellectual
effort to find a new synthesis between science and religion is an expression
of a new state of mind motivated by human concern and a profound sense
of incompleteness of either language. In this atmosphere, in which current
human barriers between science and religion disappear, one is drawn to
enlarge the scope of the discussion and to raise the menacing possibility
that the mono-cultural approach to socioeconomic questions may be incompatible
with an equitable and humane future. This spectra becomes doubly disturbing
in absence of convincing alternatives to economic dynamism and accumulation
of wealth. We are convinced that the powerful dialogue developing out
of this symposium is the proper context for monitoring eventualities of
profound significance and for considering alternatives where method and
ethics are finding their common language.
In truth, environmental problems such as pollution are reflections of
more general global issues affecting humanity as a whole. Revolutionary
changes in world affairs, spurred on by the globalization of markets,
demonstrate that ecological, developmental and societal problems cannot
be solved by fragmented and sectoral initiatives alone. Their solution
requires well-defined, multidisciplinary, inter linked and comprehensive
approaches, with intellectual dentin, vision and long-term commitments.
Peace, economy, environment, social justice and democracy are integral
parts of the whole. Without economic growth, there can be no sustained
and broad-based improvements in environmental quality or material well-being.
Without protection of the environment, the basis of human survival is
eroded. Without economic justice, mounting inequalities threaten social
cohesion. And, without freedom in political participation, sustainable
human development remains fragile and perpetually at risk.
These ideas are now enshrined in the texts agreed by virtually all governments
of the world at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio
de Janeiro, 1992), notably Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. We, however,
want to go further: the Rio documents give little reference to spirituality
and religion. This Symposium series is one of the first events to add
this vital ingredient. As this document explains, the ultimate problems
reside in the human heart and mind. The changes needed will only happen
if human attitudes change. And what more powerful force for changing attitudes
can there be than spirituality and religion?
Let me now say a few words on the region through which we traveled. The
Black Sea is a unique environment sadly degraded by the impact of humankind.
Similar in size to the North Sea or Baltic, it is virtually landlocked,
connected to the rest of the world's oceans through the Bosphorus Straits,
the Sea of Marmara and the Dardenelles. The Bosphorus, in places only
seven hundred metres wide and seventy metres deep, carries in its deep
waters, a stream of sea-water which gradually replenishes the salty bottom
waters of the Black Sea with water from the Mediterranean. This replenishment
is insufficient to cope with the demands of bacteria breaking down organic
material falling from the fertile surface of the Black Sea and, below
about one hundred and fifty metres, the Black Sea is unable to support
higher life forms. The surface waters of the Black Sea are replenished
from numerous rivers which drain an area covering major parts of seventeen
countries spanning over one third of the area of the European continent.
These rivers, including the mighty Danube, Dnieper and Don rivers, bring
the nitrogen, phosphorus and other minerals necessary to fertilize the
Sea and the water which maintains its saltiness at levels far below those
of the neighbouring Mediterranean.
The Black Sea has long been a crossroads of civilization. Its contemporary
coasts are the territories of six countries, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania,
Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Its physical beauty has long attracted visitors
from much further afield: millions of tourists, especially from the length
and breadth of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These coasts
have also had to house cities, industries, major ports and the human presence
has often impinged itself on the fragile coastal ecosystems through unplanned
development and competition for space. The recent end of totalitarian
regimes and the transition to a market economy has also resulted in grave
difficulties for coastal economies as people struggle to grasp the new
realities and try to protect their welfare. It is hardly surprising that
the coastal environment has suffered badly. Sewage treatment, for example,
is absent or deficient in most coastal cities and human health has suffered.
Cholera outbreaks have occurred in some places. These problems have negatively
impacted the tourist industry upon which many coastal economies depend.
Spiritual health has also suffered however as people lose confidence or
become more selfish in their struggle for survival. Despite these challenges,
many people have not lost their sense of responsibility and question and
challenge each development project, new ports, industries and oil terminals,
concerned about the eventual impact on their lives and the lives of new
generations and exercising their democratic freedom.
The Black Sea itself has been the victim of the changes in economy and
lifestyle of the 160 million people living in its basin, some in landlocked
countries thousands of kilometers from the sea. Industrialization and
intensification of agriculture, coupled with the excessive or inappropriate
use of agrochemicals has led to the pollution of many rivers leading to
the sea. The over fertilization of the sea itself fundamentally changed
the nature of its ecosystems,
particularly those of the shallow North-Western shelf where a key bed
of red algae, as large in area as The Netherlands, was destroyed as a
consequence of an phenomenon known as eutrophication. This led to the
loss of many other species including fish that depended upon this unique
algal ecosystem for nursery grounds. In the past three decades, the healthy
Black Sea ecosystem has become extremely sick.
Fishery resources, already suffering the impact of ecosystem changes,
buckled under the stress of overfishing. Exacerbating this situation was
the arrival of a new alien species of a gelatinous organism, Mnemiopsis,
carried in the ballast water of ships from the Eastern American seaboard.
With no natural enemies, this organism flourished until it dominated the
entire Black Sea. Now, the peoples of the Black Sea are faced with a choice,
to give the sickened ecosystem a chance to recover by itself or to intervene.
There is reason for hope that the Black Sea can recover. The depression
of industrial and agricultural production during the current economic
transition has relieved the environment of the pressure of pollution.
The ecosystem has started to recover. Some improvement has been registered
in fish stocks, partly due to the inability of the former Soviet fleet
to put out to sea. There is good reason for hope. A little time has been
granted to develop and implement new policies and laws and to improve
environmental awareness and education, vital tools for transition. How
long will this window of opportunity last? The Black Sea is facing new
threats: continued sewage pollution, new pressure from developers of beachside
residences, its use as a superhighway for oil transport from the Caspian
oil fields. The vital Bosphorus winds its way through the megalopolis
of Istanbul, carrying hundreds of ships every day and represents a major
flash point for environmental security. The last Black Sea monk seal may
have already perished. Clearly, there is no time to lose. We must act
now. The sea of plenty risks becoming a sea of poverty.
The Black Sea is a symbol of our world in crisis. Unsustainable exploitation
of resources, the inequity of over consumption by a few while so many
cannot meet their basic needs, an expanding global population, the stresses
of economies in transition, a challenging information gap, the hopelessness
and despair engendered by declining opportunities, the erosion of morality
in secular society, and the neglect of the spiritual dimension of humanity
are leading the dominant civilization to a frightening impasse. Economic
systems divorced from human values do not deliver the results they promise.
The peoples and countries of the Black Sea are caught up in these uncontrolled
forces.
We have come together from the religious, political, scientific and other
communities, from the region and around the world, to demonstrate our
concern for the peoples and environment of the Black Sea. We have enriched
each other through our diverse perspectives in a search for practical
actions to resolve this crisis of environment and development. We have
found strength in our combination of spirit and reason in both science
and religion as two wings which must be equally strong if the bird is
to fly.
In application of this principle, we support the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan as a significant effort of governments and their scientists to define
solutions to the problems of the region. The Danube Convention and its
associated Action Plan are also essential for the Black Sea. We know the
direction in which we must move, but the best plans and laws are worthless
without the will and the means to put them into practice. What is needed
today is the commitment of all the peoples and governments of the Black
Sea countries, and beyond them of all countries contributing to the problems
of the region, to implement the plans, laws and regulations so carefully
prepared, with the support of the international community.
In the larger context, we recognize that we must all work to build a very
different world in which material and spiritual civilization are in balance.
A sustainable biosphere that is ecologically sound, economically feasible
and socially equitable is incomplete and indeed impossible without a recognition
of the spiritual realities which are integral to life in all its fullness.
This is the challenging goal before us.
We therefore call upon all the religious communities of the Black Sea
region and beyond to reassert the ethical and spiritual foundations of
development and environment. We appeal to the scientific community to
continue to provide the environmental knowledge necessary to define remedial
and preventative action. These two great forces in society should reinforce
the work of governments, joining their efforts in local, national and
regional initiatives. They should work in partnership to inform and inspire
people to make the fundamental changes in values and priorities necessary
to evolve more sustainable forms of living.
Principles of justice, truth and love, and a sense of caring for the environment,
must be applied in daily actions and decisions. Only an acceptance of
the essential unity of the material and spiritual dimensions of life can
"rude society towards development that is within environmental limits,
and thus ensure the well-being of both present and future generations
around the Black Sea and in the whole world.
We commit ourselves to the individual and joint efforts necessary to give
this Declaration practical application. We have bridged gaps in communication
and understanding imposed by past systems, and established new and constructive
relationships and partnerships of historic significance, which we expect
to lead to practical results in the weeks and years to come. The first
fruits of this organic reunification of basic forces in society are the
specific actions identified in the Black Sea Commitment for Action adopted
by the Symposium.
These efforts include:
1. We have agreed to consider the appointment of a 'Champion of the Environment',
supported by a group ofeminent scientific, religious and political leaders,
to be both an advocate to faith and other communities onthe implementation
of the many actions developed at the Symposium, and to be a strong voice
on behalf of the environment, to all those - political, economic, social
and religious - able to influence the &sure.
2. We will survey the work already being done on environmental ethics
with view to deepening and institutionalizing the dialogue between science
and religion in this important field.
3. We will communicate with the Global Environment Facility and with other
donors such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and
the World Bank, and with the governments of the region, to urge continued
Sanding for the Black Sea Environmental Program and for implementation
of its Strategic Action Plan, both of which we consider as of great value
and essential for the people of the Black Sea region, recognizing that
the real difficulties some of the countries of the region have in this
period of transition to committing their own resources to the Program.
We note that the Sanding to the Program is not secured beyond January
1998.
4. We will convey to Monsieur Jacques Santer, our Co-Patron and President
of the European Commission, the conclusions of this symposium, in particular
recognizing the important support the European Union have provided to
the Program so far and asking them to continue and strength=, their capacity
and commitment to the region.
5. We greatly welcome the proposal of EU Commissioner for the Environment,
Ms Ritt Bjerregaard, to call a meeting of the Environment Ministers of
the Black Sea States under the auspices of the European commission but
note also the great importance of drawing in the other 11 catchment States,
who share responsibility for the degradation of the Black Sea, into the
discussion and commitments. We realize however that solutions to environmental
problems have to cross sectoral boundaries to succeed and hope that Ministers
with other portfolios such as education and finance can be drawn into
the process too..
6. We will convey to the Governments of the region our concern that the
Istanbul Commission
be set up without delay, with commitments on Sanding from governments,,
other relevant organizations and the European Union. We welcome the commitments
made so far: this is a key part of the implementation of the Black Sea
Environmental Program.
As
well as communicating with States and relevant organizations over the
environmental issues of the Black Sea, as participants we have developed
and committed ourselves to a wide range of activities that we believe
will help and catalyze the action we seek on improving the Black Sea environment
from the unified perspective of Science and Religion. Many of them are
focused on the local level, so as to match government action by mobilizing
local initiatives. These activities cover:
1. A package of measures on building environmental awareness at all levels,
including within religious organizations themselves.
2. Steps to increase dialogue. These steps include the outputs of this
Symposium, which include a longer document provisionally entitled a Commitment
to Action, and a volume of the excellent papers presented by leaders in
Science, Religion and other fields at the Symposium.
3. Ways of articulating and transmitting the environment in religious
doctrine and practice, so that members of faith communities see environmental
protection as part of their faith.
4. Measures to find new ways of achieving practical conservation such
as promoting an increased use of NGOs in the Black Sea region the role
that religious bodies could play in local conservation actions and the
need for demonstration projects at local level.
5. Proposals to encourage a more integrated approach to solving environmental
problems, especially through the technique of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management. We would like the integration to be extended to cover not
just government agencies and local community groups but also religious
organizations.
6. We have also called for an increase in research in the region, noting
that the ability to continue the good work done in the countries with
economies in transition has been undermined by the difficulties of funding.
In
concluding, the participants recognized that we shall have no right to
press the cause of a more spiritual approach to the environment without
a personal pledge that the necessary revolution in habits and consumption
will begin with us.
The activities summarized above are outlined in detail in our longer document,
the Black Sea Commitment to Action, to be available soon. We repeat our
commitment as participants of the second symposium on Religion, Science
and the Environment to doing all we can to make these activities a reality,
for the good of the peoples and environments of this historic, diverse
and important region.
Thessaloniki,
28 September 1997
|
