Ecology, Religion, and Global Governance

Steven C. Rockefeller

Prepared for A Symposium on Religion andWorld Order

Sponsored by Global Education Associates,

Maryknoll Center for Mission Research andStudy, and

Fordham University Institute on Religion andCulture

May 3-7, 1997

The science and philosophy of ecology is having a profound impact on the wayhuman beings understand themselves and their world. It is causing a transformation in theway in which we think about ethics, world security, and global governance. Systems ofgovernance that fail to understand and integrate ecological science and ethics into theirplanning, policy formation, and decision making at all levels, will become increasinglyincompetent to manage the problems that face the world. Moreover, unless our governance,economic, and social systems undergo a thoroughgoing ecological revolution, the verysurvival of the human species is in doubt. If the religions are to play a constructiverole as members of the emerging new world community, they too must reconstruct theirworldviews and ethics in the light of ecological thinking.

This essay will consider the implications of ecology for ethics and global governance,and conclude with a few observations about the role of religion. The larger frame ofreference for this discussion is the current world situation and the urgent need to builda planetary civilization with a moral foundation. At the outset, a few brief words aboutthat are in order.

I. Building World Community

The world is in a time of transition. We are at a critical moment in the evolution ofthe human species and life on Earth. The future is unclear and uncertain. The colonialempires that ordered and ruled the world in the first half of the century have beendismantled. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War has ended and communismhas lost its ideological power. Under the influence of technology, industrialization, anda rapidly expanding world market economy, a new multi-cultural global society is takingform. With modernization and globalization has come increasing ecological and economicinterdependence. As the human population has steadily grown, the world has become eversmaller and more closely interconnected.

However, as Vaclav Havel has pointed out, "The planetary civilization to which webelong ... has essentially globalized only the surface of our lives."¹ Itis a civilization that tends to be dominated by largely unregulated economic forces thatoften have a destructive impact on many local communities as well as the environment.These same economic forces have a tendency to widen the gulf between rich and poor. Inaddition, beneath the communications and trade systems that link diverse peoples lieimmense cultural differences. The impersonal economic forces of globalization themselvestend to generate counterforces that emphasize cultural identities that are distinct anddifferent. As a result in certain parts of the world, globalization in its current formcontributes to the clash of cultural groups.

One of the great social and political challenges facing the peoples and nations of theworld involves building a planetary civilization that ensures world peace and security andthat makes possible the establishment of social justice and the achievement of economicequity and ecological well-being. In order to achieve this objective, the peoples andnations of the world need a new shared global ethics. Respect for cultural diversity mustbe part of this ethic. The task is to create a world community with systems of governancethat are guided by shared ethical principles and spiritual values.

In a book that finds the world dividing into civilizational blocs and that emphasizescultural divisions, Samuel Huntington concludes with some important reflections on"The Commonalities of Civilization." He argues that even though respect forcivilizational differences and spheres of influence is a requirement of world security, itis also necessary to promote cross cultural dialogues that identify common moral valuesand the shared principles and practices of civilized living. Reflecting on the breakdownin effective systems of governance throughout much of the world and the possibility thathumanity could be heading into a global Dark Ages, Huntington contends that the mostserious threat to world security is "the clash ... between civilization andbarbarism." He concludes that "the world's great civilizations, with their richaccomplishments in religion, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, morality,and compassion, will ... hang together or hang separately." He calls, therefore, foran international order based on "the exploration and expansion" of the values,institutions, and practices shared by all the world's civilizations.²

Identifying shared values, nurturing the development of global ethics, and building aworld community that is founded upon commitment to these values and ethics is essential tothe long-term well-being of humanity in an interdependent multicultural world.

II. Ecology and World Order

An ecological approach to the world's current problems supports the argument fordeveloping a new global ethic and a cooperative world community. Moreover, if a universalcivilization is to emerge, it will be a world community based on ecological security andthe concept of sustainable living as well as the closely related values of solidarity,peace, freedom, respect for human rights, economic equity, and respect for the arts andspirituality. The ecological viewpoint has a critical contribution to make.

Ecology is the study of natural communities and how they function and become disrupted.Building on evolutionary biology and the new physics, it seeks to understand the wayorganisms interact with each other and their larger environment. It is concerned withinterdependent communities, systems, wholes. Much attention in ecological research focuseson the way human activities disrupt biotic communities or ecosystems by causing thepollution of water, soils, and air, the destruction of biodiversity, and the depletion ofresources.

When the United Nations was formed following World War 11 in the mid 1940s, there wasno recognition of the significance of ecology in government circles or in society atlarge, including the university with the exception of a very few research scientists. Theoriginal UN agenda for world security involved programs for peace, equitable social andeconomic development, and human rights. In the United Nations Charter no mention is madeof the environment and ecological health as a common concern of humanity. However, thatbegan to change beginning in 1972 with the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.As a result of the Stockholm meeting, ecological security emerged as a major concern ofthe United Nations.

The result has been a number of world commissions and conferences and a series ofinternational reports, declarations, and treaties calling on the peoples and nations ofthe world to recognize the findings of ecology and to embrace the values and practices ofenvironmental conservation and sustainable development. Especially noteworthy are WorldCharter for Nature adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, the report of the WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future (1987), and theagreements generated by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, including treaties on climate changeand biodiversity, the Rio Declaration, and Agenda 21.

However, in spite of the conferences, reports, declarations, and treaties, the worldhas not yet made the radical changes required if it is to implement the sustainabledevelopment practices detailed, for example, in Agenda 21. This was the finding of theRio+5 review that culminated in June, 1997 with a special session of the UN GeneralAssembly. A Rio+5 report issued by the Earth Council summarizing seventy nationalconsultations on progress toward sustainable development concludes that: "in bothindustrialized and developing countries, sustainable development is still low on thepolitical agenda, in part because it is not yet seen as a component of the economicsolution.³ Five years after the Rio Earth Summit, the Earth Council found thatthere is a widespread lack of understanding of the concrete practical meaning ofsustainable development and that the practice of sustainable development is "still inits infancy" in many industrialized and developing countries.

In short, ecology and the related concept of sustainable living have not yet beeneffectively integrated into systems of governance and administration. It is useful,therefore, to review the basic ideas generated by ecology that support the call for newsystems of global governance designed to build a global partnership for sustainable andequitable development. Among these ideas are the following:

First, human beings are part of nature. We are part of the evolving universe. Lifeemerged from planet Earth, and our species has co-evolved with other life forms on Earth.We are members of the community of life on Earth. We are in the universe and the universeis in us. We are part of the biosphere and the biosphere is part of our being.

Second, the biosphere is a unified system that is self-organizing and self-regulating.The health of the biosphere is closely linked to its capacities for regeneration, butthese capacities have limits. In addition, the members of the community of life, includinghuman beings, are interdependent and share a common destiny. In short, humanity dependsfor its survival and well-being on maintaining the diversity and health of planetaryecosystems.

Third, environmental degradation, especially irreversible damage and the depletion ofresources are a threat to human health, the foundations of the economy, and theflourishing of culture. Ecological security, involving the protection and restoration ofecosystem health, is the most fundamental condition of local and world security, eventhough it is not by itself a sufficient condition.

Fourth, the nations of the world live within and are dependent upon shared ecosystemsand the global commons. Consequently, environmental degradation by one nation -- air orwater pollution, for example -- can negatively affect others. Moreover, since thebiosphere is an interdependent system, actions within one nation can cause severe orirreversible harm to the whole planetary system, leading, for example, to climate change.The local and the regional, and the local and the global are linked.

Fifth, a sustainable humane civilization must promote and maintain the well-being ofboth people and ecosystems. Sustainable development involves improving the quality ofhuman life while protecting the regenerative capacities of ecosystems and restoring themwhen damage is done. It requires finding the right balance between using and nurturing andbetween short-term gratification and long-term well-being. It means integratingconservation and development in all sectors at all levels.

Sixth, over the past twenty-five years since Stockholm, it has become increasinglyclear that humanity's social, economic and environmental goals and problems areinterdependent. In other words, peace, freedom, social justice, sustainable development,and ecological well-being are indivisible. Poverty, for example, is both a cause andconsequence of environmental degradation. Caring for Earth requires caring for people andcaring for people requires caring for Earth.

Seventh, the ecological analysis of global interdependence and the world'senvironmental problems has also made clear that international cooperation and the buildingof a world community are essential to human survival and well-being. Ecology and ourmounting environmental problems reinforce the thinking and values regarding worldwidecollaboration and global security that led to creation of the United Nations after theexperience of two world wars. Natural systems function according to the principle ofinterdependence, and ecology has disclosed that the capacity for cooperation is asimportant as competitiveness in the evolutionary struggle for survival. Theseconsiderations and the state of the world lead to the conclusion that the principle ofnational sovereignty is not an idea upon which to found a system of world order for thetwenty first century, which is not to deny the important role nation states must play inthe decades ahead. The most serious problems affecting societies today are transnationalin nature. No nation state can exist any longer as a separate island capable of providingin isolation opportunity and security for its people.⁴ Local and globalsecurity can only be founded on the principles of global partnership and the sharing ofsovereignty, leading to the creation of new systems of global governance.⁵

Even though there is growing acceptance of many of these ideas today, there is muchdebate about their practical implications and about the urgency with which governments,businesses and society at large should act on them. The subject of the sovereign rights ofstates in an interdependent world remains a contentious issue.

III. The Ethical Implications of Ecology

With regard to the practical significance of these ideas, it is useful to considertheir moral implications. Strictly speaking, scientific knowledge does not include aknowledge of moral truth--of what it is right or wrong for humans to do. By itself thefactual information generated by the science of ecology does not inform us about whatmoral values we should adopt. The moral conscience arises from the intuitions of theheart, including especially feelings of sympathy and compassion, and these sentiments arenurtured and shaped by social education and religion. However, if a person has awell-developed sense of social responsibility-and especially if a person respects thedignity of all persons and universal human rights--the science of ecology with itsunderstanding of interconnections and consequences will have a profound influence on thejudgments he or she makes in many situations about what concrete human actions are good orbad. In this qualified sense, ecology has very significant moral implications for humanconduct. Some of these implications have been articulated clearly over the pasttwenty-five years in a variety of international charters, treaties and reports.

First of all, in the light of an ecological worldview, sustainable living andsustainable development as earlier defined are a fundamental moral imperative for anyonewho considers world security, human well-being, or the health of the biosphere a worthymoral goal.

Second, the spread of environmental problems and ecological understanding hasled to identification of a new basic human right. To a large extent, human rights are anattempt to guarantee to people the conditions essential to their development andwell-being. With the growing recognition that air and water pollution, the contaminationof soil, and toxic waste dumps are a threat to human health and economic security, theidea has developed that human beings have a right to an environment adequate for theirhealth, well-being, and dignity. This idea was clearly articulated by Rachel Carson in theearly 1960's and is found in Principle One of the Stockholm Declaration. It has since beenincluded in dozens of national constitutions and has become the foundation for theinternational environmental justice movement.

Second, closely linked to this idea is the idea of intergenerational equity andresponsibility. Future generations, it is argued, have a right to inherit a world withhealthy ecosystems and resources adequate to their needs. This idea, too, found expressionin the Stockholm Declaration. In 1976 Jacques Cousteau created a whole Charter on thistheme, which he proposed for adoption by the UN General Assembly. The ethics ofintergenerational responsibility were a major theme in Our Common Future (1987),the report of the Brundtland Commission (WCED). From this perspective, governments and allother institutions have a fundamental moral responsibility to think and act holisticallyand to take into consideration the long term as well as the short term consequences ofhuman actions. The concept of intergenerational responsibility is fundamental to the moralideal of sustainable living.

Third, the emphasis in ecology on interdependent communities tends to serve as acounterbalance to the exaggerated individualism in America and some other modernizedcultures. It underlines the need to counterbalance rights with responsibilities,recognizing the interdependence of self and community and the interconnections between thelocal and the global. These insights lend support to the fundamental ethical principlethat all governments and all people have shared but differentiated responsibilities forthe well-being of the world community as a whole.

Fourth, in a world characterized by global ecological interdependence, governments havea moral responsibility to prevent activities within areas under their jurisdiction thatmay cause harm to the environment of other states or to the global commons. The basicguideline is a variation on the theme of the Golden Rule: Do not do to the environment ofothers what you do not want done to your environment. The obligation to preventtransboundary environmental harm is a limitation on the sovereign rights of states. It isa fundamental requirement of global community in the twenty-first century.

There are a number of other ethical imperatives that are frequently considered to befundamental to achievement of sustainable development and environmental protection. Theyinclude an obligation to obey the precautionary principle, which states that in situationswhere there is the risk of irreversible or serious damage to the environment, actionshould be taken to avoid the harm, even when scientific information may be incomplete.They entail a responsibility to work for the eradication of poverty, the stabilization ofpopulation, and moderation in consumption. The methods of implementing these principlesare the subject of much international debate. However, the goals involved are essential tothe building of a sustainable civilization.

In addition, the values of non-violence, democratic participation in decision making,and gender equality are especially significant. The empowerment of women and their fullparticipation in policy and management decision making in all sectors are essential to theachievement of sustainable development. War is a major cause of environmental damage. Theelimination of weapons of mass destruction and the development and adoption of non-violentmethods for managing and resolving conflict are part of the meaning of sustainable living.Wide social cooperation and grass roots support are also essential. Toward this endsystems of governance and administration should be established that provide people withopportunities to influence the decisions that affect them. Consistent with this approach,transparency and accountability in administration are required in all sectors.

All of these ethical principles can be justified on the grounds that they address basichuman needs and interests and are consistent with respect for human rights and the valuesof social justice and peace. However, as was first clearly pointed out by Aldo Leopold inhis Sand Country Almanac (1949), ecology has other more radical ethicalimplications leading to principles that go beyond what can be justified by appeals tohuman self-interest. Human beings generally develop a sense of ethical responsibility inrelation to the members of the communities to which they belong and upon which they aredependent. This sense of moral responsibility also extends to these communities as awhole. Where there is interdependence, there are ethical obligations and duties. Ecologyis expanding humanity's sense of community to include non-human species and ecosystems.

The evolutionary process has rewarded human communities that learn to cooperate and tosustain the necessary moral values. The sense of moral concern begins to develop withinthe family and expands outward to embrace the clan or tribe, larger local communities, thenation, all members of a religion, and eventually all humanity. A global ethicalconsciousness has been articulated in the higher ethical teachings of the great worldreligions, even though many religious groups operate on the basis of an ethnocentricethical consciousness. Global ethics finds its most basic expression in the modem world inthe concept of universal human rights.

Ecology, however, is helping to open humanity's eyes to the awareness that the humancommunity is part of an even larger community, the community of life as a whole--the Earthcommunity. With this new ecological sense of community and interdependence goes arealization that other species and also ecosystems and the living Earth itself deserverespect and moral consideration. Ecology is making humanity aware that it belongs to thelarger Earth community, and accordingly that it has moral duties in relation to the Earthcommunity and to all its members. This is the central theme of environmental ethics.

The fundamental point is that other species and ecosystems are not merely things. Theyare not just resources that exist to be used. As Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry haveexplained, the universe is a communion of subjects, not merely a collection of objects.⁶Non-human species are agents in their own right with a certain interior depth. They areends in themselves, not a means only. In other words, animals, trees, and ecosystems haveintrinsic value as well as instrumental value. Therefore, people should respect Earth andall life quite apart from whatever utilitarian value nature may have for people.

People, of course, may with moral justification use other species as natural resourcesin the effort to meet basic human needs, but people also have responsibilities to them andfor them. There are moral as well as ecological limits to what humans may do in relationto nature. When there are conflicts between the rights and interests of people and thoseof other species, as there always will be, in many situations the rights of humans dooverride the interests of other species. However, again there are limits, and humans donot have an absolute right to dominate and exploit other species or ecosystems. With theright to use under certain circumstances goes the responsibility to respect, nurture, andtend.⁷

Even though the intrinsic value of nature has been affirmed in two major internationaldocuments, the World Charter for Nature (1992) and the Convention on Biodiversity (1992),the idea remains controversial. It was not included in the Rio Declaration. Some arguethat sustainable development and environmental conservation should be defended purely onthe basis of anthropocentric concerns and human self-interest. Appeals to self-interestare, of course, very important and should be used at every opportunity. However, it is notlikely that such appeals will effect the radical change in human behavior that isnecessary to halt and reverse the degradation of the planetary environment. In spite ofwarnings by scientists and environmentalists, the transition to sustainable living isproceeding very slowly, and the resistance from short-sighted governments, businesspeople, and ordinary citizens is substantial. A fundamental change in attitude isessential. A new respect for Earth, all species, and all individual living beings isrequired. Only when people genuinely respect Earth and all life will they care for Earthand the community of life so as to preserve and restore it.

There is a further reason why a new global ecocentric moral consciousness is in order.The world religions teach that the person who would find his or her life must lose it.Higher wisdom often comes in such paradoxes. The deeper meaning and joy of life involvesthe realization that we are not here in this world alone as human beings, and we are nothere for ourselves alone.⁸ We belong to a larger community of being-somethingat once vast, grand, mysterious and wonderful. The survival of the human species and thefull realization of our potential are linked to this realization and the will to act onthe responsibilities it implies. Our ethics must make this clear, and our spiritualpractice should be designed to empower us to live in this truth,

IV. Implementing an Ethical and Ecological Transformation

Ecological ethics, then, challenge governments and all institutions to recognizehumanity's membership in the larger community of life and to act with a sense of sharedresponsibility for the well-being of the human community and the Earth community as awhole. What can be done to advance the integration of ecological awareness andresponsibility into governance systems at all levels in all sectors? There follow a fewsuggestions that focus on the political, ethical, legal, and religious dimensions of theproblem.

In March, 1997 the independent Rio+5 review organized by the Earth Council broughttogether at the Rio+5 Forum in Brazil over 500 representatives from civil society andnational councils of sustainable development to assess progress toward sustainabledevelopment and to recommend a strategy for implementing Agenda 21. Among therecommendations of the Rio+5 Forum are the following. First, there is a need for a clear"operational definition of sustainable development" that explains theadministrative, legislative, and economic instruments required to move "from agendato action."

Second, the Agenda 21 recommendation that calls for creation of national councils ofsustainable development should be implemented in all countries as it has been in overtwenty. The building of regional networks of CSDs involving regional information exchangesis also needed. Third, the adoption of national and local agenda 21 plans is required, andthese agendas 21 must be well-integrated with social and economic goals.⁹

Fourth, increased public participation in planning and decision-making processes isessential to the achievement of sustainable development. In its Rio+5 Forum report, theEarth Council emphasized "the need for participatory processes in which government,civil society organizations, the business sector and other groups can reach agreement onpriorities and actions, including the need for informed participation of differentstakeholders in such processes." Addressing this issue, the Rio+5 report of thenational consultation of Bangladesh states:

Participation of all stakeholders creates conditions for consensus and conflict resolution, making programs and projects more acceptable, cost-effective and enhancing ownership. Stakeholders, once offered participation, undertake significant follow-up activities on their own accord and enhance social mobilization. Hence, not only civil society will be benefited, but the government itself will succeed in its task of governing and addressing the dilemma of the just means of sustainable living and protecting the environment.¹⁰

In recent decades nongovernmental organizations have grown dramatically in power andinfluence, and they must be viewed as part of the new systems of global governance. Oneespecially encouraging development is the emergence of regional and worldwide networks ofnongovernmental organizations that are the beginnings of a transnational civil society.Good examples are the global networks of human rights activists, environmentalists,women's organizations, peace advocates, and indigenous peoples groups. The networkingprocess has been significantly advanced by the kind of international gatherings ofnongovernmental organizations that occurred, for example, around the Earth Summit in 1992,during the UN Social Summit in 1995, and at the Rio+5 Forum in 1997. Richard Falkcharacterizes the formation of a global civil society as globalization-from-below incontrast to the globalization-from-above spurred on by the Bretton Woods Institutions, thegovernments of the industrialized states, and transnational corporations. He writes that"our most important millennial challenge ... is to encourage the process ofglobalization-from-the-ground-up in any way we can," leading to new creative forms oftransnational democracy. ¹¹

The Rio+5 Forum also highlighted the need to halt government subsidies forunsustainable activities. Research done in preparation for the Forum found that publicfunds amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually subsidizingactivities that are damaging to human health and the environment.¹² Reversingthis trend is an essential step in the process of constructing market mechanisms thatsupport sustainable patterns of development.

Another fundamental need is cross-cultural dialogue that clarifies and develops theemerging global ethics that provide a foundation for regional and internationalcooperation. The Earth Charter Project, the secretariat for which is based at the EarthCouncil in Costa Rica, is an example of one initiative designed to encouragecross-cultural dialogue for the purpose of identifying the core values of ecological andsustainable development ethics.¹³ An extensive international dialogue on EarthCharter values took place during the Rio+5 review in 1996. The Earth Charter Commissionissued a Benchmark Draft of the Charter during the Rio + 5 Forum in March. Another year ofinternational consultation on the draft is planned. Then in June, 1998, the Commissionhopes to issue a final version of the Earth Charter. During the next two years it willcirculate the Charter as a people's treaty, endeavoring to generate wide support for thedocument in civil society and the business community and among national councils ofsustainable development. Then in the year 2000 the Commission will seek adoption of theEarth Charter by the United Nations General Assembly.

Building on the fundamental principles in the Earth Charter, an integrated legalframework for all existing and future environmental and sustainable development law andpolicy is needed in the form of a new international convention. Such a document hasalready been drafted by the Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN Draft International Covenant on Environmentand Development is the result of six years of international consultations. It waspresented at the UN in February of 1995. Formal negotiations on the Covenant should beinitiated without further delay. This Draft International Covenant on Environment andDevelopment spells out the new norms for state and interstate behavior that arefundamental to sustainability.

New mechanisms to enforce compliance with international accords are required. TheUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) should be strengthened and given an expandedrole. An Environmental World Court of Justice should be established. The Earth Council inCosta Rica has proposed creation of an international Ombudsman to mediate and help resolveinternational disputes in the area of the environment. Such an Ombudsman could be veryhelpful.

The world religions are in a position to play a critical role in the emergingtransnational civil society, advancing the social, economic, and political transformationsthat are essential to planetary well-being in the future.¹⁴ However, if thereligions are to be a constructive influence, they must come to accept and take to heartthe ideas of a multicultural world community and religious pluralism, and they mustembrace their responsibility to be leaders in building this pluralistic world community.This means shedding the nationalistic, ethnocentric, and imperialistic elements in theirworldviews and visions of world order. It means embracing the democratic ideals ofuniversal human rights, tolerance, and respect for diversity as some religious groups havedone. Without such changes in the religions, there is no hope for an end to war and forpeace on Earth.

In order to help build the new multi-cultural world community, the religions mustexpand and deepen the process of interfaith dialogue.¹⁵ The purpose of dialogueis to develop mutual understanding, to clarify differences, and to work together onidentifying shared ethical values and constructing the new global ethics for a sustainableand equitable world community. Dialogue can also lead to mutual transformation. Thechallenge to the leadership of the religions is to model for the nations and peoples ofthe world the mutual respect and spirit of community that is the path to peace, freedom,justice, and sustainability on Earth. Embracing the ideal of a community of the religionsdoes not mean creation of some new religion that is a synthesis of various traditions orthe suppression of commitment to what is unique and distinctive in particular traditions.Further, within a healthy world community there should be full and vigorous debate wherethere are significant moral differences pertaining to matters of common concern.

The religions have the additional critical responsibility to offer people spiritualdisciplines and practices that will help them grow ethically and spiritually in waysconsistent with the development of a planetary civilization. Methods for thetransformation of consciousness are urgently needed. Humanity is creating communicationssystems and financial systems that are causing globalization, but in many cases the moraland religious consciousness of people reflect earlier technological, social, economic, andpolitical stages of development. This is part of the spiritual confusion that afflictssociety today. Our growing economic, ecological, and social interdependence is generatinga new global consciousness, but the new consciousness has yet to acquire the spiritualdepth needed to build real world community. As the Indian philosopher Radhakrishnanexplained: "The supreme task of our generation is to give soul to the growing worldconsciousness."¹⁶

The religions have an opportunity to play a leadership role in helping people throughthis time of transition by creating symbols, rituals, and practices that promote valuesthat support world peace, universal respect for human rights, sustainable development, alove for Earth, and respect for all life. To fulfill their destinies as sources ofhealing, reconciliation, and liberation, the religions must themselves evolve with thesocial, economic, and ecological world of which they are a part and become sources ofinspiration for the transformation of consciousness and the reconstruction of socialinstitutions. Acceptance of this challenge--and many religious communitieshave accepted it--will mean new vitality for religious institutions, and fresh hope forthe world.

In conclusion, in a modernized, globalized, and multi-cultural world, the insights andethical implications of ecology are essential elements in any sound vision of a securefuture for the Earth community.

1 Vaclav Havel, "The New Measure of Man," New York Times, July8, 1994, Op-Ed page.

2 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of WorldOrder (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), pp. 320-21.

3 Implementing Sustainable Development: Experiences and Recommendations fromNational and Regional Consultations for the Rio+5 Forum, first edition (Earth Council,1997), p. 2.

4 "The United Nations in Its Second Half-Century," A Report of theIndependent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations (New Haven: Yale UniversityPrinting Service, 1995), p. 4.

5 Richard A. Falk, Samuel S. Kim, and Saul H. Mendlovitz, The United Nationsand A Just World Order, in Studies On A Just World Order, No. 3 (San Francisco:Westview Press, 1991), pp. 419-26, 433-46.

6 Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story: From the PrimordialFlaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era--A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos (SanFrancisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992), pp. 71-79, 243-44.

7 For a clear discussion of humanity's moral responsibilities to nonhumanspecies and ecosystems, see James Nash, Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity andChristian Responsibility (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1991), chs. 6 and 7. Nashwrites from a Christian theological perspective, but his balanced approach will be foundinstructive by anyone interested in ecological ethics. See also Roderick Frazier Nash, TheRights of Nature, A History of Environmental Ethics (Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin Press, 1989).

8 Havel, "The New Measure of Man," New York Times, July 8,1994.

9 See Implementing Sustainable Development, pp. 2-12.

10 Ibid., pp. 3-4.

11 Richard Falk, "Our Millennial Challenge," in Humanity (July1996), Premier, pp. 19-21.

12 Andre de Moor and Peter Calamai, Subsidizing Unsustainable Development:Undermining the Earth with Public Funds (The Earth Council, 1997), pp. 1-8, 49-58.

13 Steven Rockefeller, "The Earth Charter: A Vision for the Future," Ecodecision24 (Spring 1997), 70-72.

14 See, for example, the discussion in Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations,pp. 20, 42, 66-68.

15 See the excellent discussion of interfaith dialogue and pluralism in DianaEck, Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozemanto Banaras (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993).

16 As quoted in Diana Eck, Encountering God, p. 202. See S.Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1959), p. 2.