The Apocalypse of Selfishness: The Great “So What?”

“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and lowering.' You know then how to discern the face of the sky, and can you not know the signs of the times?”
Matthew 16:2-4

It is my premise  that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, called Christ, and that it offers evidence that supports the claim of his resurrection within three days of his crucifixion. The scientific examination of the Shroud began with the Secondo Pia photographs in 1898. Until then,  the facts concerning the death and purported Resurrection were essentially matters of faith drawing on the four Gospels accounts, the Epistles of Christ’s apostles and oral traditions of cloudy provenance. There were even those who claimed that Christ never existed at all. Science has now provided a rock of fact to which believers may cling. But so what?

Here’s what: Humanity now faces an apocalyptical extinction as a species. Revelations and other apocalyptical writings have been until now mystical allegories and metaphors. But science is not prophesying in metaphors or allegories ‑ its prophecies of doom are based on hard facts.

The Apocalypse that threatens us is an apocalypse of selfishness. The heedless exploitation of our environment has resulted in multiple crises that demand immediate, concerted international cooperation and action, but the very apostles of selfishness that are driving humanity to the brink of extinction bar our way.

For prophecy of an apocalypse, let us turn to the current Roman Catholic Pope.

“Small yet strong in the love of God, like Saint Francis of Assisi, all of us, as Christians, are called to watch over and protect the fragile world in which we live, and all its peoples.
	Pope Francis ¶216 Evangelii Gaudium

Despite some criticisms from conservative elements in the Church, Francis has not retreated from his elevation of the environment to a religious issue. On May 21, 2014, Pope Francis told an audience; “If we destroy creation, creation will destroy us.”

Is Francis right? Was his statement hyperbole or prophecy? Creation destroying us! Is he prophesying an Apocalypse?

The Death of the Ocean, Mother of Life

The following piece was written by me in 1972 as a part of my studies for my Master's Degree in International law.of International Law degree at New York University. In concerns the prospect of prosecuting ocean polluters as for international crimes just as we prosecute pirates. The first section: The Death of the Ocean the Mother of life seems particularly relevant to environmental crisis we face today that now threatens the humanity with an "Apocalypse of Selfishness."

Reprinted from The International Lawyer, Vol.6, No. 4, October 1972 Page 706 
Copyright 1972 American Bar Association

Are Ocean Polluters Subject to Universal Jurisdiction: Canada Breaks the Ice

By John C. Klotz*

A.      The Death of the Ocean - Mother of Life

      Until now, human development has proceeded on the assumption  that the earth and its resources were created for the use and  exploitation by mankind, and were so plentiful that little  thought need be given to their ultimate exhaustion.(Nte. 1) In terms  of ecology, man's economic theories have advanced little beyond  those of the Stone Age: "slash and burn" agricultural communities  who roam the world's tropical forests, slashing and burning trees  to create small plots for cultivation, and when the soil is soon  exhausted, moving on to another part of the forest to slash and  burn again.

      Similarly, modern man has exploited the resources of the  earth with such reckless abandon, that the human race is now  faced with an ecological crisis of unbelievable complexity. We  now know that the earth's resources are limited, with the points  of exhaustion of many of the most basic resources near at hand,  and that exploitation and industrialization are exacting such a  fearful toll that life, as we now know it, may be doomed to  extinction.(Nte. 2)

      Perhaps the most obvious of the world's endangered  ecological systems is the ocean.(Nte. 3) Ocean waters cover  four-fifths of the earth's surface. Its interaction with the  atmosphere determines weather and climate and each influences in  many ways the composition of the other.(Nte. 4) Over 70 percent of the  atmosphere's oxygen was created by ocean organisms.(Nte. 5) The ocean  is

   707

 an integral part of the world's food supply and an important  communications link between the continents. Thus, the destruction  or alteration of the ocean's ecosystems would threaten the  earth's supply of oxygen, lead to the possibility of seriously  altered climates and threaten destruction of an important source  of the world's present and future food supply.(Nte. 6)

      Yet, the evidence seems conclusive that serious, destructive  pollution of the ocean has occurred, is continuing virtually  unabated and will become worse in the future. It may very well be  that the future of the ocean will be a replay of the destruction  and death of many smaller bodies of fresh water, such as Lake  Erie.(Nte. 7) Indeed, some of the ocean's constituent parts such as  the Baltic and the Mediterranean are well along the road to  becoming dead seas.(Nte. 8) Even the huge expanse of the Atlantic was  found by members of Thor Heyerdahl's Ra expedition, to be "one  big garbage dump."(Nte. 9)

      One of the most persistent pollutants now entering the ocean  in large quantities is oil. Estimates as to the quantity of oil  added to the marine environment vary from about 4.5 million tons  to no less than 10 million tons.(Nte. 10) Although the effects of oil  pollution have not I been completely determined, it is apparent  that continuing, unabated pollution of the oceans by oil  threatens the functioning of many of the oceans' important  life-supporting ecosystems. At the least, oil pollution has  succeeded in destroying much of the enjoyment and recreation that  man has traditionally found in the ocean, and has reduced the  ocean's capacity to produce fish fit for human consumption.

      Not all the oil found in the ocean is of human origin. In  addition to the millions of tons added by man, a nearly equal  amount of hydro-carbons may be added by natural processes.(Nte. 11)  However, nature has evolved, over millions of years, methods of  coping with the dangers caused by natural pollutants. The sudden  addition by man of vast quantities of unnatural pollutants  overwhelms the natural processes, and takes away from nature its  most important asset-time. In the modern world, the expanding  activi-

   708    

 ty of man, the polluter, has destroyed time and there is precious  little left.(Nte. 12) Despite the well-documented prophesies of  disaster and the catastrophes already endured, it is not likely  that mankind will voluntarily curtail its pollution-causing  activities. The immediate prospect is for increased oil pollution  as the worldwide search for oil causes further exploitation of  off-shore wells, and increased reliance on ocean shipping of  oil.(Nte. 13) Thus, the battle lines are being drawn between  "economists" who feel the need for further exploitation and  regard the environment as a subsidiary  concern, and the  "ecologists" who feel that the survival of the race is dependent  on placing primary concern on environmental problems.(Nte. 14)

 B.      The International Community and Oil Pollution

      Although the efforts of the international community to cope  with oil pollution date back to at least 1926, the extent of the  present crisis is a measure of its failure. In 1926, a convention  relating to international oil pollution was drafted but not  ratified. However, in 1954, an International Convention for the  Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil was adopted.(Nte. 15)  Although it was subsequently amended, its inherent weakness was  such that in 1969, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative  Organization (IMCO) promulgated at its Brussels Conference two  new conventions: the "International Convention on Civil Liability  for Oil Pollution Damage"(Nte. 16) and the "International Convention  relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil  Pollution Casualties."(Nte. 17)

      Despite the fact that the IMCO convention followed by forty  years the initial pollution control efforts of 1926, and despite  the fact that by 1969, maritime oil pollution was clearly a major  world problem, the net result of

      709  

 the conventions was to impose limited civil liability on the  owners and operators of oil tankers, require insurance to cover  such damages, and authorize limited intervention on the high seas  after maritime casualties. The shallowness and limited utility of  this approach was argued forcefully by the Canadian government at  Brussels. In light of the structural domination of lMCO by  maritime states with a vested interest in ocean commerce, it is  not surprising that the Canadian arguments did not carry the  day.(Nte. 18)

 C.      The Canadian Action

 1.      The Frustrations of the Multi-Lateral Approach

      ... The Canadian experience was rather unfortunate when they explored possibilities of action within the U.N. apparatus. At the same time there was a rather diffuse interest in the various organs and agencies, there was also, clearly, almost a pre-emption of the possibility of early and direct action by lMCO, which was clearly not an agency, in view of its interest in facilitating maritime commerce, that could take the sort of broad approach that was necessary for this type of problem. Canada was not only rebuffed at the Brussels Conference held last year, but actually received clear indications of reluctance on the part of some governments to assume any responsibility or become involved in this issue. Consequently, Canada felt obliged to take unilateral action that would meet the need of protection in the Arctic environment. It was partly conceived as a goad to the international community to take constructive action.(Nte. 19)

      The problems of ocean pollution are intensified by the  extreme climate of the Arctic region. While 50 percent of spilled  oil in a temperate zone might be oxidized within a week, oil  spilled in the Arctic may persist as long as fifty years.(Nte. 20)  Thus, events in the Arctic led to Canada's desperate attempts at  Brussels to put teeth into the international community's attempts  to combat oil pollution.

      In the summer of 1969, the oil tanker U.S. Manhattan  successfully navigated the Northwest Passage through the Canadian  Arctic to the new oil fields on the Alaskan north slope. The  conflict between the economists and the ecologists was brought  into sharp focus. Alaskan oil was regarded as vital by oil  interests in the United States and ocean shipping would result in  a cost saving of nearly $600,000 a day.(Nte. 21)

      Meanwhile, the ecologists foresaw the devastating results a  major oil

      710  

 spill might have on the Arctic environment. Shortly after the  Brussels conference, an oil spill occurred in northern waters off  Nova Scotia when the tanker Arrow grounded. Although only a small  spill, the potential for a larger disaster was clear, and  Canada's apprehensions were not eased when the owner of the Arrow  was found to be a corporation that was little more than a  Bahamian filing cabinet.(Nte. 22)

      In the spring of 1970, Canada felt compelled to enact  far-reaching pollution control legislation entitled "Act to  prevent Pollution of Areas of Arctic Waters adjacent to the  mainland islands of the Canadian Arctic."(Nte. 23) The Act authorized  detailed regulation of activity in Arctic areas previously  regarded as high seas. The Act was promptly attacked as an  unjustified unilateral extension of jurisdiction in violation of  international law.(Nte. 24) To those sympathetic to Canada's action,  the question was aptly framed by Justice Douglas of the United  States Supreme Court:

      ... Is Canada's new act suggestive of the law the world needs to safeguard the estuaries and oceans of      the world from the almost certain degradation they face under present pressures?(Nte. 25)

 2.      The Canadian Legislation

      On June 26, 1970, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention  Act, received Royal Assent and became law.(Nte. 26) By that Act,  Canada asserted jurisdiction to regulate activities in its Arctic  Waters through a national regime which governs everything, from  penalties for polluters to the actual construction of ships of  any nation traversing the international waters of the Canadian  Arctic.

      Under the Act, "Arctic Waters" were defined as all those  waters above latitude 60 north within 100 nautical miles of shore  plus continental shelves or other substrata that Canada had the  right to exploit.(Nte. 27) The objective of the Act was not just oil  pollution but included any substance (including detrimentally  altered water) detrimental to the use of the Arctic Waters by  men, or fish and plants men use.(Nte. 28)

      Any individual who deposits such waste is subject to severe  civil and criminal penalties and is liable to any person  damaged.(Nte. 29) However, in

      711

 order to prevent pollution before it occurs, the act gives the  Canadian government the power to regulate in great detail the  construction of ships using Arctic Waters and requires that such  ships use Canadian qualified pilots and lookouts.(Nte. 30) The Canadian  government disclaimed any intention of claiming sovereignty over  the Arctic Waters, and insisted that it was simply regulating  pollution-prone activities on behalf of all mankind.(Nte. 31)

      Yet, if the powers which Canada has appropriated for itself  are not sovereignty over the Arctic Waters, what are they? Has  Canada defined a new kind of contiguous zone in the high seas?  Under the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and  the Contiguous Zone, in the zone of high seas contiguous to its  territorial seas, a coastal state had the right to exercise  control in order to enforce, and punish infringement of customs,  fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its  territorial sea or territory.(Nte. 32)  However, the Convention  specifically limited that zone to no more than twelve miles from  the baseline for measuring the territorial sea. In both the scope  of regulation, and the breadth of zone, the Canadian Act goes far  beyond the contiguous zone envisioned by the Convention.

      Canada, however, found no lack of precedent for its  assertion of jurisdiction to regulate activities on the high seas  to protect its vital interest in the Arctic, and also took the  position that the usual high seas regime had little meaning in  its Arctic Waters, where much of the high seas were permanently  covered by ice and inhabited by Eskimos who live their entire  lives on the ice without ever touching land.(Nte. 33) Prudently,  Canada withdrew from its acceptance of the mandatory jurisdiction  of the International Court of Justice, the question of the  validity of its Arctic Waters Act.(Nte. 34)

 D.      The Canadian Arctic Waters Act and International Law

      Even before formal enactment, the mere proposal of the  Arctic Waters Act by the government of Prime Minister Trudeau  caused a barrage of criticism, much of it from the United  States.(Nte. 35) It was assailed by some as an act of unilateral  law-making, and a grievous impingement of the freedom of the  seas. Canada, on its part, admitted lack of precedent, and in  reply to

      712  

 a protest from the government of the United States made pointed  reference to the Truman Declaration of the Continental Shelf as  ample precedent for its actions and a prime example of a  "unilateral jurisdiction assertion."(Nte. 36)

      By Canada's own definition, it was not claiming sovereignty  over the Arctic Waters, but merely asserting a special kind of  jurisdiction to prevent pollution. To evaluate the lawfulness of  the Canadian action, we must therefore examine the customary  jurisdiction of national states, and whether Canada's action is  fundamentally at odds with the customary basis.

 There are five customary bases of national jurisdiction.(Nte. 37)  They are:

 (a)     The Territorial Principle

      A State has jurisdiction to prescribe rules and regulation  with respect to conduct, things, status, or other interest within  its territory. Some scholars would list as a separate basis the  floating territory principle, which includes jurisdiction over  vessels or aircraft subject to national jurisdiction.38 Under the  territorial principle, a State has jurisdiction over its  territorial seas, subject to the right of foreign vessels to  transverse the territorial sea in "Innocent Passage." Likewise,  the concept of the contiguous zone is an application of the  territorial principle.

 (b)     Protected Interest Principle

      A State has jurisdiction to prescribe rules of law to  conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a  State. Thus treason and counterfeiting committed abroad may be  punished by the State wronged, and a State may take other  measures reasonably necessary for its defense.

 (c)     Nationality of Offender

      A State may regulate the conduct of its own citizens, no  matter where they may be.

 (d)     Nationality of Victim

      A State may also assert jurisdiction, because the victim of  criminal conduct outside of its boundaries, is a citizen.

 (e)     The Universality Principle

      A State may also have jurisdiction to take enforcement  action to protect

      713

 certain universal interests and punish offenses against the law  of nations. Thus piracy, slavery and war crimes may be prosecuted  by any state which obtains custody of the perpetrator regardless  of any other connection the state may, or may not, have with  offense.(Nte. 39)

      As noted above, the territorial principle by itself is an  insufficient basis for the Canadian legislation, since the  previous definitions of the contiguous zone were usually more  limited in scope than claimed by Canada. However, a state has  considerably more latitude when taking measures of self-defense.

      These broad powers were recognized by the Supreme Court of  the United States in the leading case of Church v. Hubbart, which  involved the seizure of a ship off the coast of Brazil by  Portuguese authorities. The Court, in determining the validity of  the seizure noted:

      ... The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory and a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its own territory. Upon this principle the right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on the high seas for contraband of war is universally admitted, because the belligerent has the right to prevent the injury done to himself by the assistance intended for his enemy: so too a nation has a right to prohibit any commerce with its colonies. Any attempt to violate the laws made to protect this right, is an injury to itself which it may prevent, and it has a right to use the means necessary for its prevention. These means do not appear to be limited within any certain marked boundaries, which remain the same at all times and in all situations. If they are such as unnecessarily to vex and harass foreign lawful commerce, foreign nations will resist their exercise. If they are such as are reasonable and necessary to secure their laws from violation, they will be submitted to.(Nte. 40)

      Moreover, in support of its action, Canada has pointed to  actions by the United States, including the creation of Air  Defense Identification Zones 300 miles in depth, and the banning  of shipping from large areas of the high seas in connection with  hydrogen bomb tests.(Nte. 41)

      In reviewing the legality of such actions, a test of  reasonableness which echoes the language of the Supreme Court in  Church v. Hubbart has been applied. Is the object of the  regulation reasonable and are the means used reasonable? If so,  then the action is lawful even though it does temporarily  interfere with the freedom of the seas. (Nte. 42)

      Whatever the objection raised to Canada's action, it must be  judged in

      714

 light of the Lotus case, decided by the International Court of  Justice in l927.(Nte. 43) The Court, in considering the validity of  Turkish legislation with supposed extra-territorial effect, laid  down the rule that an exercise of jurisdiction by a state will  always be valid in the absence of a clear prohibitory rule of  international law. Since the only prohibitory rule applicable is  the so-called "freedom of the high seas," and we have already  seen that this rule is clearly subject to reasonable restrictions  in the protection of legitimate State interests, the burden on  those attacking Canada's action is heavy indeed.

      Moreover, the power to regulate pollution activity asserted  by Canada has already found echoes in the United Kingdom.  Following a particularly offensive oil spill in April, 1971,  Parliament enacted extensive new legislation governing oil spills  in English territorial waters.(Nte. 44) The government was given  broader powers to regulate shipping and the penalties for oil  spills were considerably increased. In addition, the government  was authorized to extend the effect of the act to ships outside  territorial waters by special decree.(Nte. 45) This additional  authority has not yet been exercised, but by enabling the  government to do so, Parliament has taken a long step down the  new trail in pollution control, blazed by Canada.

 E.      The Canadian Legislation as Protecting Universal Interests.

      Canada has not seen fit to rest the case for its Arctic  Waters legislation on the narrow ground of self-protection but  has consistently maintained it was acting to protect the  interests of all mankind, in the absence of sufficient rules of  international law. Thus Prime Minister Trudeau has said:

      ... where no law exists, or where law is clearly insufficient, there is no international common law applying to the Arctic Seas, we're saying somebody has to preserve this area for mankind until international law develops.(Nte. 46)

      In light of our previous discussion of the danger of  ecological catastrophe, this appeal certainly strikes a  responsive chord, but does it add any further legitimacy to  Canada's case? If there is an interest to protect, does Canada  have the right to protect it, or ought protection of  international interests be left to the international community?  We have previously noted the right of states to punish offenses  against the law of nations, in order to protect universal  interests. Is pollution a violation of the law of nations?

      Early in the development of international law, it was  recognized that states had the right to punish individuals who  violated the Law of Nations

      715

 even though the crime had no direct effect on the State seeking  to exercise jurisdiction.(Nte. 47) One of the first examples of the  exercise of this jurisdiction were laws against piracy, Any state  which apprehended a pirate could, under the rules of  international law, exercise jurisdiction and punish him for his  crimes, whether or not directly affected by his conduct.(Nte. 48)

      Gradually, by treaty and custom, the classifications of  international criminals expanded to include slave traders,  brigands (pirates of the land), and offenders against the laws of  war.(Nte. 49) The principle seems well established that 'any person  who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international  law is responsible therefore and liable for punishment."(Nte. 50) This  first principle of Nuremburg, has undergone rapid expansion in  recent years so that the perpetrators of Genocide and Apartheid  have now been branded as international criminals by proposed  conventions.

      One general definition has been offered as an offense  against the law of nations, which brings the status of the  polluter into sharp focus:

      ... any violation of an elemental individual, group, nation, or international value so basic and permanent in its importance, that the necessity of its protection is recognized by most of the recognized actors on the international scene.(Nte. 51)

      An international crime has also been defined as:

      ... such an act, universally recognized as criminal, which is considered a grave matter of international concern and for some valid reason cannot be left within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state that would have control over it under ordinary circumstances.(Nte. 52)

      Certainly, under these definitions, the characterization of  the environmental polluter as an "international criminal" begins  to assume credibility, provided it can be determined that the  pollution of the environment violates a right whose importance is  universally recognized.

      We began by noting the evidence of extreme peril to the  environment, and the concern of many for the survival of mankind,  Is this regard for the quality of the environment universal and a  matter of 'grave concern"? One result of the United Nations  Stockholm Conference on the environment will be a "Declaration on  the Human Environment." According to recent conferees at  preparations for the conference, this declaration should be a  document of universally recognized fundamental principles  recommended for action by individuals, states and the  international community. The

 716

 declaration could in view of some delegations to the  committee:  ". . . make an important contribution by universally  recognizing the fundamental need of the individual for a  satisfactory environment which permits the enjoyment of his human  rights."(Nte. 53)

      In addition, the declarations of the United Nations  concerning the seabed, clearly indicate that the sea is res  communis, the common heritage of all mankind.(Nte. 54) Is it not  logical to maintain that those who through their polluting  activities befoul the "common heritage of mankind" are committing  a crime against mankind?

      Furthermore, many nations and municipalities have labeled  the polluter a criminal in their local laws, indicating that  concern for the environment is universal and a very grave matter  indeed.(Nte. 55) Add the fact, that protection of the environment  cannot be left within the "exclusive jurisdiction" of national  States, which may be unwilling to accept the economic results of  enforcement, then the classification of pollution as an offense  against the law of nations becomes a matter of necessity.(Nte. 56)

 F.      The Application of Universal Jurisdiction to Polluters

      Insofar as the Canadian Arctic Waters Act imposes severe  civil and criminal penalties on those who pollute Arctic Waters,  then it appears to be a valid exercise of jurisdiction to protect  a recognized universal interest. The all-encompassing nature of  the regulatory scheme, while founded in part on the same desire  to protect the environment, may be difficult to justify on such a  universal basis since Canada appropriates to itself the right to  regulate activities not just on the high seas but in many  different localities throughout the world.

 Certainly, the manner in which ships are constructed in local  shipyards in Japan, the United States and Europe, should not be  subject to a single state's judgment of what constitutes proper  construction. If the penalties for pollution are severe enough,  then the attempt to regulate construction may not be necessary. A  ship owner facing criminal penalties would hesitate before  sending an improperly constructed ship through Arctic Waters.

      717

      If many States were to enact comprehensive regulatory  schemes unilaterally, chaos would result. Suppose for example,  the United States and Denmark followed Canada's lead, but came up  with different standards? Would the interest of justice  necessarily be served by giving the nation that enacted the  toughest standards the last word? These considerations argue  forcefully, that the only appropriate vehicle for preventive  regulatory schemes is multilateral agreement rather than  unilateral action.

      One cannot expect, however, that effective international  regulation of pollution activities will arrive full-born  overnight. On the contrary, only when enough nations have  expressed forcefully their impatience with the present situation  will others act. Standards of conduct normally precede the  development of the regimes to enforce them, since the developed  standards are necessary for the achievement of a sufficient  consensus for action. Thus, speaking in the context of a proposed  world habeus corpus, Dean Roscoe Pound wrote:

      ...It has been assumed that to have world law, we must have a world state; that universal political organization must come before universal law. May it not be rather that universal law must precede the universal state which will undertake to put any required force behind it.(Nte. 57)

      In this way, Canada has broken important new ground in the  battle to preserve the earth's ecology. Those who would continue  exploitation of the earth's resources with only slight reference  to the environment, are on notice that their depredations will  not go permanently unchallenged.

      As more States come to the Canadian view of the environment,  and the right of all nations to prosecute polluters as offenders  against the law of nations is increasingly recognized, momentum  may well develop that will lead to the effective international  regulation so desperately needed.(Nte. 58) In the interim there may be  chaos, but it will be a chaos with hope-hope that mankind may at  last be coming to grips with the crisis that threatens its very  existence on this planet.

         NOTES

 *LL.B (1960). Syracuse Univ., Candidate for LL.M. (International  Law). June, 1972, New York Univ., member, American Association of  International Law, American Bar (International Law Section) and  New  York State Bar Associations, Association of the Bar of the  City of New York.

 (1) THE BIBLE, Genesis, 1:28.

 (2) FaIk, Toward Equilibrium in the World Order System, 64 AM.  SOC. INT'L L. PROC 217-18(1970).

 (3) Schacter and Serner, Marine Pollution and Remedies, 65 AM. J.  lNT'L L. 84 (1971).

 (4) Stewart. The Atmosphere and the Ocean. SCIENTIFIC AM., p. 76,  (Sept., 1960).

 (5) Schacter and Serner, supra note 3. at 87.    (6) The inter-related components of a natural system are sometimes  called an ecosystem. The sum total of all ecosystems is the  ecosphere. CaIdwell, The Ecosystem a Criteria for Public Land  Policy, 10 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL 203 (1970). One example of  an ecosystem in action is the inter-relationship of the ocean and  the atmosphere in determining the composition and actions of each  other. See Stewart, The Atmosphere and the Ocean, SCIENTIFIC AM.,  p. 76, (Sept. 1969).   (7) Harwood, We Are Killing the Sea Around Us, N.Y. Times  (Magazine). p. 35 (Oct. 24, 1971).

 (8) N. Y. Post. July 27. 1970, p. 4; N. Y. Times, (Oct. 23,1971) p.  9.

 (9) N.Y. Post. (July 15. 1970) p. 9.    (10) Schacter and Serner, supra note 3, p. 89.

 (11) Id.     (12) The process was described by RACHEL CARSON in her classic work,  SILENT SPRING, at p. 6:

  It took hundreds of millions of years to produce  life that now inhabits the earth-eons of time in which developing and evolving and diversifying life reached a state of adjustment and balance with its surroundings. The environment, rigorously shaping and directing the life it supported, contained elements that were hostile as well as supporting. Certain rocks gave out dangerous radiation; even within the light of the sun from which all life draws its energy, were short wave radiations with power to injure. Given time - time not in years but in millenia-life adjusts, and a balance has been reached. For time is the essential ingredient; but in the modern world there is not time.

 (13) Risk Conceded in Offshore Rigs, N. Y. Times, Sept. 4, 1971); Spill Danger Said to Increase, N. Y. Times (Dec. 16, 1969) p. 9.

 (14) Henderson, Economists v. Ecologists, N. Y. Times, (Oct. 24,  1971) F, p. 14.

 (15) For an excellent review of the effort of the international  community to control oil pollution of the oceans see Sweeny, Oil  Pollution of the Oceans, 37 FORDHAM L. REV. 115 (1968).

 (16) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 45 (Jan. 1970).    (17) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 25 (Jan. 1970).    (18) Gold, Pollution of the Sea and International Law: A Canadian  Perspective, 3 J. MAR. L.& COMM. 13,27,28 (1971).

 (19) Prof. Gerald L. Morris, as reported in 64 AM. SOC. lNT'L.  LAW, PROCEEDINGS 52 (1970).

 (20) Schacter and Serwer, supra note 3, at 89.

 (21) Keating, North For Oil, Manhattan Makes the Historic  Northwest Passage, 137 Nat. Geographic 374-76 (1970).    (22) Gold, supra note 18, p. 32.   (23) Hereinafter cited as ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT,  9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 543 (1970).

 (24) Henkin, Arctic Anti-Pollution: Does Canada Make or Break  International Law?, 65 AM. J. lNT'L. L., 131(1971).    (25) 7 TEXAS lNT'L L. J. 3 (1971).

 (26) For a thorough study of the law see Wilkes, International Due  Process and Control of Pollution - The Canadian Arctic Waters  Example. 2 J. MAR. L. & COMM. 499(1971).

 (27) ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT, Supra note 23,   3(1) and (2).    (28) Sec. 2(h).

 (29) CIVIL LIABILITY 6(1) (2), PENAL PROVISIONS 18, 19,  23, and 24.    (30) Sec. 12.

 (31) " ... it is not an assertion of sovereignty, it is an  exercise of our desire to keep the Arctic free of pollution."  Press conference of April 8, 1970, of Prime Minister Trudeau, 9  INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 600 (1970).    (32) Convention on the Territorial Sea and The Contiguous Zone,  ART. 24. U.N. DOC. A/CONF. I3/L. 52, April 28, 1958.

 (33) Beesley. Rights and Responsibilities of Arctic Coastal  States: The Canadian View, 3 J. OF MAR. L. & COMM. 1 (1971);  Pharand, Oil Pollution Control in the Canadian Arctic, 7 TEXAS  lNT'L J. 45 (1971).

 (34) 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 598 (1970).    (35) Department of State Release. April 15, 1970. 64 AM. J. lNT'L.  L. 928 (1970).    (36) CANADIAN NOTE of April 16, 1970. 9 INT. LEGAL MATERIALS 607  (1970).

 (37) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED  STATES, Ch. 2. 10 et seq.; George, Extraterritorial Application  of Penal Legislation, 64 MICHIGAN L. R. 609 (1966); Cowles,  University of Jurisdiction Over War Crimes, 33 CALIF. L. REV. 177  (1945); Carnegie, Jurisdiction Over Violations of the Laws and  Customs of War, 39 BRIT. Y. B. lNT'L. L. 402 (1963).

 (38) George, supra note 37, at 614.     (39) Cowles, supra note 37.

 (40) Church v. Hubbart, 2 CRANCH 187, 234 (1804).

 (41) CANADIAN NOTE, supra note 36.

 (42) Mac Dougal, The Hydrogen Bomb Tests and the International  Law of the Sea, 49 AM. J. INT'L. L. 356 1955).

 (43) P.C.I.J., Series A., No. 10 (1927).

 (44) THE OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS ACT of April 17. 1971.

 (45) Id. 8(1O).

 (46) Supra note 31, at 601.

 (47) Cowles, supra note 37.

 (48) Id.

 (49) Id.

 (50) Report of the International Law Commission, 2nd Session,  1950.

 (51) Bloom, Steps to Define Offenses Against the Law of Nations,  18 W. RESERVE L. REV., 1572 (1967).

 (52) Case No. 47,8 LAW REPORTS OF TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS 34, 35.    (53) Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations  Conference on the Human Environment, 2nd Session, p. 16, 26  February, 1971, A/CONF. 48/P.C. 9.

 (54) Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Peaceful Uses of  the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National  Jurisdiction, U.N. DOC, A/7230 (1968).

 (55) Young Italian magistrates are making aggressive use of criminal  proceedings, in an attempt to alleviate Italy's notorious  pollution problems. N. Y. Times, (News of the Week in Review)  May 23, 1971, p.8.

 (56) Commerce Sec. Maurice Stans of the United States has made it  perfectly clear, that "in the national interest, economic  considerations must be considered before setting environmental  standards." N. Y. Times, July 16, 1971, p. 62.

 (57) As quoted in Bloom, supra note 51 at 1593.

 (58) Falk, supra note 2.  

The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection

It is often stated that the Shroud of Turin doesn’t prove the Resurrection. That’s correct. But on Easter it is proper to discuss what the Shroud does prove in connection with the Resurrection. It certainly supports the possibility of the Resurrection and is consistent with it.

How so?

Analysis through the decades by forensic pathologists confirms two facts about the mysterious image on the Shroud: the crucified man represented by the image was in a state of rigor mortis and evidence of putrefaction is not present.

The relevance of these two observations established that image was not formed later than 48 hours after the crucifixion. Under normal circumstances, rigor mortis would be released (the taut muscles relaxed) at about 48 hours. That’s when by products of putrefaction would be secreted by the body, putrefaction having caused the rigor mortis to be released. Thus the conclusion that the image was created within 48 hours of death is reasonable.

Do these two facts prove the Resurrection? No. They only prove that the image was created within 48 hours of Christ’s death. The issue resolves to the process by which the image was created on the Shroud. There is no known process by which the image was created. It is an incredible delicate darkening of the very outmost exterior of the linen fibers of the Shroud and may have been a darkening of a uniform residue left from the retting of the linen fibers. It has surprisingly sharp definition.

No one has been able to duplicate the image with sufficient definition to say that problem has been solved. Personally, I tend to hypothesize a process created by light of some kind. But I only hypothesize.

We have still a way to go, but the evidence of the Shroud indicates that before 3:00 PM in the afternoon of that first Sunday, something happened to the body of Christ that left a mysterious, inexplicable image on his burial cloth that has never been duplicated or satisfactorily explained by any process that could have been completed by 3:00 PM.  

The simple fact is that the circumstances of the image may not prove the Resurrection, but they certainly lend support to its occurrence.  It’s called circumstantial evidence. Anybody have a better idea?

Happy Easter.

The Apocalypse of Selfishness

When I first started my manuscript in progress nearly three years ago, I began with the belief that if the Shroud of Turin was authentic it was the most important material object on earth.  I now believe that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate its authenticity.

What I did not anticipate is where I would wind up.  I’m now beginning work on the 17^th chapter which is tentatively entitled “The Apocalypse of Selfishness.”

The point is this: humanity, for the first time since its emergence as a self conscious entity, faces extinction.  The driving forces for that extinction primarily involve the selfish exploitation of the environment.  Our air, water, and land are all yielding to onslaughts from interests seeking immense wealth, whatever the environmental costs.

The use and misuse of pesticides, antibiotics and hormones in agriculture have engendered plagues, not only by the direct action of toxins, but through the evolving of super pathogens that defy medical treatment.  Rising ocean levels have already inundated the homes of millions of residents in coastal areas including Bangladesh.  Heedless extraction of oil, natural gas and coal not only fuel the runaway carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere but leave behind masses of unusable and deleterious waste.

That is only a partial litany of what plagues humanity.  The common thread that results through that litany and other evils inflicting humanity is selfishness.  The combined result is that for the first time in recorded history the survival of the human race is at issue.

In my manuscript, what is emerging is the identification of Jesus selfless sacrifice as the personification of love, and the selfishness of the rulers that propelled his crucifixion is the personification of evil.

Stay tuned.  

The Triumph of Love

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not knows not God; for God is love.
	St. John 4:7-9

 A.   Cosmic Love

(1)   Before the daystar, I begot thee[i]

On December 25^th of each year, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. It is not the precise date of his birth. However, it does give Christians, at least, cause to celebrate in the face of the tightening grip of Winter (at least in the Northern Hemisphere, anyway).

Among the hymns sung Christmas is the French hymn Canitque Noel (O Holy Night). It captures the mystery of the night and its enduring message of Jesus birth in these words:\

“Long lay the world in sin and error pining,

till he appeared, and the soul felt its worth.”

Chapter 15 identifies the soul with the reflective consciousness described by Teilhard. It also identifies “original sin” as selfishness, one of the driving forces of evolution. Before humanity evolved with a reflective consciousness, there was no sin. Metaphorically, the first sin was Cain’s murder of Abel, an angry selfish response to God’s favor being bestowed on his younger brother that Cain thought should have been his.

The “sin and error” which the caused the world to pine were the bitter fruits of selfishness which, like the paths of glory, lead but to the grave.[ii]

Christian theology describes Jesus as the Son of God, the second person of a Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (One God in three persons). Having been taught from an early age that we can never truly understand this divine mystery, I will not try to explain it here. However, I have asked myself, if we are made in the image and likeness of God, where is the holy trinity of  our personality?

I came up with some tortured metaphors, if not answers. There is human psychological dysfunction of multiple personalities demonstrated in the 1957 movie The Three faces of Eve. Freud found three aspects to human personality: ego, super ego and id. How far of a reach is three persons in one God?

As Chapter 15 demonstrates, nothing appears as it seems in the Newtonian universe. The concepts of Quantum Mechanics including Quantum Information have turned traditional macro physics on its ear.

On January 4, 2005, The New York Times published the answers of a several scientists to the question: “What do you believe even if you can not prove it?”

Richard Dawkins, who in the Introduction to this book was anointed the “Atheist Pope” replied

“I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all “design” anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.”

There is one problem. Certainly, the laws of physics both Newtonian macro and Quantum Mechanical micro were formed within a microsecond of the Big Bang. For Dawkins to hypothesize a role for the application of “Darwinian natural selection” to that infinitesimally small microsecond would be nonsense. It’s safe to say that Darwinian natural selection played no role in the creation of the basic quantum forces of our existence and the rules of physics that govern ‑ and design ‑ our existence. At the quantum level, consciousness plays a role. There is no role for consciousness at any stage of Darwinian Natural Selection,

Rosenbaum-Kuttner in Quantum Enigma quoted the answer of cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman to the same question:

“I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.”

This book has defined God as the primordial consciousness which birthed the cosmos. In attempting to unlock the mystery of creation of both the Universe and our own consciousness, we have to rely on such objective facts as we can ascertain and the inferences and conclusion we can draw from them. The written Gospels are in themselves material facts whatever their veracity. So too is the Shroud of Turin. Can these material facts help us untangle the Gordian knot of our own existence. Do they in fact verify each other?

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to offer a way to the eternal life: that way was love. In the Introduction, it was stated that a Tennessee Williams remark ‑ that most important moments of life are when we break out of our own egoistical shell and really sense the presence of another person ‑ was in fact a definition of love.

Is such a definition real – or practical?

(2)   The Prophet of Love

---

[i]  Psalm 109:3, Douay-Rheims edition

[ii] Thomas Gray, "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard".

IN WHOSE IMAGE?

   Quantum Mechanics and Shroud Science

By John C. Klotz

Some have referred to the Shroud as the “Fifth Gospel.”[i] It may be that, but it also something more, a new Revelation brought to us not by a scribe writing on an isolated island, but by science itself.

Shroud science was born with Secondo Pia’s 1898 Shroud photographs but in1900 a scientific revolution in science erupted with the formulation of Max Planck’s theory of light as “quanta,” tiny entities that were both particle and wave. His theory gave birth to “quantum mechanics,” a study of the nature of existence at the atomic and sub-atomic levels.

Before the advent of quantum mechanics, the world of science was dominated by the view of the universe and all material existence promulgated by Isaac Newton. Newton’s universe was steady, never ending with no beginning and no end. His theories were the end result of the scientific revolution begun by Copernicus and Galileo. Along the way, he invented a new mathematical system of analysis called calculus. Across the Channel in Germany, Gottfried Leibniz was also developing a calculus. Who is the real father of calculus is a debate of interest and importance to mathematicians but not to most of humanity. What was important to humanity is that calculus systems were developed and they worked.

Philosophically, Newton’s universe led to the principle of “determinism.” Ultimately the universe and everything in it was subject to immutable rules. Everything was determined by those rules even the course of human conduct. There was no room for free will.

That changed with the advent of quantum mechanics because at the quantum level, matter did not behave in a determined manner but obeyed only the rules of probability. Indeed, until measured or observed, the most minute particles are ambiguous, behaving as both wave and particle.

To some, the extreme point is solipsism: all of existence depends upon observation and the only universe was the universe that one observed. There was no other reality.

Yet, for all its mystery and apparent illogic, quantum mechanics worked. The atom bomb was built upon principals developed from it and probability calculations unleashed the most horrendous devastation in the history of warfare.

But the benefits of quantum mechanics were manifold. Many of the analytic devices used by medicine functioned by manipulating the quantum attributes of light. In 1978, technology used by the STURP team in its examination of the Shroud was among the fruits of quantum mechanics.

Central to quantum mechanics is the role, and debate about the role, consciousness plays in observing and measuring quantum phenomena. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin held that the human species emerged when it developed of the power of reflective consciousness.[ii] Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have written:

“Consciousness implies awareness: subjective experience of internal and external phenomenal worlds. Consciousness is central also to understanding, meaning and volitional choice with the experience of free will. Our views of reality, of the universe, of ourselves depend on consciousness. Consciousness defines our existence.”[iii] (Emphasis added)

In quantum mechanics, consciousness determines the form and nature of quantum phenomena. What is God, if not the primordial consciousness which engendered our universe?

 The crowded empty space.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.
	John Muir 1911[iv]

Sierra Club founder John Muir is often quoted as writing “Every thing is connected.” That’s actually a paraphrase of what he wrote in 1911. His statement, on the quantum level at least, is true. Not only is it true, the interconnectivity of all existence is a fundamental, if not the most fundamental aspect of our existence.

There is no such thing as empty space – not anywhere. While more than 99% of an atom appears to be empty space, a void, devoid of heat or energy, there is field of energy that pervades all of existence including “empty space.” It’s existence means that we can never obtain a true zero temperature. The amount of energy is impossibly minute, but it’s there. Nonetheless, it’s called Zero Point Energy: a field of energy that connects all of existence in this Universe.

To the extent that any phenomenon operates at the quantum level, it is connected by the field to every point in the Universe. It’s as if there was a gigantic telephone system with everything having a telephone number. Of course, to communicate, you must pick-up the telephone and dial a number. There are some who seem better able to make that call than others. Sometimes it’s called extrasensory perception (ESP). Skeptics scoff, rejecting ESP and all similar phenomena as “paranormal” but the lines of communication are always there. In a television documentary “The Real Face of Jesus,” one participant called the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as “the most important paranormal event in history.”

There is no question that charlatans and fraudsters have made constant abuse of gullible individuals throughout the course of history. To skeptics, “paranormal” is a derogatory term. Scientists who study the phenomena avoid the term and some refer to the paranormal as “psi.”

There results of many tests of individuals and groups of individuals are explicable only in terms in the reality of paranormal or psi attributes. The validity of the tests depend on applying the rules of probability. Crucial to the validity of the results are the protocols governing the tests. Ironically, pseudo-skeptics who swallow the results of the protocol-challenged carbon dating of the Shroud whole, base their criticisms of the psi tests by attacking “protocols” of the psi tests.

The issue is whether human beings have the capabilities to tune in to the ZPE. Some scientists dealing with that part of quantum mechanics labeled quantum information believe they can and that all of humanity makes regular, use of the ZPE. That use is how our consciousness operates.

Penrose, Hameroff and others maintain that human consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. It is more than the sum total of discrete processes of the isolated brain. Quantum information is aggregated in the form of quantum qubits. Those qubits exist in the ZPE field.

Other scientists dispute that. They appear wedded to a Newtonian deterministic cause and effect paradigm that defined all existence. Newtonians appear in many different guises and scientific disciplines. One thing that neo-Newtonians dispute is the concept of “free will.”[v] All is determined whether by DNA or the environment. The brain is simply a biological construction of a mechanical computer. Consciousness is the sum total of its calculations.

What quantum mechanics has done, while recognizing the relevance of Newtonian physics at the “macro” or large level of existence, is to largely discard it at the “micro” or atomic and sub-atomic level. There is space for the action of free will. That space is as broad as the Zero Point field is wide.

Who is right about human consciousness: the neo-Newtonians or those who find consciousness to be a quantum phenomenon? Perhaps we should begin with the “incredible,” and ultimately tragic, saga of Hans Berger.

Hans Berger and his magic machine

Hans Berger was born May 21, 1873 in Neuses, a small Bavarian town that was eventually absorbed by the City of Coburg. He was the son of a well to do physician.[vi] His father’s wealth freed Berger from the day to day struggle of the less fortunate to just survive. He had interests, but no extraordinary ambition. Hans was not interested in pursuing a career in medicine and settled, initially, on a career in Astronomy.

He enrolled as a mathematics student at the Fredrich Schiller University of Jena to prepare him for that career, but the pace of life in the city held no allure. He left college and began a year of military training in the cavalry to sort things out. It was while in the cavalry, that an incident occurred, that not only changed the course of his life, but the course of what we call neuroscience, the study of the nervous system, including the brain.

One morning, he was thrown from his horse during a training exercise. He landed on road in the path of a fast approaching team of horses pulling a heavy gun carriage. His thought was quite explicit: “I’m going to die.” Fortunately, the drivers of the gun carriage were able to rein-in their team of horses and it stopped short of Berger. Shaken, but not injured, he returned his exercise and his duties.

That evening, when he returned to his quarters, he found a telegram from his father inquiring about his welfare. That morning, his sister had become quite hysterical because she felt that Hans had been in an accident and died. His father inquired anxiously if he was all right. Berger promptly responded but he was amazed that his sister had an attack of hysteria at the moment of his grave peril when he consciously thought he was about to die.

It was a life changing moment for Hans Berger. His attention turned to neuroscience. He concluded that the brain must in some way think and process electromagnetic waves and that in some way his thought of his impending death had been transmitted to his sister with whom he had a close relationship. Needless to say, as he advanced in his study of neuroscience, contemporary colleagues were quite dubious and treated his ideas with derision.

Undeterred, he developed a machine to measure “brain waves.” More derision, but in 1924, his machine began to achieve acceptance. It was dubbed the Electroencephalograph, the EEG, which was a breakthrough in the analysis and treatment of brain disorders.

Berger’s life continued on a troubled plane. He never received what he regarded as his proper recognition. The next two decades would see the rise of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party. There is some controversy about whether Berger was a Nazi collaborator. In any event, he retired from the University of Jena in 1939. In 1940, plagued by ill health and his failure to achieve what he regarded as his proper place in the scientific pantheon, he committed suicide. Today, there are research organizations in neuroscience that have either adopted his name or sponsor conferences in his name.

The EEG, which was a scientific breakthrough of the first order, has been in some respects replaced by the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which allows analysis not only of the brain but the entire body or selected parts of it. Bruce Rosenbaum and Fred Kutler writing The Quantum Enigma claim that “One third of our economy” involves products based upon quantum mechanics and go on to describe four of them: the laser; CCDs (charge coupled devices that, among other things record images in digital cameras); the transistor; and the MRI.[vii]

Merely mentioning the four devices that use quantum mechanical methods to manipulate reality indicates to a certain extent the distinction between the reflective consciousness of humanity and the consciousness of all other life on earth. Mastering quantum mechanics is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity’s reflective consciousness. Most importantly, that reflective consciousness is the reason we, as distinguished from all other forms of life on earth, are constricted in our actions by ethics and morality. All other living creatures answer to unfettered instinct. The natural world is a violent, nasty place.[viii]

Is humanity different? If so, why?

Evolution and Consciousness

Let us create humanity in our own image and likeness.
Genesis 1:26[ix]

And, let us take seriously the observation of the compilers of Genesis: we are made in God’s image and likeness. That image and likeness is not our material bodies evolved over ages and for which primordial consciousness, existing in a state before the existence of our universe and beyond space and time, does not possess. The image and likeness of God in which we are created can only be our consciousness, but insofar as we possess it, that too evolved.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The great prophet of reflective consciousness and its evolution is Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This book is not a treatise on Teilhard. The scope of his body of work was quite broad but there is little question but that he defined a path for the convergence of science and religion that we are in fact traveling. Teilhard was born May 1, 1881 and died April 10, 1955. Eventually, during his lifetime, he was forbidden by the Church to publish or teach. Most of his important writings were not published until after his death including his epochal works The Phenomenon of Man and The Divine Milieu.

As important as The Divine Milieu and some of his other works are, for our purposes, we will concentrate primarily on his description of the evolution of humanity in The Phenomenon of Man. His work on the book was completed by 1940. However, before it could be published he was barred by the Church from publishing his work and he obeyed. After his death, it was first published in France in 1955. It was translated and published in English in 1959. In his preface to the Phenomenon of Man, he wrote:

" If this book is to be properly understood, it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise. The title itself indicates that. The book deals with man solely as a phenomenon; but it also deals with the whole phenomenon of man."

Teilhard wrote before the theory of quantum information was developed. Thus his theories about consciousness and humanity were uninformed by it. However, he divided the human phenomenon into the physical appearance as matter and consciousness as substance. Arguably he presaged the whole question of quantum information which would explain the “substance” of humanity as distinguished from its Newtonian physical existence. What results is a bridge between quantum mechanics and the appearance-substance dichotomy espoused by Thomas Aquinas which in turn was a medieval, Christian transliteration of concepts advanced by Plato.

Teilhard posits everything as having a substance distinguishable from its appearance. For living organisms that substance is consciousness for which even the simplest organism exhibited precursor attributes. 

Consciousness evolution and physical evolution journeyed upward in parallel evolutionary paths. Even the simplest one celled organism showed chemical reactions to various stimuli or irritants that were in Teilhard’s eyes the beginning consciousness. There were precursors to human intelligence that gradually emerged. Empathy was one. However, as others have written, the biological world was a brutal, unforgiving place. Key to the advance of evolution was selfishness.[xi]

Teilhard regarded the emergence of a species with the power of reflective consciousness as the birth of the human race. However, there was an inherent conflict between that reflective consciousness and selfishness. That conflict was the underlying theme of the Book of Genesis. It has yet to be resolved.

Copyright 2014, John C. Klotz, New York City

---

[i] Giovanni Tamburelli, “Reading the Holy Shroud, called the Fifth Gospel, with the Aid of the Computer” Shroud Spectrum, Issue #2,(March 1982)

[ii] Teilhard 

[iii] Roger Penrose, PhD, OM, FRS1, and Stuart Hameroff, MD2, “Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory,” Cosmology of Consciousness: Quantum Physics & Neuroscience of Mind (Kindle Locations 681-683). Cosmology Science Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[iv] John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911) (p. 110), Sierra Club Books Ed., 1988)

[v] Rosenblum, Bruce; Kuttner, Fred (2011-07-01). Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (p. 32). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

[vi] The story of Hans Berger is drawn from Dean Radin’s book, Entangled Minds. Radin, Dean. Entangled Minds (p. 21 et seq). (Simon & Schuster, Inc., Kindle Edition, 2009) See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berger

[vii] Rosenbaum and Kuttner, p. 116.

[viii] 

[ix] The usual translation of this passage is “let us create man…” However, in Hebrew the word used for man is generic and means mankind. In this 21^st century, the use the word “humanity” which means mankind.

[x] de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard (2011-06-21). The Phenomenon Of Man (Kindle Locations 423-425). Evergreen Books. Kindle Edition.

[xi] Dawkins, Selfish gene,