Has the Climate Crisis been downgraded in the wake of the RCP 8.5 cancellation?
From the Encyclical;
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE LEO XIV
ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON
IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEINTRODUCTION
1. Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” [1] In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.
…
5. It now falls to us to face the challenges of our time with clarity of thought and responsibility. It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world.” [7] In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.
…
10. We must, then, avoid the “[Tower of] Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. The risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise. Instead, let us choose the “way of Nehemiah,” which highlights the importance of working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles. Rebuilding today means recognizing that, precisely from the plurality of voices and visions which, even though they sometimes remind us of the confusion caused by the diversity of spoken languages, a bright possibility emerges. Indeed, this is the possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity. Within this shared task, Christians discover their unique role of guiding actions toward God so that, in his light, pluralism does not dissipate into disorder, but instead, through the practice of synodality, it becomes the space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and its final end. In the Book of Revelation, John sees the New Jerusalem “coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev 21:2) as a gift for all humanity. And this vision of grace is an invitation for us Christians to work together in order to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within today’s “cities.”
…
[The word “Climate” doesn’t appear until 81, though Laudato Si’ and the environment are mentioned earlier]
81. A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the People of God on the move. [109] They are people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.
…
Read more: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html
I predicted back in 2017 that artificial intelligence would be the next great scare, the replacement for the climate scare.
The United Nations has jumped on artificial intelligence, creating an AI IPCC. Democrats are increasingly embracing AI as a big issue to sway voters in the upcoming midterms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hilighted AI as a threat last November.
All we need is for leading climate figures like Michael Mann to re-invent themselves as artificial intelligence experts, and the transition to the new scare campaign will be complete – Mann has already started issuing warnings about AI.
…
Mann also highlighted the role of artificial intelligence, cautioning that we now face the risk of infinite disinformation, where misleading narratives can be endlessly generated, recycled, and amplified at unprecedented scale. He closed by emphasizing that urgency must be paired with agency. The most meaningful individual action, he said, is joining collective action that drives systemic change.
…
Read more: https://www.climaterealityeurope.org/post/climate-misinformation-webinar-with-michael-e-mann-robin-millington-and-anna-siewiorek
The narrative might change, but the faces stay the same.
“It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power.”
Romans 13 says that God has delegated out to the “authorities” the sword, to act as a servant, to be an avenger of God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
I’m not seeing AI or “technological power” mentioned anywhere in the 10 Commandments, the Mosaic Law, nor in the Sermon on the Mount. I haven’t read any commentaries written over the centuries on the Tower of Babel that assigns the pursuit of technological power as being the trigger to initiate Divine Intervention.
So I’m not sure what this form of “justice” this imposter is referencing. Also, I didn’t know that “adequate regulatory tools” was the new Eye For An Eye, Tooth For A Tooth. As a C-Level officer of an AI firm, or as a heavy investor of the technology, what does that confession booth before the priest look like?
Stay in your lane, Pope.
“We must, then, avoid the “[Tower of] Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. ”
In Catholic theology, God’s response to Babel — confounding their speech and scattering them — is viewed not merely as a punitive strike, but as an act of divine mercy and preservation. The reversal appeared at Pentecost reversed the chaos and confusion of multiple languages as the Holy Spirit allowed people of all different languages to understand the message.
So the Pope here, is ignoring the meta-narrative and is speaking as if a full reversion to the monoculture of Babel was once upon us. He is acting as if God placed sunset language in the scattering of the people. This encyclical is actually heterodoxy.
Let me offer you this amusing story about AI. It concerns a document that was recently issued by the Catholic Church. The story comes from The Pillar.
This week, the synodal secretariat issued its outline text for the final phase of the global synodal process — yes, that’s still a thing, and a lot more on this in a moment. The document contained the usual amount of impenetrable and obtuse verbiage about “concrete modalities” and similar gibberish.
So, I ran the whole synodal document through an AI detector, and what do you think it found?
“Ah HA!” you might reasonably conclude, “I knew these synodal docs sounded like they were written by glitching robots! Now I have the proof I need to ignore them completely!”
But not so fast.
AI is an unreliable source. And AI detectors are just AI products, so why trust them either? Indeed, I don’t.
So I ran the text through as many AI detectors as I was willing to make time for and wouldn’t you know, one concluded the opposite — that the text was 75% human and 25% robot.
Another announced that the synodal doc was 99% human work, but here’s the kicker: the 1% of the text it flagged as obviously AI were the Gospel quotes.
So according to the robots, the words of Our Lord are AI and the “concrete modalities” are as human as it gets.
My point here is that trusting AI to make any kind of discernment of its own, or render any kind of qualitative assessment of human thought, is a mug’s game.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/god-and-robots-the-end-of-a-synod
Artificial intelligence is a tool. We should learn how to use it. Personally, I support labeling “artistic” works that are entirely generated by AI. If people then want to acquire them as much as they like, why not? If a market develops for that, after all.
The question of how much AI assistance is acceptable for artists is an interesting one from the perspective of aesthetic philosophy. For my part, I defend the idea that innate talents exist, but that they will come to nothing unless they are cultivated through practice.
In my view, AI should remain a tool for learning and cross-checking information. Too many people ask a chatbot, “Tell me, what should I think about this or that?” That is where the beginning of the end lies.
And besides, entrusting the entire creation of a painting to AI mostly shows an obsession with the end result. The result matters, of course. But we tend to delegate boring and mind-numbing tasks to machines. The pile of administrative paperwork (as tall as the Tower of Babel) that no demon would want in any circle of Hell under his responsibility, for example… Considering art as a result rather than as a practice that leads to results, in infinitely sad.
AI is a tool. A hammer is a tool. It can be used to build something or destroy something (or kill someone).
Which it does depends on who controls it.
My pocket calculator is a tool. It can solve a math problem more accurately and much more quickly than I can. Did I just use it to calculate the area of a circle or the blast radius of a dirty bomb?
AI is a very advanced tool that can be used for good or evil. It doesn’t know the difference. It can’t.
IIRC, the patent office has ruled that ‘art’ created by a monkey or the tail of an elephant had no creative element to it. If anything, it was the human that decided when to stop the painting and put the result up for sale.
From a guy that’s in charge of an entire operation that is based solely on an ‘artificial history/story‘, he’s got SOME nerve…
I guess the invasion of Europe by a nuclear power, chess game of the middle east by IRGC proxy countries, and eradication of Christians in Africa did not make the list.
The Pope tells people that it is possible for a dead person to become alive again. He encourages others to believe in this miracle that has never been replicated because without that belief, they will lack a better life.
I support Pope-like people helping others to lead better lives. Guidance from sources like the Ten Commandments is better than preaching that (for extreme examples) it is ok to steal from others and harm and murder them.
Why does the Pope persist with the impossible miracle fabrication? It weakens credibility. If he believes in Life After Death, he might also believe that men can have babies or that CO2 in the air can trap heat or that AI can think in the abstract or that in the past religions have never been complicit in warfare.
Sir Walter Scott ca. 1808 “Oh, what a tangled web we weave….” Geoff S