The Pope's Environmental Message. There's Plenty That Environmentalists Might Not Want to Hear

The pope laments the state of the environment, but he also decries the naive central environmentalist belief that humans are separate from nature and the villain in a simple myth of US (humans) against True Nature.

The Pope's Environmental Message. There's Plenty That Environmentalists Might Not Want to Hear

(Amended as of 6/28 in response to a reply from Bill McKibben; see below)

There is understandably much praise from environmentalists for the pope’s Encyclical on the Environment  (subtitle “On Care for Our Common Home”). The applause is for the pope’s clear statement that climate change is largely anthropogenic, serious, and demands human attention. But if classical environmentalists read the full 184-page text, they might not like a lot of what the pope has to say. He slaps one of their most treasured myths right in the mouth.

This myth is perhaps the central tenet of classical environmentalism; the belief that humans have caused, as Bill McKibben has written (in the book that made his name as an environmental thought leader), the End of Nature. Not The Alteration of Nature or The Disruption of Nature or even a plaintive lament for “The Suffering of Nature," which is how Pope Francis describes it. McKibben argues that humans have “ended nature as an independent force...” There is us evil humans, and IT, pure Nature. Villains and a hero. Nice and simple.

Another prophet of classical environmentalism, Edward Wilson, paints the dichotomy between us and Nature even more starkly. In his bestselling book The Creation, which he devotes to “the restoration of Eden,” Wilson writes of humans that, “We strayed from Nature with the beginning of civilization.” He defines Nature as "that part of the original environment and its life forms that remains after the human impact.” As though humans, for all the unprecedented and egregious harm we certainly do to the natural world, are not also part of that natural world, that we are not a species too. Wilson’s fascinating ants are “Nature,” and plants and fish and bacteria and the biological and chemical and physical forces that make and shape and run the biosphere are “Nature,” but not the human animal. Where Homo sapiens are, Nature, as E.O. Wilson defines it, is not.

As my Jewish grandmother used to say, OY VEY!

Well Pope Francis, who certainly heaps plenty of blame on humans for the mess we have made of the natural world, is having none of this absolutist environmental "It’s Us Against Nature" piety.

Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live.

When we speak of the “environment,” what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it.

Nor does Pope Francis have much affection for the pragmatic market-based Ecomodernist approach of self-proclaimed "modern" environmentalists who propose that technology and human wisdom can make the future good, even great.  

It is not enough to balance, in the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment with progress. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress.

Indeed Francis rejects the extremism of both the market-based Eco Optimists and their faith in technology, and the doom-and-gloom greens who see everything as a simple morality tale with humans as the villain and Nature the hero, with the fate of life on Earth to be determined by a battle between humans and their technologies on the one hand and the clean, unspoiled natural world on the other.

At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. 

The pope also takes a shot at “green" businesses taking advantage of the appeal of anything "natural" (seen that on a label or two, lately?) or claiming that their way of doing business contributes to sustainability, but which are essentially just hopping on the “Save Mother Nature" bandwagon to make a buck.

In this (the economy can fix things) context, talk of sustainable growth ... absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures.

 (Hey Chipotle, Whole Foods, etc. Are you listening?)

In the end, the Encyclical is a familiar appeal to spiritual values of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor,

 the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.

a call for all of us to live more simply,

…to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed, and compulsion.

and no less than a radical restructuring of the entire economic and political power structure of the wealthy world.

Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.

            That’s pretty dramatic, and pretty much WJWS — What Jesus Would Say — but it’s probably not a practical suggestion for what will turn our future from bleak to bright. But neither, says the Encyclical, is the simplistic Wilsonian/McKibben environmentalist naivete that humans are separate from nature and all our tools and everything we do are the enemy. That sort of thinking isn’t a realistic plan for solutions either.

     Amendment, and apology to Bill McKibben. In a respectful message to me on June 28, Bill notes that my language claiming that he believes "all our tools and everything we do are the enemy" is excessively critical and innaccurate. He's right. There are many technological tools he promotes as solutions for our unsustainable ways; some forms of renewable power (see Solar Power For Everyone in the New Yorker), and mass transit, as just two examples.

    It is also fair to note, however, that Bill preaches concern about technology generally, usually emphasizing how technology is UNnatural and threatens our future. That is the core message of his 2004 book ENOUGH: STAYING HUMAN IN AN ENGINEERED AGE

    Nonetheless, to overstate things in the name of making my case is lazy, unfair and disrespectful to someone truly committed to the greater common good. I apologize.

A new study says it's okay to eat red meat. An immediate uproar follows.

Even before publication, health agencies were asking the journal not to publish the research.

Photo by Isa Terli/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Surprising Science
  • A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found little correlation between red meat consumption and health problems.
  • A number of organizations immediately contested the evidence, claiming it to be based on an irrelevant system of analysis.
  • Beef and dairy production is one of the leading drivers of climate change, forcing humans to weigh personal health against the environment.
Keep reading Show less

CRISPR therapy cures first genetic disorder inside the body

It marks a breakthrough in using gene editing to treat diseases.

Credit: National Cancer Institute via Unsplash
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

For the first time, researchers appear to have effectively treated a genetic disorder by directly injecting a CRISPR therapy into patients' bloodstreams — overcoming one of the biggest hurdles to curing diseases with the gene editing technology.

The therapy appears to be astonishingly effective, editing nearly every cell in the liver to stop a disease-causing mutation.

The challenge: CRISPR gives us the ability to correct genetic mutations, and given that such mutations are responsible for more than 6,000 human diseases, the tech has the potential to dramatically improve human health.

One way to use CRISPR to treat diseases is to remove affected cells from a patient, edit out the mutation in the lab, and place the cells back in the body to replicate — that's how one team functionally cured people with the blood disorder sickle cell anemia, editing and then infusing bone marrow cells.

Bone marrow is a special case, though, and many mutations cause disease in organs that are harder to fix.

Another option is to insert the CRISPR system itself into the body so that it can make edits directly in the affected organs (that's only been attempted once, in an ongoing study in which people had a CRISPR therapy injected into their eyes to treat a rare vision disorder).

Injecting a CRISPR therapy right into the bloodstream has been a problem, though, because the therapy has to find the right cells to edit. An inherited mutation will be in the DNA of every cell of your body, but if it only causes disease in the liver, you don't want your therapy being used up in the pancreas or kidneys.

A new CRISPR therapy: Now, researchers from Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals have demonstrated for the first time that a CRISPR therapy delivered into the bloodstream can travel to desired tissues to make edits.

We can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically.


"This is a major milestone for patients," Jennifer Doudna, co-developer of CRISPR, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR.

"While these are early data, they show us that we can overcome one of the biggest challenges with applying CRISPR clinically so far, which is being able to deliver it systemically and get it to the right place," she continued.

What they did: During a phase 1 clinical trial, Intellia researchers injected a CRISPR therapy dubbed NTLA-2001 into the bloodstreams of six people with a rare, potentially fatal genetic disorder called transthyretin amyloidosis.

The livers of people with transthyretin amyloidosis produce a destructive protein, and the CRISPR therapy was designed to target the gene that makes the protein and halt its production. After just one injection of NTLA-2001, the three patients given a higher dose saw their levels of the protein drop by 80% to 96%.

A better option: The CRISPR therapy produced only mild adverse effects and did lower the protein levels, but we don't know yet if the effect will be permanent. It'll also be a few months before we know if the therapy can alleviate the symptoms of transthyretin amyloidosis.

This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine.


If everything goes as hoped, though, NTLA-2001 could one day offer a better treatment option for transthyretin amyloidosis than a currently approved medication, patisiran, which only reduces toxic protein levels by 81% and must be injected regularly.

Looking ahead: Even more exciting than NTLA-2001's potential impact on transthyretin amyloidosis, though, is the knowledge that we may be able to use CRISPR injections to treat other genetic disorders that are difficult to target directly, such as heart or brain diseases.

"This is a wonderful day for the future of gene-editing as a medicine," Fyodor Urnov, a UC Berkeley professor of genetics, who wasn't involved in the trial, told NPR. "We as a species are watching this remarkable new show called: our gene-edited future."

UFOs: US intelligence report finds no aliens but plenty of unidentified flying objects

A new government report describes 144 sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena.

Photo by Albert Antony on Unsplash
Surprising Science

On June 25, 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a much-anticipated report on UFOs to Congress.

Keep reading Show less