Carbajo-Núñez Martín ,
Quo vadis, humanitas? Human development and integral ecology, (8.04.2026), (42),
in
Blog: www.cssr.news, 42-EN (2026) p. 2
.
The document of the International Theological Commission, entitled “Quo vadis, humanitas?” (QV), published on March 4, 2026, reflects on how “to deepen its study of Christian anthropology” and progress in an era marked by Artificial Intelligence (AI), environmental crises, and increasing social inequalities. This reflection is important because “without an adequate anthropology” (LS 118), neither human development nor integral ecology is possible.
1. Three dimensions of integral human development
The first chapter presents development “of each man and of the whole man” (PP 14) as a systemic process, in which economic, technological, and cultural dimensions interact with the ethical and spiritual dimensions of human life. In other words, integral development must include three fundamental dimensions: material, socio-relational, and spiritual (or expressive) [1]:
A) The first refers to the set of material wealth or purchasing power (“well-having”), usually measured by gross domestic product (GDP).
B) The social dimension concerns the level of integration, cooperation, and solidarity among different social groups. Mere macroeconomic growth is of little use if quality of life decreases and inequalities increase.
C) The spiritual (or “expressive”) dimension refers to quality of life, sometimes expressed through indicators of well-being or happiness. Economic goods are truly such when they make possible a good and fraternal life—that is, public happiness.
2. The culture of non-vocation
The second chapter presents human life as a vocation. In contrast to this Christian vision, the current “culture of non-vocation” interprets personal fulfillment in terms of individualistic self-enhancement (human enhancement).
The dream of “becoming like gods” (cf. Gen 3:4), supported by certain currents of transhumanism and posthumanism, contradicts Christian anthropology. The latter understands the gift of “divinization” not as a technical self-transcendence of the human being, but “as participation in the divine life in the transfigured humanity of the children of God in Christ” (QV 24).
3. Personal identity: gift and task
The third chapter presents personal identity as both gift and task. “Human beings cannot be happy without knowledge of who they are” (QV 109), but they “cannot fully find themselves except through a sincere gift of themselves (nisi per sincerum sui ipsius donum)” (GS 24). In the encounter with the other, in fact, one discovers one’s identity and is shaped as a person. “Through the ‘you,’ one becomes an ‘I’” (Martin Buber).
Conclusion: systemic vision and entrepreneurial awareness
The acceleration of technological development, driven by AI, calls for adopting a systemic vision capable of grasping the complexity of social life. In this context, integral ecology cannot be reduced to a merely environmental approach but must rethink the relationship between economy, technology, society, and spirituality. Only through this integration will it be possible to promote authentically human development—one that does not merely enhance human technical capacities, but fosters the full realization of the human vocation to communion, responsibility, and care for creation.
Every economic activity has an impact on multiple dimensions of reality: environment, labor, social relations, and culture. For this reason, it is necessary to promote an entrepreneurial awareness oriented toward the common good. The entrepreneur should not be merely an economic actor pursuing profit, but also a protagonist of social life. Their vocation urges them to contribute to human development by integrating innovation, social responsibility, and ecological sustainability.
Martín Carbajo-Núñez, OFM
[1] Cfr. Aristotele, Etica Nicomachea, Rizzoli, Milano 112012.
(File allegato) |
