From Dr M. Asciak
Last weekend Malta celebrated the anniversary of its independence. I find independence the single most formal defining characteristic of our State for the 20th century. Because we became politically and economically independent, we had the autonomy to do other things, some good some bad, but ultimately in a free way. There were several other post-independence defining moments for our nation. One of the foremost challenges facing us today is the concept of the environment.
It may be difficult for individuals who have not studied biology or environmental studies, to grasp the concept of an evolutionary dynamic rather than a static concept of being. Last week it was an enlightening piece of news to hear a high Roman Church official declare that it had no problem with the concept of evolution in creation. Not that the Roman Church ever had a problem with Darwin. It was more of a problem with the Anglican/Protestant establishment to insist on creationism (creation of the world and man according to the seven days of the Bible) rather than evolution over millions of years. Incidentally, it is an evolution that is still going on even today. The world is still in a process of creation and we are God’s co-creators. We are ultimately responsible for the way we manage our environmental resources. Today we must choose an environmental ethic with which to follow our value judgements in balancing acts with our culture, our economy and our politics. We must choose whether to align ourselves with the first account of creation in Genesis I where the accent on anthropocentrism tends to be an egocentric one. The world exists simply for the egotistic use of man as master. Or perhaps, whether to underline the account of creation in Genesis II, where man is special to the picture of creation but in a way that is teleologically ordered to God’s gift of creation, whereby man is also co-creator. I have no doubt that the former picture is the ethically more complete one for us to follow today. We must not make the mistake of losing ourselves on the libertarian extensions of ethics by recognising rights to non-human animals or even inorganic entities. This is not to say we have no obligations towards sentient creatures and, by the by, much still needs to be done in this sphere. I would go even as far as to say that much still needs to start to be done in this sphere. Neither is there need of an ethic of eco-holism where an intrinsic value is awarded to the holistic entity, which is the planet. I still believe that the proper ethic we should follow should be based on conservation and preservation of our environment as a means for a human oriented good and should focus on ecological conservation and preservation which gives the whole planetary environment an extrinsic value.
Our approach to the environment is still not central to our way of life. It is still seen as something tangential to economics and not something whereby we are forced to make changes to our way of living that may perhaps be uncomfortable. If the government wants to be serious about the environment it must impart an environmental ethic of solidarity to the populace, who will start to understand better the logic of what lies around us and how we must behave in order to get the best of it.
The often-repeated allure to tradition is not very helpful in these matters. Just because things have been done in a certain manner for many years, need not mean that things ought to remain done in the same manner now, if it is perceived that this harms our environment. Maybe the government needs to be a bit more pro-active and aggressive in this regard in the sense that things are not only done, which I have no doubt have been, but manifestly seen to be done. Maybe the government needs to underline the connections between society, economics and the environment in a more visual manner. Our eco-social market has to become a way of life, a vision, rather than a buzzword.
The centrality of man in our planet is not one that sits in splendid isolation. I have always believed that man does not have the capacity to redeem himself. Left alone, we tend to self-destruct. Rather our centrality of the planet has to be seen in the light of our relation to the objective truth, which is life. Rather than speak of the centrality of man, I like to speak of the speciality of man.
Centrality belongs to Life alone.
Michael Asciak
BIRKIRKARA