Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T10:09:36.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and Integral Ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Cathriona Russell Open the ORCID record for Cathriona Russell [Opens in a new window]
Cathriona Russell*
Affiliation:
School of Religion, Trinity College Dublin 2
*
cathriona.russell@tcd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper begins with two preliminary forays, the first into creation theology and its deployment in environmental ethics, and the second sketches some implications for ‘integral ecology’ of reading theological ethics through the lens of human freedom and autonomy. The third and main focus of the paper is an exploration of aspects of the philosophy of technology, thinking in terms of the ‘technocratic paradigm’ and human ‘agency in context’. This analysis points to the potential for reimaging technologies for a sustainable planet and presents two examples: one new, the management of drone technologies and bird habitat; and one old, rethinking city transport though reinterpreting cycling as development at all income levels. This article is also intended as a contribution to the ongoing development of the concept of ‘integral ecology’ and its application: a concept that has now been added to related key principles of the common good in the Catholic social tradition: solidarity, subsidiarity, participation.

Keywords

CreationLaudato Si’integral ecologyautonomy in ethicsdrone management systems and bird habitatcycling as development at all income levels
Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 103 , Issue 1104 , March 2022 , pp. 220 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. C. Russell, ‘Creation: an invitation to share God's love’, Search: a Church of Ireland Journal Summer 2018, pp. 91-99.

2 Ricoeur, P., ‘Thinking Creation’, Thinking Biblically (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 31-67, p. 47Google Scholar.

3 P. Ricoeur, op. cit., p. 51.

4 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Notes on the Alleged Conflict between Religion and Science’, Zygon 40:3 (2005) p. 585CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 P. Ricoeur, op. cit., 66.

6 Ibid, p. 67.

7 Ibid, p. 57.

8 Ricoeur, P., History and Truth (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965), p. 110Google Scholar.

9 Schockenhoff, E., Natural Law & Human Dignity: Universal Ethics in an Historical World. Trans. McNeil, Brian, (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), p. 2Google Scholar.

10 cf. Junker-Kenny, M., ‘Natural Law’, Approaches to Theological Ethics: Sources, Traditions, Visions (London/New York: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2019), p. 154ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 O'Neill, O., Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Cambridge: University Press, 2002), pp. 28-48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Mieth, D., ‘Bioethics, Biopolitics, Theology’ in Designing Life? Genetics, Procreation and Ethics, ed. Junker-Kenny, Maureen. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999) pp. 6-22Google Scholar, p. 7.

13 Junker-Kenny, M., ‘Valuing the Priceless: Christian Convictions in Public Debate as a Critical Resource and as a “Delaying Veto” (Habermas, J.)’, Studies in Christian Ethics 12 (1) (2005), pp. 43-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 48.

14 Bielefeldt, H., ‘Autonomy and Republicanism’, Political Theory 25(4), 1997, pp. 524-558CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 525.

15 Junker-Kenny, M., ‘The Image of God—Condition of the Image of the Human’ in The Human Image of God, ed. Ziebertz, H. G., et al. (London: Brill, 2001)Google Scholar, p. 81.

16 Cf. Russell, C., Autonomy and Food Biotechnology in Theological Ethics (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2009), p. 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Lewin, D., ‘Ricoeur and the Capability of Modern Technology’, in From Ricoeur to Action (eds) Mei, T., and Lewin, D. (London/New York: Continuum, 2012), pp. 54-71Google Scholar

18 Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., and McNeill, J., ‘The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?’, Ambio 36:8 (2007) pp. 614-621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19 D. Lewin, op. cit., p. 60.

20 Jasanoff, S., ‘In the Democracies of DNA: ontological uncertainty and political order in three states’, New Genetics and Society, Vol. 24, No. 2, (August 2005), p. 139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

21 Lewin. Op. cit., p. 55.

22 Ibid, p. 64.

23 Ibid, p. 65.

24 Ibid, p. 69.

25 Haker, H., ‘Synthetic Biology—An Emerging Debate in European ethics’ in Ethics for Graduate Researchers (eds) Russell, C., Hogan, L., & Junker-Kenny, M., (Netherlands; Elsevier, 2013), pp 227-239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 H. Haker, ibid, p. 231.

27 C. Russell, ‘Creation, the biosphere as common inheritance, and the commodification of the proximal sky’ Paper delivered at the International Congress of the European Society for Catholic Theology: Creation–Transformation–Theology, University of Osnabrück, Germany, August 25th-28th, 2021.

28 Cf. European Union Aviation Safety Authority Easy Access Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Jan 2021. https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/easy-access-rules/easy-access-rules-unmanned-aircraft-systems-regulation-eu#group-publications