Human agency
Human agency is the human capacity to act in ways that influence human communities and the human habitat (Schlosser 2019). The choices any acting person makes over time are influenced by culture and the evolution of culture (Harari, 2018; Graeber & Wengrow, 2021). The patriarchal culture of human supremacy has prevailed in "civilized" communities for at least ten millennia (Lerner, 1986), with nefarious social and ecological consequences. Human agency emanates from the choices a person makes to guide his or her actions. Can those choices evolve from patriarchy to communion, from competition to cooperation, from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism?
Moral agency is human agency guided by notions of right and wrong. The choices made are also influenced by culture, including religious traditions. All the major religious traditions are culturally patriarchal, and therefore share a propensity to competition (via proselytism) and male domination by brute force. The Christian ethos is no exception, as evidenced (in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, for example) by the vexing resistance to have women in ministerial roles that require sacramental ordination (Janzen, 2022). The Christian tradition of male hegemony as a divine right also has influenced, and continues to influence, human agency with regard to domination of other people and the use and abuse of natural resources. Examples are the Doctrine of Discovery that justified centuries of exploitative colonialism (Blakemore, 2022), now repudiated by the Vatican, and the enduring obsession about perpetual economic growth at the expense of ecosystems and the planetary biosphere (Fey, 2005; Daly & Farley, 2010).
Human agency pursuant to "an ecocentric worldview that finds intrinsic (inherent) value in all of nature and the ecosphere" (Washington et al., 2022) is a significant departure from patriarchal anthropocentrism, whereby human supremacy over nature is assumed. In this essay, it is proposed that ecocentric human agency is absolutely necessary for the human species to flourish (in terms of quality of life) in our increasingly crowded and degraded planet. It could be sufficient to start a cultural revolution from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism. This radical cultural shift is also humanly possible (Daley, 2022); not easy, but possible (Eisler & Fry, 2019).
Gender shapes human agency
Gender shapes all human choices and all human actions, and therefore "shapes the world" (Aikhenvald, 2018). This is so because our bodies are (normally) male or female and because biophysical sex influences most deeply the subjective dimension of human beings. We are bodies, but we are more than bodies. We are consciously "acting persons" (Wojtyla, 1979), whence the Homo sapiens name of our species. Acting persons are masculine and feminine, and modern psychology (Sanford, 1980; Bele, 2021; Prasad, 2023) has elucidated that, even though human nature is male and female, there is woman in man (anima) and there is man in woman (animus). So, it is not a matter of man and woman being a mutually exclusive binary. There is mutuality, but not a rigid natural divide. The male and the female of the human species are relationally complementary but fully homogeneous in one and the same human nature (John Paul II, 1981, 1997, 2006; Gutierrez, 2020; Waldstein, 2021).
It is now commonly understood that sex is biophysical, sexuality is biopsychological, and gender is sociocultural. These distinctions are useful approximations as long as the realities of gender fluidity are recognized. However, just as the rigid patriarchal binary is a cultural distortion of reality, so it is to separate sex, sexuality, and gender as different realities that can be separated and intermixed at will, and artificially manipulated. Sex, sexuality, and gender can be distinguished but cannot be separated (Hruz, 2023). For this reason, "human development, if not engendered, is endangered." (ul Haq, 1995). It is not possible to develop man without woman, or woman without man. It is not possible to have one culture for men, and another for women. Humanity is male and female, not male or female. Patriarchal gender ideology, by separating what cannot be separated, and dictating that man is superior to woman, distorts human development and, in particular, human development in harmony with the human habitat.
This brief discussion on the gender dimension of human agency is by no means intended to imply support for human supremacy. On the contrary, as we shall argue later in this essay, the misconception about human supremacy, or human superiority over non-human nature, is a key driver of overpopulation, overconsumption, and ecological overshoot. And it is not only a matter of male supremacy, as it is well known that women who internalize patriarchy can become as patriarchal as the male patriarchs. To mention the criticality of human agency is simply to recognize that, while humans are an integral part of nature, it is humans (both men and women) who are the principal agents in compromising the integrity of planet Earth as a habitat that supports life (all life!). A transition from our anthropocentric techno-industrial civilization to an ecocentric civilization in a cohabitable planet is practically impossible as long as the patriarchal delusion of human supremacy persists in both secular and religious institutions worldwide.
A note on personal sexuality and gender is in order. While it is recognized that many persons are not either heterosexual or homosexual (thus the perception of a fluid gender continuum), and many persons do not identify with current gender classifications, no attempt is made here to elucidate complex and as yet ill-defined personal issues of sexuality, gender, and gender dysphoria. In this essay, the focus is on humanity, male and female, and the mutuality between humans and the human habitat, which includes the concrete biophysical totality of the planet that is our "common home" (Francis, 2015). In this regard, it is also noteworthy that while the subjugation of nature is a consequence of stone age conditioning pursuant to human survival (Casteillo, 2022a, 2022b), the oppression of women may also have emerged as an extension of such ancient behavioral evolution: the dominant species subjugating the biosphere eventually led to the stronger members of the species (men) subjugating the weaker members (women, weaker men) in order to accumulate resources needed for survival, enhance comfort, and enhance pleasure. Thus, the origin of slavery, which even today subsists albeit disguised in various ways with various degrees of oppression (wage slavery, debt slavery, sexual abuse, child labor, etc.).
Patriarchal modes of human agency
Traditionally, ecology is defined as "the study of the interrelationship between organism and their environment," whereas integral ecology "is the study of the subjective and objective aspects of organisms in relationship to their intersubjective and interobjective environments at all levels of depth and complexity" (Esbjorn-Hargens, 2011). In other words, an integral ecology requires analysis of both the objective and subjective dimensions of all organisms, human and otherwise. This is a radical departure from a patriarchal human ecology (what we now have) which takes into account only the objective dimension of organisms and then separates and classifies them only in terms of their practical utility for humans. A patriarchal ecology views human beings as dominant animals with large, uniquely smart brains. An integral ecology views human beings as personal subjects living in relation with each other and with "the entire community of creation" (Bauckham, 2010). A patriarchal ecology values non-human organisms as objects to be used for human benefit. An integral ecology values non-human organisms as living beings to be communed with for mutual benefit, thus enriching the web of life.
In secular society, the patriarchal mode of human agency manifests itself as various forms of domination. Seeking domination for material gain is the essence of the patriarchal modus operandi. Domination of what? Domination of women by men. Domination of humans by more powerful humans. And last, but not least, domination of the entire ecosphere by humans. After millennia of habitual patriarchal behavior, the propensity to dominate has become so ingrained that it is now like "second nature" even for men and women of good will. People often do cooperate in moments of emergency, but otherwise tend to compete for resources. Is this really natural? Is this inherent to human nature?
Scholars continue to discuss emerging evidence that cooperation, and more benign and egalitarian forms of governance, were normative in prehistorical hunter-gatherer communities. But there is compelling historical evidence that patriarchal norms started proliferating in "civilized" societies after the Agricultural Revolution, 10,000 years or so ago. Domination by brute force, ranging from domestic violence to international wars, has been all too common since the inception of human history. The process of patriarchalization unfolded over centuries, in many different ways in different regions of the world. Migrations played a part. Invasions played a part. Most migrants and invaders were men, always eager to look for women in newly occupied territories. Slavery emerged, and for millennia was rationalized as "natural law" to enhance the power of the powerful to oppress other humans and subjugate nature. Not insignificantly, slavery started with the sexual slavery of women, which is now officially outlawed in most countries but still continues to happen under various disguises.
In modern times, domination by financial force is also a common phenomenon. Money leads to power, and the accumulation of capital leads to the accumulation of power (Mies, 1986, 1998, 2014; Heinberg, 2021). Controlling information and knowledge is another form of domination. After the Industrial Revolution, the capacity to dominate mostly belongs to those who control fossil fuels and their enormous energy content. Economies run on energy. Many other natural resources are necessary, but energy is the most universal resource. Nothing moves without energy. Thus, access to oil (the "black gold") is a decisive factor in world geopolitics. The horrible ecological devastation that ensues from burning oil and other fossil fuels is well known (Carson, 1962; Fey, 2005; Odum, 2007; Curry, 2011; Hall & Klitgaard, 2012; Seibert & Rees, 2021).
There is also a religious dimension to patriarchal human agency (White, 1967). The conflation of social and religious patriarchy is an insidious subconscious reinforcer of both the oppression of women and the subjugation of nature. Just as human languages emerged tainted by the patriarchal mindset (Aikhenvald, 2018), even more so were religious traditions. The Bible, for example, started to be written ca. 1000 BCE, long after patriarchy had become "natural law." Thus, we read in Genesis 1:28, "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth." Genesis 2:15 would seem to temper the subjugation mandate with a parallel mandate to "cultivate and care" for the land. But Genesis 3:16 states: "To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”" This is how the Bible reveals the patriarchal curse as the first and most universal consequence of "original sin."
This patriarchal mindset of dominion and subjugation was enshrined as "divine law" with ubiquitous derivative consequences that continue to reverberate worldwide to this day -- overpopulation, overconsumption, and overshoot of the planetary biocapacity to regenerate renewable resources (Seibert & Rees, 2021). In his most recent encyclicals, Pope Francis debunks domination over "our common home" as a distortion of the biblical text, but studiously evades debunking male domination over women by not including 3:16 (Francis, 2015) and writes about "fraternity between men and women" (Francis, 2020) thereby etymologically reducing, at least in the title, solidarity to fraternity, which is usually understood as brotherhood. What about sisterhood? This is not just a matter of semantics. Incredibly, there are still extreme cases of religious "gender apartheid" in today's world, with girls not being allowed to go to school. Patriarchy has a long tail.
Resistance to change and temporary setbacks notwithstanding, the patriarchal era of human history is passing away. Feminism, a sign of the times, has been challenging the patriarchal mode of human agency for over a hundred years now. Even if the patriarchal mindset is never totally eradicated, the emergence of women as equal partners with men in all social institutions is irreversible (Biewen, 2022; Curry, 2011; Folbre, 2020; Gutierrez, 2021a; Hawthorne, 2019; Jensen, 2017; Johnson, 2014; Lerner, 1993; Lorber, 2022; McElvaine, 2001; Naranjo, 1994; Rippon, 2019; ul Haq, 1995; Washington, 2022; Saini, 2023). Lamentably, some religious institutions have been the most formidable obstacles to feminism and preservers of patriarchy (Chakkalakal, 2023; McElwee, 2023). Every conceivable doctrinal rationalization is still being used in some Christian churches to prevent accepting women as pastors and/or priests (Gutierrez, 2021b, 2022), thereby cementing the male supremacy mindset and, since the etymology of "nature" is female, also reinforcing the myth of human supremacy over nature for billions of Christians. Some other religions remain overtly misogynistic.
So, we have developed languages, social institutions, and religious institutions that are rooted in patriarchy. Is it surprising that patriarchal modes of human agency have thus far prevailed in human-to-human and human-to-nature relations? Going forward, is it conceivable that human civilization can evolve away from patriarchy and toward less anthropocentric and more ecocentric modes of human agency? To explore this possibility, we must reconsider biophysical and human realities as they are actually embedded in the ecosphere, vacuuming the dust of ancient myths and filtering out the noise of our modern techno-industrial ethos.
Vacuuming the dust of ancient falsehoods
Many ancient errors have already been clarified and corrected in recent centuries, but the patriarchal binary sticks around as one of the most ubiquitous and confusing categorizations ever invented by Homo sapiens:
"Agricultural societies institutionalized many new behaviors, including racist practices and mass religion, which cemented the global subordination of women to men... That gender differential is the most pervasive inequity of the new abnormal ..., one that a political movement in the United States is struggling to exacerbate along with institutional inequity... both of which would have been impossible in hunter–gatherer bands..." (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2022)
A psychoanalytic hypothesis elaborated by Gilligan & Snider (2018) is that patriarchy persists not only because those in power resist relinquishing power but also because it serves a psychological need. Patriarchy "steels us against the vulnerability of loving and by doing so becomes a defense against loss." Loss of what? Loss of acceptance. Loss of reputation. "Any dismantling of patriarchy poses a threat not simply to status and power but to psychological defenses that protect us from what have become some of our deepest fears and most shameful desires." It is about fear of losing connections, and fear of losing masks we want to wear. This hypothesis makes sense, because we are social animals and "loss" refers to loss of connections with people we care about and in turn expect us to act in certain ways. Humans generally want to belong to something bigger than ourselves, even going beyond family and community. And what about loss of inner connection to the divine?
Before speculating about ethereal relations between humans and deities, let's try to elucidate the reasons for the resilience of the patriarchal binary on verifiable grounds. Is the patriarchal binary demonstrably an ancient error that should be filtered out of the minds and hearts of people in the foreseeable future? Sex, sexuality, and gender are observable realities and uniquely so in each and every person, and in all dimensions of life, so it is impossible to discuss them all at once. Let's consider the concrete totality of the human person, whence all other dimensions radiate, trying to elucidate what is good and truthful about the patriarchal binary, and should be kept, and what should be filtered out as false and harmful to humans and the ecosphere.
In the personal dimension, there is no question that most humans are sexually embodied, male or female, except for a tiny intersex minority. So, the sex binary is a close approximation to objective reality. Subjectively, sexuality is more fluid, ranging from heterosexual to homosexual, so the binary is a good model of individual human bodies, but not so much so when it comes to personal subjects, human relations, and human agency. This is where the rigid patriarchal binary breaks down. It departs from reality even more as we consider deeply subjective issues of gender identity. So, the rigid patriarchal binary creates artificial gender stereotypes that precludes participation by certain persons in activities, other than procreation, in which they are perfectly capable of participating. A man cannot be a mother, and a woman cannot be a father. Other than that, any other form of sex-related categorization is culturally conditioned, and therefore not inherently natural. Such categorizations are also pernicious as they exclude persons from vocations that they are otherwise perfectly capable to follow. Let men be men and women be women, and let also filter out all ancient stereotypes that no longer contribute to life.
Exclusivist gender categorizations are detrimental to individual persons and the common good in many ways. In family life, they lead to arbitrary (and often abusive) decisions on division of labor, educational opportunities, etc. In the social dimension, we are now discovering that women are perfectly capable of engaging in most jobs and professions, including roles of authority in both the private and public sectors. In the economic and ecological dimensions, patriarchal capitalism and/or patriarchal socialism treat natural resources as valueless externalities, just as female labor was practically valueless until rather recently, and for the same reason: men are, generally, physically stronger than women, and male supremacy translates to human supremacy in dealing with non-human nature. It is this extrapolation from brute force superiority to social superiority that makes the patriarchal binary a formidable obstacle to further human flourishing in a planet that is now becoming overcrowded, overexploited, and overcomplicated.
When we consider the religious dimension, things get really complicated. When all female deities were discarded, and God became exclusively male at the inception of the patriarchal epoch, the oppression of women became "natural" and the subjugation of non-human nature also became "natural." As Mary Daly (1973) pointed out, "If God is male, then the male is God." Patriarchy remade God to be in the image of men. Thus the culture of male supremacy, whence human supremacy follows in relation to the human habitat. The power of fossil fuels triggered the industrial revolution and the energy surplus that in turn induced exponential population and consumption growth during the 20th century, and the industrialized global insanity we have today. But human overshoot was not inevitable. The root cause of human overshoot is patriarchal human agency, and this was latent in the culture since the Agricultural Revolution. The power of fossil fuels exacerbated what was already there: the insatiable patriarchal desire for expansion and domination, reinforced by omnipotent male gods and patriarchal religious traditions.
As we enter the Anthropocene (Biewen, 2022), we need to outgrow patriarchal anthropology and phallocentric theology:
"Human relations to nature are profoundly interconnected with issues about gender and sexuality. Simultaneously, the tension between domination and control versus love and recognition is not only a question about what is given priority in culture. It is a question about how ideals about gender modulate the inner psychological world of humans in ways that shape relationships with other humans and toward nature. Hence, it is necessary to develop a critical approach to prevailing and still dominant attitudes toward gender and analyze how it may be connected with humans' relationship with nature." (Henriksen, 2023)
And what about losing an inner connection to the divine? For believers, connection to the divine is critical and reaches inward to the deepest layers of personal subjectivity. If God is not a divine patriarch who is both omnipotent and benevolent, their personal agency is totally disoriented. The self in men in weakened, and they compensate by discarding the need for relationships, especially with women (including Mother Nature) and gravitate toward male-only clubs; the self in women is hardened, and they compensate by rigid adherence to hierarchical patriarchy and/or hierarchical matriarchy, which is as harmful as patriarchy (cf. Gilligan & Snider, 2018). All manner of violence ensues and is rationalized as "natural," and this undoubtedly includes a disregard for ecological ethics (Curry, 2011), let alone any sense of communion with non-human nature.
This explains the almost universal (and often visceral) rejection of Limits to Growth and other similar calls for ecological sanity (Meadows et al., 1972, 2004; Bardi and Alvarez Pereira, 2022; Johnson, 2015; Shiva, 2015; Ripple et al., 2021; Washington, 2022) even when abundant evidence is emerging about the absurdity of illusions that technological breakthroughs will come to the rescue of "business as usual" (Fey, 2005; Hall, 2017; Seibert & Rees, 2021; Shiva, 2020; Zehner, 2012). Appeals by respected religious authorities (e.g., Francis, 2015, 2020) are also ignored, or regarded as utopian, possibly because, deep down, believers don't want to hear from religious patriarchs who would disturb their personal comfort by ceasing to be patriarchs that represent patriarchal divinities.
Filtering out the noise of quick techno-fixes
Even though the internal psychological forces are the most crucial, and filtering them out is indispensable, there are plenty of external forces that also need to be filtered out, notably the noisy myth about technology being the solution to all social and ecological issues. Patriarchal capitalism incentivizes profiteering by promising quick techno-fixes to every problem. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of energy. Solar panels. Windmills. Electric vehicles. Hydrogen. Never mind that these "renewable" energy sources cannot possibly deliver the power required to sustain the global industrial system (Hall & Klitgaard, 2012; Hall, 2017; Heinberg, 2021; Seibert & Rees, 2021; Zehner, 2012). We continue to hear about absurdities such as "clean coal" and "sustainable aviation fuel." Lab experiments that cannot possibly be scaled up for commercial deployment are heralded as breakthroughs to reassure the public that human civilization can keep growing forever.
Advertising encourages people to keep consuming all kinds of superfluous merchandise, merrily borrowing fiat money along the way. Demographic and ecological side effects are never mentioned. The only thing that really matters is to keep growing the economy. We can send rockets to the moon, and electronic media assures us that money and human creativity will be able to reverse the entropy law. Eventually, money cannot buy what doesn't exist or has been ruined beyond repair, but that's OK as long as we can keep a positive profit margin one quarter at a time. Never mind the animals (Johnson, 2015) and biodiversity decimation (WWF, 2022). Never mind the poor, the debt slaves, the wage slaves, child labor, toxic pollution, deforestation, etc. Never mind keeping the planet habitable for future generations. Human "creativity" keeps forging ahead with the latest electronic widgets and social media platforms to keep people hypnotized in virtual reality. Such is the nature of patriarchal capitalism -- and patriarchal socialism is just patriarchal capitalism turned inside out. The future is now. Tomorrow, "God will provide."
Flourishing of all life in an ecocentric civilization
Human agency cannot work miracles. Humans are responsible for taking care of the ecosphere, but the state of the ecosphere in turn dictates what humans can do. What is the current state of the ecosphere? Eight billion people are inhabiting it, and extracting and consuming resources as much as the power of fossil fuels enables them, to the point of overshooting the biocapacity to regenerate what has been consumed. How can we restore biocapacity? How can we ensure that human numbers and human consumption realigns with biocapacity for long term flourishing of both humanity and the ecosphere?
"All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution" (Francis, 2015; cf. Casteillo, 2023).
But how is such a "bold cultural revolution" to materialize? The "bottom line" of this essay is that a radical renewal of humanity, in both the subjective and objective dimensions, is a necessary condition for attaining mutuality between humans and the ecosphere, and may be sufficient to get us moving in that direction. It is necessary, because humans require clean air, clean water, and clean food to live. This is the corporal, objective, readily understandable dimension of the renewal. It may be sufficient, because ecocentric human agency pursuant to population and consumption degrowth can renew human relations and restore the ecosphere to the point of sustaining life for a finite number of humans. This is the psychological, subjective, most difficult dimension of the renewal. Both dimensions of the renewal are feasible, because the instinct of survival can and will override other priorities when biophysical realities threaten human extinction. The question yet to be answered is how much pain and suffering humans can absorb before they are willing to face the impossibility of infinite material growth in a finite planet.
The paths toward an ecocentric flourishing of life on Earth are innumerable and unpredictable, but all require transcending patriarchy in both the objective and subjective dimensions of human life and agency. It is not a matter of negating natural biophysical and psychological differences between man and woman. Rather, it is a matter of attaining full parity of man and woman as a "communion of persons" (John Paul II, 2006) so they can both fully become what they are and thus contribute to the integral human development of each person, objectively and subjectively, individually and collectively, in an integral ecology (Francis, 2015, 2020). So it is proposed that we move (in both social and religious institutions) from the rigid patriarchal binary of divisive gender stereotypes to more sensible human relations rooted in recognition of the full personhood of both man and woman, who are naturally complementary but also naturally homogeneous, i.e., consubstantial in one and the same human nature; so we can move from disunity to unity in diversity, from domination to parity in mutuality. How to go from here to there? By invoking the African principle of Ubuntu, which means "I am because we are," the kind of path to take and the kinds of paths to avoid can be summarized as follows:
"I am because we are" ~ This is the natural binary, balancing both self and mutuality in both men and women; humans are because other humans and the ecosphere are, and abide in an ecocentric culture that fosters solidarity and sustainability in both the objective and subjective dimensions of life. This is the kind of path to seek.
"I am because we are not" ~ This is a patriarchal binary of maximum self and minimum mutuality; strong humans are because other humans and the ecosphere are not, and therefore should be objectified and subjugated for the benefit of the strong humans. This is anthropocentric patriarchal masculinity, a kind of path to be avoided.
"I am not because we are" ~ This is a patriarchal binary of minimal self and maximum mutuality; some humans (women, weak men) are not because stronger humans are, and this is the traditional way of evading conflict and making things work. This is anthropocentric patriarchal femininity, whereby some women internalize patriarchy to the point of becoming as patriarchal as the male patriarchs. This is another path to avoid.
Ubuntu also applies to the interdependence between humans and the human habitat. There is a symmetry between man/woman relations and human/nature relations. Man abuse of woman, and human abuse of nature, go hand in hand. The converse is also true: human abuse of nature reverts to man abuse of woman, in a wicked vicious cycle that has not been broken since the inception of human history. It is now time to break it. Back to Ubuntu. We are because the biosphere is. We are because the ecosphere is. Sixty years after Silent Spring, and now more than ever before, "it seems reasonable to believe, that the more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for the destruction of our race. Wonder and humility are wholesome emotions, and they do not exist side by side with a lust for destruction" (Carson, 1962).
This is the great challenge we face in the 21st century and the 3rd millennium: to outgrow the patriarchal mindset of domination that has prevailed since time immemorial in order to give life -- all life -- a new chance to flourish in our planet, the only planet in the universe known to offer the conditions for life to emerge, evolve, and survive. For humans, such flourishing may entail a significant reduction in numbers (hopefully via responsible parenthood), moderation in the consumption of energy and nonessential merchandise, and minimization of waste. Then, future generations can refocus human agency on what really matters: integral human development of men and women in their masculinity and femininity, consciously embedded in an integral ecology.
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2018). How Gender Shapes the World. Oxford University Press.
Bardi, U. & Alvarez Pereira, C. Eds. (2022) Limits and Beyond: 50 Years on from The Limits to Growth what did we learn and what’s next? Exapt Press.
Bauckham, Richard. (2010). The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation. Baylor University Press.
Bele, Tiago (2021, February 17). Know Yourself — the Persona, the Shadow and the Anima/Animus Inside You. Medium.
Biewen, J. (2022, July 26). The Age of Dominion: Where does religion fit into the Anthropocene? Orion Magazine.
Blakemore, E. (2022, July 22). This 500-year-old Catholic decree encouraged colonization. Will the pope revoke it? National Geographic.
Carson, Rachel. (1962, 1990, 2002). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.
Casteillo, Benjamin. (2022a, May 25). Why Climate Change is the Symptom of a Much Deeper and Bigger Problem? Illuminem.
Casteillo, Benjamin. (2022b, July 15). The Unacknowledged Root Causes of Unsustainability. Illuminem.
Casteillo, Benjamin. (2023, February 17). Overcoming the Existential Challenges of the 21st Century Requires a Paradigm Shift. Illuminem.
Chakkalakal, Pauline (2023, March). Challenging Religious Patriarchy: Did Jesus Rule Out Women Priests?, Mother Pelican: A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability, Vol. 19 No. 3, . 24.
Curry, Patrick (2011). Ecological Ethics: An Introdution. Polity Books.
Daley, Eliza. (2022, September 6). Human Nature. By My Solitary Hearth.
Daly, M. (1973, 1993). Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation. Beacon Press.
Daly, H. & Farley, J. (2010). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Island Press.
Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. (2022, August). Returning to "Normal"? Evolutionary Roots of the Human Prospect. BioScience, Volume 72, Issue 8, pp. 778-788.
Eisler, R. & Fry, D. P. (2019). Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future. Oxford University Press.
Esbjorn-Hargens, S., Zimmerman, & M. E., Bekoff, M. (2011). Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World. Integral Books, pp. 168-169, 173.
Fey, W. R. (2005, February) The Energy Perspective: Oil and the Magical 4%. View from the Rainbow Bridge: Research Newsletter of Ecocosm Dynamics, Ltd. Volume 2, Number 1.
Folbre, Nancy (2020). The Rise and Decline of Patriarchal Systems: An Intersectional Political Economy. Verso Books.
Francis, Pope. (2015). Laudato si', on care for our common home. Vatican Press, Section 66.
Francis, Pope. (2020). Fratelli tutti, on fraternity and social friendship. Vatican Press, Section 8ff.
Gilligan, C. & Snider, N. (2018). Why Does Patriarchy Persist? Polity Books.
Graeber, D. & Wengrow, D. (2021). The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gutierrez, L. T. (2020, April). Humanity, Male and Female ~ Relational Complementarity in Consubstantial Unity. Mother Pelican: A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability, Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 24.
Gutierrez, L. T. (2021a, May 3). Musings on Human Supremacy, Religious Patriarchy, and Industrial Ecology. Resilience.
Gutierrez, L. T. (2021b, November 2). The Ecological Crisis is the Climax of Patriarchy and Religious Patriarchy – What’s Next? Countercurrents.
Gutierrez, L. T. (2022, August). From Homo economicus to Homo ecologicus ~ Sequel 8 ~ Gender Dynamics. Mother Pelican: A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability, Vol. 18, No. 8, p. 24.
Hall, C. A. S., & Klitgaard, K. A. (2012). Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy. Springer International Publishing.
Hall, C. A. S. (2017). Energy Return on Investment: A Unifying Principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability. Springer International Publishing.
Harari, Y. N. (2018). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper Perennial.
Hawthorne, S. (2019). VORTEX: The Crisis of Patriarchyinifex Press.
Heinberg, R. (2021). Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival. New Society Publishers.
Henriksen, J. (2023). Theological Anthropology in the Anthropocene: Reconsidering Human Agency and its Limits. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hruz, P. (2023, March 10). Towards a Scientifically Sound Analysis of the Problem of Gender Dysphoria. Church Life Journal.
Janzen, S. S. (2022). The Ministry of Women and the Merger of Church and State in Fourth-Century Christianity. Priscilla Papers, Vol 36 No 4, Autumn 2022.
Jensen, R. (2017). The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men. Spinifex Press.
John Paul II, Pope. (1981). Original Unity of Man and Woman ~ Catechesis on the Book of Genesis. St. Paul Editions, pp. 61-69.
John Paul II, Pope. (1997). The Theology of the Body ~ Human Love in the Divine Plan. Pauline Books & Media, pp. 42-45.
John Paul II, Pope. (2006). Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Translated by Michael Waldenstein. Pauline Books & Media, pp. 156-161.
Johnson, A. (2014). The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Temple University Press.
Johnson, E. (2015). Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. Bloomsbury Continuum.
Lerner, Gerda (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press.
Lerner, Gerda (1993). The Creation of Feminist Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Lorber, Judith (2022). The New Gender Paradox: Fragmentation and Persistence of the Binary. Polity Books.
McElwee, Kate (2023, March 7). The Evolution of Pope Francis on Women: Some Movement, But More Needed. National Catholic Reporter.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W.W., (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing.
McElvaine, R. S. (2001). Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History. McGraw-Hill.
Mies, Maria (1986, 1998, 2014). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Zed Books.
Naranjo, Claudio (1994). The End of Patriarchy and the Dawning of a Tri-une Society. Amber Lotus.
Rees, W. E. (2020, March). Ecological economics for humanity’s plague phase. Ecological Economics, 169.
Prasad, A. J. (2023, February 15). Jung's Archetypes: Persona, Anima, Animus, Shadow & Self. Different Truths.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Gregg, J. W., et al. (2021, July 28). World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021. BioScience.
Rippon, G. (2019). Gender and Our Brains: How New Neuroscience Explodes the Myths of the Male and Female Minds. Pantheon Books.
Saini, A. (2023). The Patriarchs: How Men Came to Rule/The Origins of Inequality, Penguin Random House, 2023.
Sanford, J. A. (1980). The Invisible Partner: How the Male and Female in Each of Us Affects Our Relationships. Paulist Press.
Seibert, M. K. & Rees, W. E. (2021).
Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies, 14(15), 4508.
Schlosser, M. (2019, October 28). Agency. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Shiva, Vandana. (2015). Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. North Atlantic Books.
Shiva, Vandana. (2020). Oneness vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom. Chelsea Green Publishing.
ul Haq, Mahbub. (1995). Human Development Report 1995. United Nations Development Programme, p. 1.
Waldstein, Michael M. (2021). Glory of the Logos in the Flesh ~ Saint John Paul's Theology of the Body, Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, pp.689-690.
Washington, H., Taylor, B., Kopnina, H., Cryer, P., & Piccolo, J. J. (2022, August 18). Statement of Commitment to Ecocentrism. The Ecological Citizen.
White, L. (1967, March 10). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155, pp. 1203–207.
Wojtyla, K. (1979). The Acting Person. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Analecta Husserliana, Volume 10, pp. 31ff.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature. (2022). Living Planet Report 2022. WWF-UK.
Zehner, O. (2012). Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism. University of Nebraska Press.
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)