Justice, Participation and Sustainabilitv at MIT Ian G. Barbour

The World Council of Churches’ conference on “Faith, Science and the Future” brought 350 delegates from national churches around the world - plus 550 accredited observers, staff, stewards and press reporters - to the MIT campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Following a decade of smaller consultations and working groups, planned by the WCC’s unit on Church and Society under Paul Abrecht’s able leadership, the thirteen-day confer- ence included a wide variety of topics and viewpoints which defy any simple summary. I will comment first on three groups whose interaction provided much of the drama of the conference: the scientists, the theolo- gians, and the third world delegates. Then I will look at the idea of a “just, participatory and sustainable society” - the social goal elaborated in pre- conference documents, in plenary addresses and in the ten working sec- tions. Finally, I will summarize the report of the energy section, whose proposal for a limited moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants was the most controversial recommendation adopted by the confer- ence.

Almost half the delegates were scientists. Yet the traditional image of the value-free, neutral scientist, dedicated only to the pursuit of truth, came repeatedly under attack - occasionally by theologians, sometimes by scientists from industrial nations, and persistently by third world delegates. The critique was directed mainly against the ways in which technology and applied science contribute to the concentration of economic and political power, and increase the gaps between rich and poor nations (and between rich and poor within a nation). But even basic science came under attack for its close links to special interests in government and industry, which influence research priorities and the allocation of funds (for example, for weapons research). There was frequent reference to the limited goals and exploitative impacts of the institutions which sponsor most of the world’s research. If “knowledge is power”, it was said, scientists should scrutinize the social context of their work.

Dr BAKBOLK is professor of physics and professor of religion at Carleton College in North- 380 field, Minn., USA.

JUSTICE, PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY AT MIT

Some scientists at the conference were annoyed at such criticisms of basic science. Hanbury Brown of Australia, for example, defended a more traditional image of the objective, disinterested and rational scientist, though he granted that most science today is expensive and “industrial- ized”. But others, such as Jerry Ravetz, pointed to the close ties between science and technology, and their joint use as instruments of power. Many speakers and section reports insisted that policy decisions about technology cannot be left in the hands of experts alone, since they involve social goals and value judgments as well as technical issues. While there was disagree- ment about the purity of pure science, there was agreement about the need for wider public participation in technological policy decisions.

An interesting contrast was provided by a huge mural, painted by Edwin Blashfield in 1930, in the MIT dining room where we had all our meals. I t shows a scientist in a white lab coat, facing a light urn and a dark urn. He is being crowned by a white-robed figure, while a dark-robed figure is half in shadow. The legend is from Genesis: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Four public leaders, including an army ofticer and a statesman, are shown below the scientist, looking up at him with respect. Clearly it is the scientist who is choosing the good, without any participation by anyone else. In the half century since that mural was painted, the public has become less willing to trust the experts. Many scien- tists today would accept the call for participatory decision-making which recurred throughout the conference.

Humanity and nature - differing Christian views A quarter of the delegates were theologians or church leaders, but few

new theological insights emerged, and those that did were more relevant to technology and ethics, the main focus of the conference, than to the older dialogue between science and religion. One working section dealt with the character of scientific and religious knowledge, though its report was mainly a survey of historical and contemporary views. There was some restlessness, especially among third world members, about discussion of “theological abstractions” rather than “political realities”. Perhaps it is not surprising that a large multilingual group writing a consensus report pro- duced no detailed philosophical analysis or constructive theology. There were proposals for a theology of nature, and fragments of a theology of technology, but little systematic development of either. The theological grounding of justice may be too familiar to need exposition, but further exploration of participation in a Christian framework would have been helpful.

The one theological issue which did surface repeatedly - mainly in connection with the sustainability theme - was the relation of humanity to non-human nature. Charles Birch, a biologist sympathetic to process phi- losophy and a co-chairman of the conference, presented “an ecological view of nature” and defended the value of non-human life. Two Buddhist speakers went even further in urging respect for all living things. But a German theologian, Gerhard Liedke, portrayed a sharp separation of man and nature and spoke of their conflict “after the fall”: harmony is an 381

T H E ECUMENICAL R E V I E W

eschatological goal, he said, though we should protect the weaker creatures from excessive exploitation. Several of the sections developed concepts of stewardship and responsible care for nature - a position intermediate between domination and harmony. They affirmed the value of every crea- ture tb God, and the obligation to preserve nature even apart from its use- fulness to humanity. But many participants (especially from the Third World) wanted to be sure that concern for other forms of life does not divert attention from human suffering and the priority of human needs.

The remaining quarter of the delegates came from a variety of profes- sions, such as business, politics, and the social sciences. They were too diverse to represent any distinctive disciplinary perspective. Possibly a stronger representation of economists and political scientists would have been helpful. The reports from the sections on economics and politics did not go very far in exploring changes in the international economic and political order which might make possible a more just, participatory and sustainable world. No doubt the divisions between East and West, as well as those between North and South, made agreement on common recom- mendations particularly difficult in those sections.

Some creative thinking on third world problems The third world delegation constituted a distinctive group (which of

course included both scientists and theologians, as well as a significant number of students who were active and vocal participants): 131 out of 350 official delegates were from developing countries - more than the fraction of world church members in these countries, but less than their fraction of world population. Among the opening speeches were many excellent pres- entations by Africans, Asians, and South Americans. But third world mem- bers felt that their message had not sunk in, and that issues of global poverty and hunger had not received enough attention. Some saw sustaina- bility as only the concern of affluent nations, promoted at the expense of justice. Legitimate complaints were voiced that there were plenary sessions devoted to computers and genetic engineering, but not to more urgent

-problems of agriculture and health (the latter was omitted from the agenda because it is the province of the Christian Medical Commission). There were recurrent criticisms of transnational corporations and of technology transfer which perpetuate patterns of domination and dependence.

But by the end of the conference it was clear that third world members did not attribute all their problems to the industrial nations. There was repeated reference to the domestic elites who are allied with foreign in- terests. Several speakers and working sections examined the dilemma of western-trained scientists, publishing in western scientific journals, who may be out of touch with the needs of their own people. Thomas Odhi- ambo of Kenya made a strong plea for alternative models of progress, and policies which would strengthen domestic capacities in science and tech- nology. Science education, he suggested, could be tied to local cultures and development goals. 0. A. El Kholy, speaking for the Islamic and Arab world, suggested ways of combining indigenous and advanced technolo- gies, and of selectively purchasing foreign technologies adapted to local 382

JUSTICE, PARTICIPATION A N D SUSTAINABILITY A T MIT

needs. Sections dealing with energy, resources, urban growth and science education all gave considerable attention to the distinctive problems of developing nations. The interaction of delegates from industrial and devel- oping nations, like that between scientists and theologians, was a source of some conflict but also of creative thought throughout the conference.

Let me turn to the three ethical norms -justice, participation and sus- tainability - set forth at WCC consultations in recent years, and invoked repeatedly at the MIT meeting. Jusrice has been the central principle throughout the history of Christian social ethics; the contribution of this conference was to explore further its relationship to technology today. Cited were many examples of the ways in which technology - especially large-scale capital-intensive technology - accelerates the concentration of economic and political power and aggravates global inequities in resource use. The world’s expenditure for military defence equals the total income of the poorer half of humanity. Technologies created in industrial countries are often resource-intensive and labour-saving ; when transferred to devel- oping countries, they produce unemployment, heavy capital costs, and con- tinued dependence on foreign experts. Transnational companies typically sell only “packages” of machines, services and management, which hinder adaptation to local needs. Within market-economy industrial nations, too, technology is an instrument of injustice when it is directed to the luxuries of an affluent minority rather than the basic needs of the majority.

Public participation and technology The second principle, participation in decision-making, is thus crucial in

the control of technology in all countries, though political mechanisms for policy choice vary widely among nations. Delegates from eastern Europe noted that socialism had had more success than capitalism in the just allo- cation of resources; some of them also called for greater participation by workers and citizens in decisions about technology. Speakers from diverse countries looked at the role of education, the media, scientists, and govern- ment agencies in providing the public with more adequate information on which responsible decisions can be based. Theodor Leuenberger (Switzer- land) urged pluralistic input from informed citizens and independent scien- tific experts in policy decisions concerning technology. John Francis (Scot- land) described experiments in community self-help in housing and resource management. Justice Berger (Canada) described the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry - a fine example of a participatory process involving both formal hearings at which a wide range of experts testified, and informal hearings in Eskimo and other native villages, at which the social, cultural and environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline were considered. (On the basis of these hearings, which received wide media coverage, Berger recommended the alternative Alaska highway route that was subsequently adopted.)

But there are many obstacles to public participation in decisions about large-scale technologies. The issues are complex and the relevant informa- tion is often kept within industries or government bureaucracies. Organiza- tions develop goals and a momentum of their own, and citizens feel help- 383

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

less. These dangers in the centralization of economic and political power led several speakers to recommend decentralization, the dispersal of power, and more active roles for local governments. They maintained that appro- priate technologies are usually smaller-scale, amenable to community con- trol, and in harmony with local needs, cultures and environments. Many delegates were searching for combinations of types of technology and poli- tical processes which could together foster participation, self-reliance, and the fulfilment of basic human needs.

The third principle, susrainahiliry, is new to ecumenical thinking since the last major Church and Society conference (Geneva, 1966). It assumed increasing prominence in WCC consultations in the seventies, primarily in response to growing environmental awareness in industrial countries. At MIT, the American economist, Herman Daly, presented the case for limiting growth in population and resource consumption, in order to stay within the earth’s carrying capacity. He insisted that most of the burden must fall on the rich countries, who will have to reduce consumption so that living standards in poor countries can rise. But C. T. Kurien from India said that sustainability is the concern of an affluent minority whose style of living is threatened: the majority of the world’s population, which contributes little to resource depletion or environmental pollution, is more concerned about survival in the present than about future generations or non-human life. Ernest Petric (Yugoslavia) and Heino Falcke (German Democratic Republic) maintained that socialist nations can more easily control environmental damage, and direct technological growth to human needs, but they granted that economic efficiency has often been used to jus- tify destructive practices, They indicated that socialist writings have recently begun to recognize environmental limits.

Distributive justice considered more urgent Many of the section reports mentioned sustainability, but gave it much

lower priority than justice or participation. The environmentalists’ concern for future generations can of course be seen as a form of justice (intergener- ational justice), but it was given little weight in comparison to the desperate needs of the present generation. On the other hand, there was agreement that affluent nations must reduce waste and high levels of consumption - in the interest of both justice and sustainability. Consumerism, and adver- tising which stimulates demands for luxury goods, were roundly attacked, and the search for alternative life-styles was frequently commended. The section on resources and the environment dealt at length with problems of sustainability in the Third World, especially soil loss and the cutting of trees for firewood. It was argued that small-scale mixed-farming is ecologi- cally sound and strengthens rural communities. There was some discussion of measures to slow population growth by voluntary family planning pro- grammes, but it was held that the main emphasis should be on economic and social development (for example, education, opportunities for women) which will lead to declining birth rates.

In short, few delegates rejected the idea of sustainability, but most con- sidered issues of hunger, poverty, and distributive justice more urgent. The 384

JUSTICE, PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY AT MIT

conference findings reflected its global membership, and were often similar to the conclusions of UN conferences on environment (Stockholm, 1972), population (Bucharest, 1974), and (judging from preparatory materials) technology for development (Vienna, 1979). But the MIT conference also reflected its background in a Christian tradition in which participation has been seen as instrumental to justice, and sustainability has seldom been considered. In a world where people are starving, most Christians will indeed put the needs of the neighbour ahead of the rights of non-human creatures. But perhaps the western separation of humanity and nature (which has roots in a one-sided interpretation of the biblical idea of “dominion”, as well as in mechanistic science and industrial technology) has made us slow to accept the lessons of ecology concerning our depen- dence on the community of life. The conference made some progress in exploring specific policies which are compatible with both justice and sus- tainability, but local churches must now carry the inquiry further - at the levels of theology, ethics, and political action - in their particular national contexts.

Public concern about nuclear risks recognized Let me indicate finally how these themes came together in the confer-

ence recommendations on energy. Previous WCC statements had expressed a qualified acceptance of nuclear energy. A consultation of nu- clear experts and theologians (Sigtuna, 1975) had given a cautious endorse- ment of nuclear energy expansion, while advocating stricter international controls. Another consultation (Bossey, 1978) had discussed the dangers of weapons proliferation from the diversion of plutonium from reprocessing plants and breeder reactors, but its report ended by simply listing the pros and cons of alternative policies; the group was too divided to make any recommendations beyond urging further debate. The resolution adopted at MIT moved beyond these earlier positions in calling for a five-year mora- torium on nuclear plant construction to allow more adequate public discus- sion of the risks and benefits. I would attribute the shift to the examination of the whole energy picture (rather than nuclear energy alone), the greater attention to ethical criteria, and the greater global representation at MIT, as well as the increas’ing public concern around the world about nuclear risks.

At one of the plenary sessions three contrasting positions on energy policy were presented. David Rose of MIT, one of the conference organ- izers, argued that nuclear risks are less than those from coal (air pollution and possible climate changes from carbon dioxide); solar development will be slow and costly, and in the meantime energy shortages and competition for oil could endanger world stability and peace. But Jean Rossel (Switzer- land) underscored the uncertainties in data on low-level radiation, the dangers of weapons proliferation, and the vulnerability of large-scale sys- tems to human error or terrorism. He advocated strong conservation mea- sures and the development of decentralized solar sources. Shem Olende (Nigeria) stressed the disparities in energy consumption among nations and the need for cooperative efforts in research on alternative sources. 385

THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

When we broke into separate sections for six sessions, the energy sec- tion included a varied group: half a dozen nuclear engineers, an equal number of environmental scientists, several theologians, etc., with 15 out of 50 members from developing nations. The group made an effort to respect differences in viewpoint, to avoid simplistic solutions, and to bring together what is technically possible and what is ethically desirable. To my surprise, most of the third world delegates, both in this section and in the later plenary debate, were in favour of a moratorium on nuclear plant construc- tion. Of course they did not want to be denied access by nations which were themselves building nuclear plants; they particularly resented being told by nations which are frantically stockpiling nuclear weapons that they cannot be trusted with nuclear fuels that might be diverted into weapons. But they also asserted that nuclear plants would be of limited use, since they produce only electricity (requiring large grids and doing little for agri- culture or transportation). Moreover, nuclear development would perpet- uate patterns of dominance and dependence. Developing nations would have huge overseas costs and would be dependent on foreign technology, experts, and fuel.

For third world participants, then, the social and political impacts of the nuclear path seemed more serious than its health and safety risks. Solar energy was held to offer greater prospects of equitable distribution, self- reliance, and adaptability to local cultures, especially in rural areas. Once solar systems are installed, there are no costs for imported fuels; sunlight is free and falls on all nations. For many American and European partici- pants, too, the choice of energy sources was influenced by alternative visions of society. Advocates of the “soft path” emphasized smaller-scale, labour-intensive, decentralized technologies, with greater opportunities for local employment and community control. The final report proposed a mix of hard and soft technologies, with flexibility in the matching of sources to particular uses. It urged a major shift towards the untapped potentialities of soft systems, to offset the past subsidies and the institutional momentum of the hard systems. The group wanted to keep all options open for the long run, but in the interim would try to reverse the trend towards centralization.

The theme of participation was also frequently invoked. By this crite- rion, the grow favoured technologies amenable to local control, though it recognized that any energy policy requires centralized national planning. Moreover, energy decisions should be- made after public debate, based on more open access to information. The group recognized that conditions vary among nations, and none of the options is risk-free. There are uncer- tain risks, moral ambiguities, and unequal distributions of risks, costs, and benefits in any policy adopted. The section pointed to new ways in which the churches can stimulate ethical reflection, individual responsibility, and group discussion on energy issues.

Energy and JPSS inter-related The sustainability theme figured prominently in the group’s endorse-

ment of conservation and the shift to renewable resources. Both justice and sustainability require that rich nations cut down on their grossly dispropor- 386

JUSTICE, PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY AT MIT

tionate energy consumption. Several recent studies suggest that current economic productivity could be achieved with half the energy use. Home insulation, auto efficiency, public transport, cogeneration (of heat and elec- tricity) and food processing offer opportunities to reduce waste. Among the renewable sources discussed were solar heating, biogas, alcohol from crop residues, mini-hydro plants, and photovoltaic cells for electricity. The group acknowledged that some of these solar sources could only gradually be introduced, and that coal would have to be used during the transition. The majority of the members advocated a moratorium on all new nuclear plant construction pending reassessment of risks and costs. I t also urged governments not to build breeder reactors or reprocessing plants involving plutonium. A minority report, signed by a dozen members, argued against the moratorium.

When the section report was presented to the full conference, there was extensive debate on the moratorium resolution. Among several amend- ments offered, the one finally adopted (by a two-thirds majority) was pre- sented by John Francis, who had played a leading role in previous WCC nuclear deliberations. He proposed a moratorium on the construction of all nuclear power plants for five years "to encourage wide participation in public debate on the risks, costs, and benefits of nuclear energy". Other rec- ommendations - on conservation and renewable sources, for example - were adopted with little opposition. The energy report, like other section reports which will be printed along with the addresses in the conference volume, will merit careful study by both individuals and church groups. The volume will significantly encourage the continued search for techno- logical policies which can contribute to a more just, participatory, and sus- tainable world.

387