Pope Francis says "World economic system is 'madness; "

The article below is republished from Australia's ABC News website.

Comment from The Editor of Beside The Creek:  And so say all of us???

World economic system is 'madness', 

puts money ahead of people, Pope Francis says

Updated Sat 14 Jun 2014, 1:36pm AEST

PHOTO: Pope Francis says the global economy puts money ahead of people and discards the young and old.(Reuters: Jack Guez, file photo)

RELATED STORY: Pope says Israeli, Palestinian presidents 'must respond' to yearning for peace

RELATED STORY: Pope in Bethlehem urges end to Middle East conflict

MAP: Holy See (Vatican City State)

Pope Francis has launched a sweeping attack on the world's economic system, saying it discards the young, puts money ahead of people and survives on the profits of war.

The 77-year-old leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics said some countries had a youth unemployment rate of more than 50 per cent, with many millions in Europe seeking work in vain.

"It's madness," the Pope said in an interview with the Barcelona-based Vanguardia daily's Vatican correspondent Henrique Cymerman.

"We discard a whole generation to maintain an economic system that no longer endures, a system that to survive has to make war, as the big empires have always done," he said.

"But since we cannot wage the third world war, we make regional wars.

"And what does that mean? That we make and sell arms. And with that the balance sheets of the idolatrous economies - the big world economies that sacrifice man at the feet of the idol of money - are obviously cleaned up."

Pope Francis says there is enough food to feed all the world's hungry.

The rich and the rest

French academic and economist Thomas Piketty talks to the ABC's PM about the world's growing inequality.

"When you see photographs of malnourished children you put your head in your hands, you cannot understand it," he said.

"I think we are in a global economic system that is not good."

The Pope says the people's needs should be at the heart of the economic system.

"But we have placed money in the centre, the god of money. We have fallen into the sin of idolatry, the idolatry of money. The economy moves by the desire to have more and paradoxically it feeds a disposable culture," he said.

The pontiff said the young were discarded when "the birth rate is limited" and the old were discarded when they no longer were considered productive.

"By discarding children and the old, we discard the future of a people because the young will pull us strongly forward and the old will give us wisdom," he said.

AFP

Finance, Economics and Faith - interest and usury in the traditions.

For many years now, the world-at-large has been preoccupied with finance and economics.  Now finance and economics are never far from the forefront of daily life - but with the Global Financial Crisis (the GFC) and nations and individuals plunged into poverty money and its associated category headings.

The list of headings is long.  The list of countries doing it tough is long too.  Can faith speak to money?  Has faith something to say about finance and economics and governance?

You may have heard or read this story before, but it still has some impact in the re-telling.
A few prominent clergypersons were invited to the Oval Office to meet with the President.  Rev. William Sloan Coffin, then Senior Pastor of Riverside Church in New York City, was one of those invited. President Reagan patiently explained to the visiting pastors why these cuts were necessary, in his view, to balance the budget.  Rev. Coffin replied, “Mr. President, it is up to us to proclaim that ‘Justice shall roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream.  Your job is the plumbing.”

The Rev Dr Susan Brooks Thistlewaite uses the story in a blog post from her blog #Occupy The Bible.

That story reflects one Christian attitude to finance and economics.  The Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity - each have injunctions against usury.  Usury is the charging of interest although in some interpretations this becomes the charging of 'excessive' interest.  Islam is the only faith of the three which adheres to injunctions against usury.

People of the Jewish faith have become associated with finance, banking and usury - not least because of this family.  Not all Jewish people are bankers or people connected with finance and economics - but a lot of them are.  

The writer of this article says : Christian ethics has failed in one of the most overlooked, if not ignored, civil and human rights issue in the world today. 

In each of the three faiths, there are strong ethical dictums relating to the alleviation of poor, to hospitality, to consideration of the other as one would consider him or her self.  

But where does this leave ordinary folk trying to negotiate their ways through modern economic life while maintaining an ethical faith and lifestyle?  And what happens in other faith traditions?  Below are some selections for further reading.  

Readers of this blog might like to write to us at ballaratinterfaithnetwork@gmail.com and let us know their thoughts.  

• Should interfaith networks start talking about this and begin to shine some light on the teachings of the different faith traditions and how they work themselves out in modern life?  
• Should faiths bear a common witness against poor governance both of civil society and corporate entities?  
• How would this be done effectively?

Further reading

Usury

Your faith, your finance :  a guide to money faith & ethics

Face to Faith: once confined to religious debates, the word 'usury' is making a welcome return to politics

Call and response blog: usury

Is anti-usury activism anti-semitic?

Buddhist economics: money and interest - How money & charging interest debased Buddhism

Buddhist economics and a GMO rethink.

From the BTC editor: The posting of this article does not represent participation in a particular debate. It has been published because of its general interest in a current and widespread topic affecting humanity. The article comes from a Buddhist source  which may be of interest to those involved in the interfaith movement. Buddhist Economics and A GMO rethink by Pamela Ronald, Biofortifed.org, 7 September 2013 (originally publlished at Scientific American Food Matters) “Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology t owards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.”  - E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, 1973 San Francisco, CA (USA) -- Discussions about plant genetic engineering often reflect two starkly opposing narratives. On the one side are the angry mobs who invade research farms to destroy fragile green rice seedlings deemed “GMOs”. On the other, are the scientists who call for calm and respect for publicly funded research. Too often, it seems, there is little mutual understanding. But times may be changing. In a forum yesterday hosted by the Boston Review Magazine, a group of  journalists, activists, plant biologists, and farmers as well as academic experts in food security, international agricultural and environmental policy sat around a virtual table to find common ground. All accepted the broad scientific consensus that the process of GE does not pose inherent risks compared to conventional approaches of genetic alteration and that the GE crops currently on the market are safe to eatand safe for the environment. That agreement allowed the discussion to move forward to a more societally relevant issue- the use of appropriate technology in agriculture. Few consumers question the utility of reading Scientific American’s Food Matters online or using the most efficient technology to do it. Yet many are hesitant to embrace technology when it comes to food and farming. Some find the use of plant genetic engineering (GE), a modern form of plant breeding particularly distasteful. Yet GE is just one of many technologies used to alter the genetic makeup of our crops. Today virtually everything we eat is produced from seeds that have been genetically altered in some manner. Conventional methods include grafting or mixing genes of closely related species through forced pollinations, as well as radiation treatments to induce random mutations in seeds.  Such approaches are imprecise, resulting in new varieties through a combination of trial and error, without knowledge of the function of the genes affected. GE introduces one to few well-characterized genes resulting in fewer genetic changes. In contrast to most conventional approaches, GE allows for introduction of genes from distantly related species, such as bacteria. Over the last twenty years, scientists and breeders have used both conventional and GE technologies to create crop varieties that thrive in extreme environments or can withstand attacks by pests and disease. What criteria can scientists, farmers and consumers use to assess which type of these genetic technologies is most appropriate for agriculture? In his 1973 book Small is Beautiful, economist E. F. Schumacher states that an appropriate technology should be low cost, low maintenance and promote values such as health, beauty, and permanence. Environmentalist Stewart Brand used a similar framework to select new technologies for inclusion in his 1969 Whole Earth Catalog. One of the purposes of the Whole Earth catalog was to facilitate a creative or self-sustainable lifestyle. We can apply Brand and Schumacher’s Buddhist economic criteria to evaluate modern agricultural technologies. Take, for example, Golden Rice, a provitamin A–enriched rice developed through genetic engineering that comprises many of the properties advocated by Schumacher and Brand. Consumption of Golden Rice, within the normal diet of rice-dependent poor populations, could provide sufficient vitamin A to reduce substantially the 6,000 deaths caused every day by vitamin A deficiency and save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year. This “biofortification” approach is important to poor farmers and their families in developing countries who lack nutrients and cannot pay the price of improved seed. It is widely considered an improvement on conventional supplementation programs, such as the World Health Organization’s distribution of Vitamin A pills, which costs 40 times more and often does not reach the rural poor who have little access to roads. Golden Rice is an excellent example of how a particular genetic technology can appropriately serve a specific societal purpose – in this case, enhancing the health and well-being of farmers and their families. It is a relatively simple technology that scientists in most countries, including many developing countries, have perfected. The product, a seed, requires no extra maintenance or additional farming skills. The seed can be propagated on the farm each season at no extra cost through self-pollination and improved along the way. Can we conclude from the example of Golden Rice that all GE seeds fall into the category of appropriate technology? Unfortunately it is not that simple. Each agricultural technology must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It is not informative to group all “GMOs” together without regard to the purpose of the engineering, the needs of the farmer, or the social, environmental, economic, or nutritional benefits. This central point is addressed by several participants in the Boston Review forum. Journalist Marc Gunther highlights the conspiratorial narrative about GE technology favored by some corporate supported anti-GMO activists. Greg Jaffee, Director of Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest points out that better farm management is crucial  to ensure that future GE crops benefit farmers, consumers and the environment. Margaret Mellon, Senior Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists argues that GE is not a transformative technology.  Rosamond Naylor, Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University discusses the ethics of GMOs in light of persistent hunger and malnutrition. Robert Paarlberg, author of Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know outlines the effectiveness of anti-GMO campaigns in blocking the use of modern technologies in the developing world. Nina Fedoroff, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the pervasive disconnect between what is true and what people believe to be true about GMOs. Tim Burrack, Farmer and Vice Chairman of Truth About Trade and Technology  gives an account of today’s farmers who are growing more food on less land than ever before using biotechnology as an essential ingredient. Jennie Schmidt, Farmer and registered dietician reports that farmers choose GE crops because they are economically and environmentally advantageous. Jack Heinemann, Lecturer in Genetics at the University of Canterbury reminds us that reliance on seed technology alone will not avert agricultural catastrophes. Their commentaries are posted online (just click on names to view each one) and the entire forum will be available in print form in the September Issue of the magazine. Kudos to Boston Review’s editor Deborah Chasman and Managing Editor Simon Waxman for launching this forum. One unusual and important aspect of the forum compared to many other discussions on GE crops is that it was science-based, critically reviewed and included the perspectives of farmers –the 1% of US workers that actually produce the food that the rest of us eat and who are at the forefront of evaluating the effectiveness of specific agricultural technologies. Despite the massive number of technical reports attesting to the safety and environmental benefits of GE crops over the pasts decade, science-based information about food, farming and genetics has only trickled out to the public through government agencies and science-based blogs such as Biofortified.org, Ucbiotech.org, Academicsreview.org. Recently, however, to the delight of plant biologists, farmers, food security experts and skeptics, this trickle has turned into a torrent of excellent reporting. Consider for example the investigative reporting by a bevy of talented journalists such as New York Times Pullitzer Prize winning author Amy Harmon, DotEarth’s Andy Revkin, Slate’s Daniel Engber, the New Yorker’s Michel Specter, Grist’s Nathaneal Johnson, Discover magazine’s Keith Kloor, Greenwire’s Paul Voosen, and Genetic Literacy Project’s Jon Entine. All have tackled the science behind GE crops eloquently and accurately. A number of informative and entertaining books on the subject have been published over the last few years as well. See for example, Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline, Michael Specter’s Denialism, and James McWilliams' Just Food. As more information is made available demystifying what farmers and plant breeders actually do, the public dialog about GE crops is becoming more sophisticated. Even chefs are taking time out of the kitchen to re-evaluate their stance on modern agricultural technologies. Mark Bittman, widely admired for his culinary skills (check out his practical lunch tips) and beautiful prose, recently visited one of my neighbors here in the Central Valley (the source of 50 % of U.S. fruits, nuts and vegetable) to learn about tomato farming. He wrote an unusually thoughtful and respectful piece on the approaches the Rominger farm in Winters is taking to advance ecologically based management practices using modern technologies. What technology then is truly “appropriate” for agriculture? There is no simple answer to this question. Instead of focusing on how a seed variety was developed, we need to frame discussions about agriculture in the context of environmental, economic, and social impacts—the three pillars of sustainability. We must ask what most enhances local food security and can provide safe, abundant, and nutritious food to consumers. We must ask if rural communities can thrive and if farmers can make a profit. We must be sure that consumers can afford food. And finally we must minimize environmental degradation. This includes conserving land and water, enhancing farm biodiversity and soil fertility, reducing erosion, and minimizing harmful inputs. The most appropriate technology for addressing a particular agricultural problem depends on the context. Technology evolves. Just as today we source tools through the internet rather than the Whole Earth Catalog (Steve Jobs called the Whole Earth Catalog “Google in paperback form”), few breeders now rely on primitive domestication for seed production. As the physicist and philosopher Jacob Bronowski pointed out fifty years ago, “We live in a world which is penetrated through and through by science and which is both whole and real. We cannot turn it into a game by taking sides. . . . No one who has read a page by a good critic or a speculative scientist can ever again think that this barren choice of yes or no is all that the mind offers”. ------------- First posted on Scientific American Food Matters. Pamela Ronald is Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis, where she studies the role that genes play in a plant’s response to its environment. Her research focuses on the genetics of rice. With her husband, she co-wrote Tomorrow's Table:organic farming, genetics and the future of food. She writes a blog of the same name.