One of the late Pope Francis'most striking documents remains his encyclical letter Laudato Si, published in June 2015, to raise awareness about the urgency for an "integral ecology" that would care for both human beings as well as nature – both of which are now being sacrificed on Mammon's altar; the altar of profit at all costs regardless of the consequences.
Pope Francis addressed a financial system that "tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products", and of people who "can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending" (n. 203).
"Planned obsolescence": is a term used to describe the process whereby goods are designed and manufactured to last as short a time as possible. This forces consumers to replace goods frequently. Marketing campaigns encourage frivolous consumption. The public are urged to replace working goods with their newer incarnations in order to stay on the cutting edge of fashion and social approval.
Inkjet printers are a good example. When the ink cartridge is empty it is more cost-effective to purchase a new printer than to simply replace the cartridge. The same reasoning applies to most electronic devices. Stores will not make repairs or else it is cheaper to buy a newer model even when a replacement part could suffice.
Studying the problem one can see that it is the rules of the present financial system that cause such a useless degradation of the earth's resources – especially the rule that ties the distribution of purchasing power to employment. This leads to situations such as when pro-environmental groups advocate that a particular industrial sector stop polluting the environment but government replies that changes would not be possible. Government argues that environmental responsibility could cost the sector too much money and might force it to close its doors. Sadly, it is preferable to keep those precious jobs even if at the expense of a healthy environment.
The environment is something real that is sacrificed to money, a symbol. Jobs are created so that people will be employed at the expense of our planet's survival. Worry not that people be poisoned just as long as it is profitable!
Pope Francis wrote: "The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment" (n. 195).
There is an old Cree saying that goes like this: "Only when the last tree has died, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught will we realise that we cannot eat money."
And what can be said of the artificial needs created for the sole purpose of keeping people employed? Consider all the people kept busy pushing paper in offices and the goods that are manufactured to last the shortest time possible in order to increase sales. All of this leads to waste and to the destruction of the natural environment.
The basic cause of environmental pollution and the squandering of natural resources is the chronic shortage of purchasing power that is inherent in the present financial system. That is, consumers do not have enough money to buy all available production. People do not have the means to buy the products they themselves have made! Artificial needs are created to distribute more wages and salaries to purchase products that have already been made and many of these products are neither essential nor desirable.
Bearing this in mind, one can imagine the effect these disastrous economic policies have on the environment. For instance, when we speak about economic growth and the importance for nations to be more competitive, the need to increase production is generally stressed. In reality, a country should be able to increase, stabilize or even reduce its production levels according to the needs of its population. In many cases a decrease in production would be the most appropriate decision.
If it takes two years to manufacture enough washing machines for every household that can function for twenty years it is insane to continue producing more washing machines. Henry Ford once said that the goal of a good car manufacturer should be to build a car that lasts a lifetime. This is technically possible but the auto industry occupies an important place in our economy. If cars that could last a lifetime were manufactured there would be economic chaos! How would we keep auto workers employed in the name of the sacrosanct principle of full employment if cars did not need to be replaced regularly?
If one considers financial terms alone, economic growth appears to be a necessity, but from a realistic or practical point of view, it does not make sense.
Toward the end of Laudato Si, the Holy Father wrote about the need to change our lifestyles and reduce our habits of consumption. But voluntary simplicity and consuming less are contrary to the tenets of the current financial system. Such a strategy would lead to factory closures and thousands of workers being laid off. Pope Francis explained that before such a shift could be made the financial system would first require being changed so that it responded to the real economy and to the common good.
Our entire environment would be different if the financial system was adapted to the needs of the population. We would not need huge factories nor would people leave rural communities in search of employment in the cities. (Douglas observed that large plants are not necessarily more productive than smaller ones, and if they exist it is simply because banks prefer to finance large firms instead of family businesses.) We could return to producing goods and offering services at a human scale and in local communities.
The Pope is not against the use of machinery and progress, but man must come before profit. For example, he wrote, in paragraph 114: "Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur."
In paragraph 112, he said: "Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral... for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to resolving people's concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering."
What place should be given to machinery? When should it replace human labour, and in which cases is it better to employ people rather machinery? What constitutes the dignity of work? When does a job become dehumanizing and no longer respect the dignity of workers? These are all questions to ponder. Some jobs such as a doctor, teacher and workers who care for the elderly require a human touch. Other jobs can be better performed by machinery, especially repetitive assembly line work, where there is no opportunity to express human creativity.
Robots are not an end in themselves; they exist to accomplish difficult tasks, to help human beings and provide relief. The problem arises when incomes are linked solely to employment. In these cases, the introduction of a machine means the loss of all income for a worker who loses his job. As it has been explained many times, Social Credit would solve this problem by allocating a Dividend to all, based on the dual legacy of natural resources and progress. The individual would then be in a position to choose the activity that appeals to him most. Under a Social Credit system there would be an outburst of creative activity.
Societal choices must be made, but the fact is that under the current economic conditions, all basic goods can be produced despite unemployment rates of 10, 20 percent or more. Moreover, large companies move their factories to countries where labour is cheaper and where environmental regulations are less stringent. (This is called offshoring.) How can a country in Europe or North America compete with countries like China, Bangladesh or other Asian nations where salaries in the textile industry are not $38 per hour but $38 per month! On top of that working conditions are slave-like.
The introduction of a Dividend to all does not mean that people would stop working or will all be replaced by machinery. On the contrary, this additional purchasing power would stimulate personal initiative and the creation of local jobs.
All people who care for the environment, and consequently for the future of mankind on earth; all those who want to "save the planet" should study and spread Economic Democracy. This system would put money at the service of the human person while putting an end to the wasting of resources.
Subscribe