Laudato Si

I have tried valiantly to read with sustained attention the Encyclical entitled „Laudato Si“ recently issued by Pope Franciskus. 
I must admit that I may have missed many details but I hope to have gleaned the major issues which Franciskus addresses most eloquently.

If I may summarize the message of this Encyclical in as few words as possible, I would simply state that it deals with „climate change and environmental damage“ to the world for which mankind, and mankind alone, is responsible.

In particular it seems, according to this lengthy Essay, that a very specific group, namely the rich societies of the Western World bears most, if not all of the blame, and Franciskus lets us get a glimpse of his very left leaning political stance.

The fundamental problem seems to be unarguable.

The number of scientists claiming that there truly exists „Global Warming“ and that there are indisputable signs of „Environmental Damage“ is far greater than the number of „naysayers“ .

The real question to which the world needs to address itself is: „what are the causes of this serious problem and what are the solutions.“

In paragraph 50 of this Encyclical, the Pope states that one must not blame the increased population number, but the world needs to eliminate the „extreme and selective usage of products by a few.“

He then continues to state that it would be impossible to bring the world's entire population onto the standards of the few privileged people in the Western World, and castigates the wasteful usage of all resources by those privileged few.

I completely disagree with Pope Franciskus when he claims that the increase in the world's population should not be considered a cause of either Global Warming, nor for the extensive Environmental Damage suffered by our Earth.

The most populous countries in the world i.e. China and India, as well as many other so-called „third world countries“ still burn coal and wood in great quantities, contributing generously to the production of CO2 and other „hot house gases“.

Everybody who knows me must be aware that I am not a scientist.

When, however, I look at the information below, I cannot accept the claim that the number of people inhabiting this earth is not the reason for what ails it, but rather, the uneven and unjust distribution of the world's products is the true cause of the problem, which all of us, but more so our children and their children will have to deal with.

The graph below shows the increase in population from about 500 Million in the year 1.300 to the staggering number of 7 Billion in the year 2000.

The increase is but slow from 1300 to 1800, but then the number embarks upon a precipitous rise until we are now approaching a population count of 8 billion earth citizens.

During the last 50 years (approximately), when the gathering of such statistical information was more accurate then it was in the time span 1300 to 1800 the population increase was as follows:

1950     2.5 billions

1960     3.0 billions

1970     3.75 b illions

1980     4.5 billions

1990     5.3 billions

2000     6.0 billions

2010     7.0 billions

Given this information ( and the Pope can google things just as well, or better, than I can )

how can he maintain that to blame population increase is simply an attempt to legitimize current distribution of wealth ?

Here is part of what he said:

50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development  To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. Besides, we know that approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and “whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor”. Still, attention needs to be paid to imbalances in population density, on both national and global levels, since a rise in consumption would lead to complex regional situations, as a result of the interplay between problems linked to environmental pollution, transport, waste treatment, loss of resources and quality of life. ( bold print mine )

With this paragraph alone the Pope reveals himself as being 

positioned politically left of the Left of Centre and looses 

credibility in large measure.

He considers problematic the existence of an imbalance of 
population density, but not the increase in population itself.

How blind can he get ?

Or is it not blindness, but deliberate misrepresentation of 

obvious facts ?

Since members of the Catholic Church tend to be 

encouraged to have and many in deed do have larger 

families ( Franciskus is one of five children ) it would be 

difficult for the Pope to speak out against population growth.

As long as the use of condoms or „the pill“ is considered a 

deadly sin, the Catholics and their Pope will not contribute 

their share to an effort to control this obvious population 

explosion.

Is it fair to ask if almighty God, ( if there is one ) seeing his 

creation threatened by the stupidity and avarice of man,

should do something to protect his work ? 

Or maybe he looks upon his entire creation, the Universe, 

and sees the Earth, an insignificant planet, as not a worthy 

object of his concern.

Bertstravels

unscientific opinion is that both issues must be dealt with.