It is not often that we get dire messages directed to the whole world relating to impending disasters but that is exactly what the latest encyclical from this unconventional Pope, Laudato Sì, actually is.

The gist of the message, contained in this long encyclical, has been discussed extensively and received comments, both favourable as well as critical, from persons with divergent points of view.

It is impossible to reduce this message to a nutshell but what the Pope emphasises is the need for a compete change of attitude, a quantum leap in our relations with the world.

Some of the emphasised dangers include:

The concept of “tyrannical anthropocentrism”, that is, the belief that we are at liberty to destroy the world in pursuit of our gluttonous wishes.

The exclusion of the poor and marginalised.

The abuse of scientific and technological advances uncontrolled by appropriate ethical considerations, particularly in the pursuit of weapons and warfare.

The absence of an “integral ecology” based on the “the common good... which respects our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings”.

Who is to blame for the mess that has resulted? Nobody in the western world can shrug off responsibility. It is high time that we review some common beliefs, namely that the world is there for the taking, that growth can be maintained forever, that economic development will always trump environmental issues, that we all have the right to inherit the earth irrespective of the ensuing permanent damage to the environment.

We cannot continue to take out of the earth more that we put in

Time was when the old protestant ethic that riches come to those favoured by God has to be replaced by one where the rich person, characterised by conspicuous consumption, needs to be pitied rather than emulated.

Joe Camilleri, an emeritus professor of international relations in Melbourne, believes that the message contained in the encyclical can be compared to two other outstanding developments that have occurred since World War II. One was started by Mikhail Gorbachev, which led to the end of the cold war and the other was started by Nelson Mandela, ending apartheid.

Let’s hope that this encyclical will also have the dramatic effects that are so urgently needed.

In a recent book, The most good you can do, Peter Singer, a professor of ethics at Princeton University (USA), a person with strong socialist tendencies, makes a strong plea for what he calls “effective altruism”.

He believes that most of us in the western world are consuming far more that we need and that we should distribute most of our unneeded material goods to others less fortunate than ourselves.

He even recommends that we give to charity a considerable proportion of our salary and live the simple life. Who does this remind you of?

“If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor,” (Matthew 19.21), literally, a counsel of perfection that will not be palatable to most of us.

So from all sides we are bombarded with the same message: we cannot continue to take out of the earth more that we put in; there must be a balance for sustainability to be attainable. Another worrying trend is the fact that inequality is getting more and more pronounced. The rich nations are getting richer and the poor ones poorer. Even within the rich developed countries, inequalities are getting more pronounced, with the rich few controlling most of the wealth in the country.

Inequality is one of the most detrimental factors that lead to unease, unhappiness and even ill-health within a country and, as is so overwhelmingly obvious, between nations.

No other factor compared to inequality between nations can explain the current tsunami of migrants from the poorest countries in their quest to get to the richer ones at all costs and in spite of all conceivable risks.

It behoves all of us to assess how we measure up to the standards set by this unconventional Pope.