A year ago I read an interesting story in the news about a subsidiary China CITIC group (a massive state-owned company in China) financing an iron ore mining project in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. They were planning on building one of the largest iron ore mining and production facilities in the world, hiring Australians to work for the Chinese financed venture, building their own town, their own roads, their own power plant and their own port. Why?

我一年前看了一个很有意思的网站新闻报道。新闻说中国中信集团的子公司要投资一个很大铁矿在澳大利亚的皮尔巴拉。他们打算铸成世界最大的铁矿之一。中国的公司就在澳大利亚聘请澳大利亚人。他们也打算建成一个城镇，修建道路（原来没有人住在那个地方——都是旷野），建成自己的发电厂和建成自己的港口。为什么？

Because China is undergoing a massive construction boom as more and more people move from the countrysides to the cities, and steel is therefore in high demand.

都是因为中国现在有好多人从农村来城市，所以建筑公司在城市建成很多大楼。建筑公司需要很多铁。中国采矿的铁不够，所以中国需要澳大利亚和别的国家的铁。

This is not a phenomena isolated to China, however. Other parts of the developing world are going through similar trends as urbanization increases and the construction industry therefore needs more raw materials. Influential economists have suggested that buying commodities or investing in industries related to this trend may be a very smart investment decision in the present time, due to this trend.

但不是只有中国现在有这个情况。别的发展国家也有这样的情况。在很多发展国家很多人从农村来城市，所以他们国家需要原料为了建成比较大的城市。有的有名的经济学家建议现在应该买关于建筑需要的原料的股票（比如，铁，铜，玻璃，等等）因为这个情况。

The above article is covering such an event. Anglo American PLC is a UK company that was founded in 1917, during the time of the British Empire, which deals with diversified mining ventures all over the globe. It owns the controlling share in De Beers (85%). It employs more than 100,000 employees, and according to Forbes’ rankings it is the 133rd largest company in the world and the 9th largest in the United Kingdom. It has received permission recently to build another large iron ore mining project in Brazil’s Minas Gerais state. They have already signed contracts with customers mainly in the Middle East and some in Asia who want iron, also quite possibly for construction in the growing trends of urbanization.

上边的新闻也关于这样的情况。英美资源集团（Anglo American PLC）是一个英国的公司。公司1917年创始，那时候英帝国很大（在美洲，非洲，亚洲，很多地方是英国的）。他们是一个采矿公司，他们在很多不同的地方采矿很多不同的东西。他们的员工超过十万人，福布斯（一个很有名的美国商业杂志）说他们是第133最大的世界的公司，第9最大的英国公司。上边的新闻说他们最近受允许，可以在巴西的米纳斯吉拉斯州铸成一个很大的铁矿。英美资源集团已经跟客户写合同；客户大部分在中东，另一部分在亚洲。他们要买铁，也可能为了发展国家建筑比较大的城市的原因。

However, it's also important to note that as the rest of the world outside the richer nations develops more and seeks to achieve a better living condition for itself, this will also inevitably put another kind of strain on the system, and that deals with the environment. In the past, huge consumption of non-renewable natural resources was mainly isolated to the parts of the world that were industrialized, and this had a strain on the natural environment. In the future, if not just this one part of the world, but if in fact the entire world develops, builds big cities, with everybody driving cars, eating fast food, visiting shopping malls and all the other things that people in the west have, will the Earth be able to cope?

这些发展国家进步经济，他们就能进步人民的生命)——但是他们才发现一个重大的问题，那个问题关于环境。从前只有在世界的一部分有很多产业（西方，还有几个别的地方，比如：日本），那时候产业需要很多自然资源因而制造很多污染。后来，别的国家用的自然资源也越来越多，世界的污染也越来越多。如果以后，世界经济进步，更多的人从农村来城市，建成更多更大的城市，普通的人都开车，吃快餐，去商场或者百货商店买很多产业做的东西——请问:自然界能生存吗？

China is an astounding example. China's massive population in the past fifty years (even just in the past 20 years) have made astonishing economic advances, but this has come at the price of massive amounts of air and water pollution, China surpassing the States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases (and increasing emissions every year) and many other problems. Even China's government recognizes that they have a great problem on their hands.

比如：中国。中国挺多的人口的经济在过去50年（过去20年也是）进步的很多。但是这个经济进步的价钱是特别多污染和水体污染。在过去10年中国的产业的二氧化碳超越美国的，中国就成为世界的最多排放二氧化碳的国家。即中国的政府承认他们有很大的问题。

There are problems like this all over the world though in relation to this economic growth. In the Philippines there is in many places too much logging, as timber becomes needed for economies in Asia (China for example) and the deforestation then leads to other problems like erosion and landslides. In Brazil, where the article is covering, a huge amount of natural rainforest gets cleared every year to make way for cattle grazing, coffee plantations or even projects like potentially this iron ore mine. Greater industry in these countries, therefore also needs other things, like more roads built, more towns built, more power production, which can lead to increasing burning of coal, building of dams that flood huge areas or other things. It has become increasingly clear that it would be an environmental disaster on global proportions if the rest of the world improved their living conditions such that everyone in the world lived like they did in the West.

在所有的发展的国家，差不多都有这样的问题。比如，在菲律宾他们出口很多木头因为别的亚洲国家要买（中国是一个），但是他们就有毁林，毁林创造别的问题，比如侵蚀和山体滑坡。在巴西（上边的新闻关于巴西），很多森林年年被人消灭为了给牛陆地，为了咖啡（或者别的植物）农场或者为了上边那样的铁矿。发展国家建成城市，制造业——为了产业他们需要修建路，为了产业也需要更多电。为了电的原因他们需要多烧煤，或者多建成水电站大坝（那个会泛滥很多陆地），消灭森林为了陆地，污染杀动物和植物，等等。我们越来越清楚，如果所有的世界这样进步，成为西方那么富的国家，自然界可以受到灾难。

It sounds very bad, but there is another side to this equation that needs to be noted. In China there is a huge amount of environmental abuse- on the other hand, people in China do not live in famine as they still experienced even in the time when my parents were growing up, and the average lifestyle of a person has made a huge gain. In a portion of other developing countries seeing this kind of economic growth, they also have seen increases in the living standards of their citizens, even if it came at environmental costs. The question is worth asking then, is this price necessary? Does it become worthwhile in the end?

我们听那些问题的时候，我们会觉得这个情况很不好，但是我们也应该承认一个狠大的好处。例子：在中国，一方面有特别多污染和环境虐待，一方面中国人没有饥荒。我爸爸妈妈是孩子的时候有特别多中国人还饿死了。在历史上中国平时受饥荒。现代中国没有从前的情况；还有很多中国人很穷，但是没有从前那么大的饥荒和别的那样的问题。普通的人的生命进步的很多。中国的经济进步，所以从前的情况没了。在另外一部分的发展国家，也有这样的进步。但是在那些国家，也有环境的问题。所以我们应该问：这个价钱是需要的吗？这个情况到底值得吗？

The Church teaches that we have a responsibility to the natural environment. It also teaches that we have a responsibility to the poor. What if the two appear to conflict?

教会说我们对环境有责任。应该保护欢环境。教会也说我们对穷人有责任。应该帮助穷人。如果这两个责任好像顶撞，我们怎么办？

Is it that we have a choice between leaving these countries as they are with so much suffering from want of daily necessities, or we can build economic growth through production, industrialization and all the environmental consequences that this will entail?

我们需要选择吗？我们需要选让穷的国家继续不进步，还是帮助他们而且消灭环境吗？

If it really were such a choice, it would perhaps be better to harm the environment than it would be leave people in poverty, because human beings are still more important than the rest of creation. However, I question if it really is such a choice.

如果我们有这样的选择，我们应该选帮助人类，因为人类比环境和动物还重要。但是我觉得可能不是这样。

I think it is a false dichotomy if we were to be looking at it like this. To have the daily necessites looked after, such as food, clothing, shelter and for people to have education, health care, etc. is not quite the same as having shopping malls, personal cars for everyone, big homes, and huge ranges of consumer goods that go well beyond what people actually need. That is to say, to simply lift the world out of poverty would not require as much resources and stripping as well as pollution of the Earth as would giving everyone in the world the same lifestyle as people in the West have been enjoying.

我认为这是一个错误的二分法。如果穷人有他们需要的，比如食物，干净的水，衣服，家，教育，保健，等等- 这个却不是百货商店，汽车，很大的房子，漂亮的衣服，贵的鞋，电脑，电视，电影，或者很多工业做的产品。我的意思是人类需要的和他们想要的不一样。如果我们要帮助世界的穷人，让他们国家的经济进步，这个计划没必要全世界变成很富的国家那样。

To give an anedote that I encounter everyday. There is a huge number of cars in Beijing. In fact too many, but people don't really need cars in Beijing like they would in other parts of the world, in other areas outside of China, or even just in the areas outside the main city. This is because Beijing has a massive public transit network that is building new subway lines every year, which is at prices far cheaper than the amount a car and gas costs (6 cents CAD for a normal bus fare, and 30 cents CAD for a full-trip subway fare), and furthermore there is a huge number of taxis that are also relatively cheap in comparison with what people would expect in the west, and are also easy to find- in fact if you're white, they will approach you and honk at you just as you walk down the street hoping you want a cab. I have heard that it's been calculated that it would actually be cheaper for a person living in Beijing to take a cab to work everyday and then back again, would actually be cheaper than buying your own car, paying the fees the government has on getting a license, and buying fuel for it. Even despite this, many people still buy cars and the streets are filled with traffic (and imagine how much faster people could get to work every morning as well, if all that traffic and daily gridlock was missing and people simply used the mass transit?) that release huge amounts of pollutants, giving Beijing some of the worst air pollution in the world, and thereby damage public health.

我要讲一件轶事。北京有特别多汽车。我认为太多。北京有很多，但是很多住在北京的人没必要开车，因为北京跟别的世界的城市不一样，北京也跟别的中国的地方不一样。我认为没必要车，因为北京的地铁和公交车又很方便又很便宜。最近北京年年开新的地铁线（在北美洲我们没听说过那样的情况）。而且北京的出租车不少——在很多地方非常容易找出租车（而且如果你是白人，他们会找你。他们在路上一看白人，就鸣喇叭）。我有一个中国的同时说专家计算如果一个住在北京的人天天坐出租车到他的工作然后回家，那个办法比买自己的车和汽油还便宜。如果所有的人在北京不开自己的车，交通应该比较畅通——如果交通比较畅通，人民可以比较快去他们工作或者别的地方。还有如果所有的人在北京不用自己的车，污染也应该比较少-健康的问题就比较少（北京是世界最多污染的城市之一：中国的政府也承认）。

The model wherein Chinese people develop the same kind of lifestyles as existing in the west, simply doesn't work when this many people are crowded into a small area. Even in parts of the west with similar problems, although on a lesser scale, like car pollution in Los Angeles, the model doesn't work well either.

中国这样进步不是好的。在西方的国家普通的人都有自己的车（比如，我妈妈有一个，我爸爸有一个，我的邻居都有，我第二姐姐有一个，每个亲戚有一个，朋友有，等等），但是没有这么多污染或者交通问题，因为人口没有这么多（我觉得普通的北美洲人都有自己的车还有别的环境问题）。但是有的西方地方有很多人，他们也有交通和污染的问题。美国的洛杉矶是一个例子。对那些地方来说，他们不应该容那么多汽车。

The world unfortunately is very slow to recognize this growing environmental catastrophe. Even those who do recognize it rarely start to cut out all kinds of things in their lives they don't need that are contributing to the problem. The world doesn't follow its reason, however, but rather it follows its sensual appetites- like what Plato condemned in the Republic, when he spoke about the opposite of the philosopher kings. The world is like a child that has an itchy rash on her body, but she doesn't stop scratching it even though scratching only makes it worse, because she only recognizes what her senses desire and not what reason dictates.

世界太迟认识目前的环境的问题；环境的灾难越来越大，但是我们很慢承认。即使有些人承认这个问题，有很少会改变他们的习惯为了帮助这个问题。我觉得人类不听自己的逻辑，而是听自已的欲望。正如柏拉图的书写的情况。人类正如一个被蚊子咬的小孩子——孩子虽然听过刮伤痒让伤痒比较不好，但是他还刮因为他听欲望而不听逻辑。

In order for the people of the country to escape poverty, it wasn't necessary for them to then live in comfort and to be able to get the things that they wanted.

如果人类要摆脱贫困，他们为了那个原因没必要想要那些不必要地让生命比较舒服的东西。

I have sometimes thought that perhaps God has arranged it this way.

有的时候我想可能这个情况有天主的安排。

The tenth commandment about thou shalt not covet, is telling us about how we need to be detached from the world. The teachings of the bible and of so many of the saints have told us that we must let go of the world, and become dead to it. To recognize that the things of this world are not enough for us, and that the only thing that can truly fulfill is God, and if we are already filled with other things we will have difficulty finding any room for God.

第十诫是不可贪你的邻人的东西。天主教的教理第十诫吩咐我们不抓住这个世界抓住的太紧。圣经和很多圣人都说我们应该放过这个世界的舒服。我们需要承认世界上的舒服对我们不够，只有天主能完全满足我们。如果别的东西已经充满了我们的心，我们的心就没有空为了充满天主。

I think perhaps God has arranged this world so that attempting for us to get more than we ought or to covet the things of this world more than we should has already been created with built-in consequences. The punishment to humanity for the sin is therefore already plain to sight even for those who don't believe in God. God is perhaps teaching the entire world a lesson about the disease of being too attached to this world. The entire world becomes too attached to it, and therefore seeks after these things, and therefore so much industry and extraction is necessary to fulfill these things, but we find that for everyone in the world to get what they want it would mean it would cause so much destruction in the end that people would have to suffer for it.

我觉得可能天主安排这个世界这样：他按照他的话创造了万物，所以如果我们不听他的十诫，他已经安排好了所有的惩罚。比如，如果我们抓住这个世界抓住的太紧——每个人马上有自己的车，很大的房子，公物广场，各种产品，等等，天主用我们抓住的世界惩罚我们，因为我们都有那个东西的时候，环境受灾难。我说可能，不说肯定，因为不是能听天主声音的先知。可能天主用这样的情况教我们。

There is a Cree proverb that says 'Only when the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, will you realize you can't eat money'

加拿大有一个印第安人的民族叫克里（Cree）。他们有一个谚语说（我的翻译可能不太好，对英语我觉得这个谚语很美）‘最后的树被砍倒了，最后河狸被污染了，最后的鱼被钓了，你们才明白你们不能吃钱’

Or in other words, perhaps God has arranged it so that people collectively as a species are in fact forced to choose between letting go of this world or holding onto it and destroying it it the process. We must find other things in our lives than material happiness to satisfy us, and therefore the world needs to find God. God is silently arranging all creation to point us in that direction.

天主就可能安排人类需要选抓住世界的舒服而受灾难还是放过这个世界的舒服而生存。他让我们就需要找别的东西为了满意——我们需要找到天主。天主默默地安排所有的人类找他。

if you are willing you can say this prayer with me,

如果你愿意，可以跟我祈祷

Lord, we pray that you make us responsible stewards of your creation, and not to abuse the environment. We pray that you may make the whole world become detached from creation and find you as the remedy it needs for its satisfaction. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus' name, Amen

主，我们求你让我们成为负责的管家可为了管你所造的万物，不让我们滥用你的万物。我们求你让所有的人类放过这个世界，而找到你为了满意。我们用耶稣的名字求你，阿门