Homo Climaticus vs. Homo Religiosus: The Interplay of Archetypes

Abstract

In the modern era, we increasingly encounter threats and challenges caused by climate change, and as a result, “green” thinking has become a necessity in every person’s life. It is believed that environmentally focused thinking can be invigorated with the help of Homo Climaticus, who is defined as a rational person in a climate crisis. However, it must be recognized that to understand the essence of Homo Climaticus, it must be compared with other archetypes. Within the framework of this article, the authors have evaluated the interaction between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus in the context of environmental management. The analysis of these archetypes outlines the synergies and conflicts that arise from the fundamental differences in the worldviews of these archetypes, although both are committed to preserving the environment. Homo Climaticus is fundamentally based on science and data related to environmental management, whereas Homo Religiosus is motivated by faith-based ethics and the moral necessity to protect the world created by God. Recognizing and utilizing the strengths of both these archetypes can create more effective environmental management. Such an interdisciplinary approach indicates that collaboration between scientific and religious communities can provide a comprehensive strategy for addressing global environmental issues.

1. Introduction

In an era where we constantly encounter various environmental challenges, it is necessary to explore the dynamic reactions of different people. This article examines the interaction between two archetypes: Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus. While Homo Climaticus embodies a rational, evidence-based person who prioritizes sustainability and environmental consciousness, Homo Religiosus represents individuals driven by faith and spiritual values. These paradigms illustrate how different motivations and worldviews can influence actions in environmental management, offering a nuanced perspective on the complex network of human–environment interaction.

Understanding the synergy and conflicts between these archetypes is crucial as we face significant climate change challenges and increased environmental degradation. Homo Climaticus, driven by scientific understanding of climate issues, supports green technologies and sustainable practices, whereas Homo Religiosus, rooted in spiritual and religious traditions, considers environmental protection a divine mandate. This contrast raises specific questions about the effectiveness and harmony of science and spirituality in promoting natural sustainability.

By exploring these roles, the aim of this article is to evaluate and compare two human archetypes—Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus—and their interaction regarding environmental management. The analysis will focus on how these archetypes, with different core values and motivations—one oriented towards a scientifically based rational approach to climate change solutions and the other driven by spiritual and religious perspectives—can collectively promote sustainable interaction with the surrounding environment. The authors emphasize that, despite their different approaches, both archetypes share a common duty to care for and protect the environment, which is also a crucial issue on a global scale.

In this article, the authors employed several methods to explore the relationship between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus in the context of environmental sustainability. A comparative analysis was conducted to systematically examine the similarities and differences between these two archetypes, focusing on their respective attitudes toward environmental issues. The authors also carried out a literature review to gather relevant research and theoretical frameworks, particularly within the Abrahamic religious traditions, providing a foundation for the analysis. Textual analysis was utilized to examine religious texts, extracting themes related to environmental stewardship that define the Homo Religiosus archetype. Theoretical modeling was employed to conceptualize these archetypes by synthesizing various examples from historical and contemporary contexts, allowing the authors to explore their potential impacts on environmental governance. Finally, an interdisciplinary synthesis was used to integrate insights from theology, environmental science, and sociology, creating a holistic view of how rationality, faith, and environmental ethics intersect in the modern world.

This research article has been developed under the state-funded research program “Socially responsible green transition: strengthening governance solutions to empower Homo Climaticus in the healthcare sector” As part of this project, it became crucial to define the concept of Homo Climaticus, an archetype representing a rational and environmentally conscious individual. To provide a comprehensive understanding, we conducted a comparative analysis between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus, another archetype that embodies faith-based ethics and spiritual values. By examining the interactions and contrasts between these two archetypes, this article aims to foster a deeper discussion on their synergy and potential conflicts, particularly in the context of environmental governance. The ultimate goal is to explore how these differing worldviews can contribute to the development of effective strategies for addressing global environmental issues.

2. Homo Climaticus: A Rational Person in a Climate Crisis

Homo Climaticus emerges from an individual deeply aware of the reality of climate change and advocates for socially responsible actions to reduce environmental degradation. This archetype reflects those who prioritize sustainability, promote renewable energy, and utilize eco-friendly consumption. Homo Climaticus is fundamentally based on an evidence-based approach to environmental policy and individual behavior. However, this rational person faces challenges, including the complexity of the global economic system, political inertia, and the potential of technological solutions that sometimes ignore deeper social and ethical aspects.

Homo Climaticus is defined as a rational person who considers the long-term consequences of climate change and acts accordingly in daily life (Bjorst 2012). This definition indicates that Homo Climaticus represents an individual deeply aware of the impact of climate change and incorporates “green” thinking into everyday decisions and life choices. Understanding climate change involves knowledge of its causes and the consequences and problems it brings. This understanding also includes individual awareness, recognizing the magnitude of climate change problems and keeping up with the latest research, news, and discussions on the topic. The individual’s lifestyle reflects their understanding of climate change, choosing eco-friendly decisions such as using public transport, recycling, and selecting energy-efficient devices.

Moreover, Homo Climaticus not only engages in environmentally friendly actions but also promotes sustainable consumption, choosing eco-friendly products and services from companies practicing sustainable production and supply chain management. Environmental rights and their development are linked to human understanding of the natural environment and its impact on human life. The interaction between the natural environment and humans has been the basis for integrating various environmental problem-related elements into the legal system for centuries (Ziemele and Osipova 2024). Consequently, it is concluded that Homo Climaticus, who understands the natural environment and its impact, serves as the basis for developing environmental rights. Additionally, environmental rights cannot achieve the desired goals without the involvement of Homo Climaticus.

Regarding the interaction between Homo Climaticus and the legislator’s normative acts, Janet A. Lorenzen’s study highlights the necessity for mutual dialog rather than organizing environmental information into task lists. This study concludes that people gradually become green-minded because they genuinely believe their individual actions matter. Individual green thinking creates a snowball effect, fostering humanity’s development towards sustainable and eco-friendly thinking (Lorenzen 2012). This study indicates the importance of Homo Climaticus in creating a unified environmental rights system. An individual’s personal beliefs affect their environment and influence those around them, promoting sustainable thinking in daily life and encouraging legislators to develop achievable environmental rights. This study’s results show that every person’s personal belief and action play a crucial role in promoting sustainable and green thinking in society.

3. Homo Religiosus: The Spiritual Dimension of Man

Homo Religiosus is an individual who makes decisions in life based on faith and spirituality, seeking meaning and connection with what is sacred. This archetype encompasses a broad spectrum of religious and spiritual traditions. The origins of the term “Homo Religiosus” can be traced back to Cicero’s collection of letters, “Epistulae ad Familiares”. The ancient philosopher presented some characteristics of such a human model: ritualistic, loyal, scrupulous, eloquent, and open but not one who seeks to indoctrinate others. With the development of Christianity, the concept became viewed as the foundation of holiness, and Mircea Eliade later used it in his works. Human religious experience is heterogeneous, an ordinary life intertwined with the religious/sacred in various proportions (Vasile 2013).

“The abyss that divides the two forms of experience—sacred and profane—will become apparent when we begin to describe sacred space…” (Eliade 1987). Eliade sought to illustrate Homo Religiosus as a person who inherently perceives the world and their place in it, living between the sacred and the profane and seeking a connection with the sacred. Eliade also points to Homo Religiosus’ understanding of what is sacred. “But as we shall soon see, it is not about the cult of the stone or the tree itself. The sacred tree and the sacred stone are not worshiped as stone or tree; they are worshiped precisely because they are hierophanies, as they show something that is no longer a stone or a tree but sacred…” (Eliade 1987). Homo Religiosus is fundamentally about seeking and honoring the sacred beyond mere physical or material existence, indicating that Homo Religiosus’ veneration of the sacred transcends the physical properties of objects, attributing them deeper symbolic meaning associated with a higher being.

Considering that Homo Religiosus lives a spiritual life, understanding Homo Religiosus requires understanding what “spirituality” entails. Generally, “spirituality” is defined as a practical orientation of life formed by what is considered an independently transcendent source. It involves strict normative requirements, including requirements to be holy or worthy of reverence. First and foremost, spirituality is practical, involving what we might call “spiritual practice,” such as prayers, repentance, pilgrimages, observing the Sabbath, and practicing virtues and rituals. Thus, spirituality is more than just faith in God; it demands specific personal actions that indicate the individual’s religious beliefs. However, spirituality is not merely practical; it is a practical orientation of life. In other words, spirituality involves a way of seeing and guiding one’s life as a whole. It can be understood as living in a particular spiritual/ethical space where we see ourselves moving towards or away from what we understand as good. Thus, we achieve fulfillment to the extent that we realize the good in our lives (McPherson 2017). Therefore, spirituality manifests in specific actions, but it is not merely practical, as it is closely tied to the individual’s inner state or condition concerning spiritual perfection. Spirituality is characterized by both practical actions and personal feelings, such as love, respect, and reverence, towards a higher spiritual being or force, which, in this work, is God. Considering that spirituality is related to the overall orientation of a person’s life, it is also closely related to the question of how to live a meaningful life (McPherson 2017).

Homo Religiosus is a concept used to describe an essential element of human existence: the existential yearning for transcendence and freedom and the aspiration to create meaning in one’s life, regardless of religious differences or beliefs (Stempsey 2021). From this definition, it follows that Homo Religiosus, in its pursuit of spiritual fulfillment, transcends material concerns such as knowledge, feelings, consciousness, and experience, seeking a deeper sense of spiritual freedom. This freedom is understood as the liberation from worldly attachments and the attainment of a connection with the divine, which provides HR with a profound sense of purpose and fulfillment.

However, in regard to Homo Climaticus, it can be concluded that both Homo Religiosus and Homo Climaticus value freedom, but they do so in different contexts and for different reasons. Homo Religiosus freedom is largely spiritual, focusing on the liberation from sin and reaching a state of divine grace, whereas Homo Climaticus freedom is more practical, emphasizing the importance of autonomy and ethical decision making in the pursuit of environmental sustainability.

Summarizing the above, it can be concluded that Homo Religiosus is an individual who guides their life from a spiritual and faith perspective, seeking deeper meaning and connection with the sacred in all its manifestations. This includes observing rituals, personal spiritual practices, and respect for everything considered sacred and transcendental. Homo Religiosus’ life is based on an existential yearning for transcendence and freedom, creating meaning in life through personal and collective spiritual experience, surpassing mere practical orientation and striving to live a meaningful life.

4. The Synergy and Conflict between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus

4.1. The Shared Duty of Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus to Care for the Environment

Usually, when discussing environmental problems and possible solutions, Homo Religiosus is not mentioned. However, within the framework of this article, the authors wish to highlight the interaction between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus. Religious texts emphasize that God is the patron of the environment, considering that God is the creator of the Earth.

At the beginning of the Bible, the first chapter of Genesis starts with the words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was barren with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. But the Spirit of God was moving over the water” (Genesis, 1:1–2). The chapter further describes the creation of the Earth, the separation of light and darkness, the formation of dry land by separating the waters, the greening of the Earth, and the creation of animals. It is stated: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis, 1:26–28). From these verses, it can be inferred that God created man to live in God’s created world and protect everything created by God. This is also indicated by the conclusion of the chapter: “God looked at what he had done. All of it was very good!” (Genesis, 1:31). This chapter includes God’s approval of his created world and the duty assigned by God to his created man to care for everything created by God and deemed good.1

Sanita Osipova has pointed out that legal historians who base their research on the development of canonical law and its influence on secular law in the history of European law start with ancient Jewish law. S. Osipova refers to the conclusions of the Italian historian Paolo Prodi, who suggests that the prehistory of European legal history could be analyzed through the laws of Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, and ancient Jews, whose norms were included in the Bible as the basis of the understanding of law (Osipova 2017).

Considering ancient Jewish law, it is essential to include not only Judaism but also the origins of Christianity and Islam from Judaism. Therefore, these three religions are collectively referred to as the Abrahamic religions. Abraham is considered the patriarch of these three religions, as mentioned in the sacred texts of all these religions. Although Abraham’s story, described in the Bible, does not initially convey the belief that Abraham could be the central figure in the creation of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, all these religions consider Abraham a model of faith and courage. Abraham’s story begins with him calling his wife his sister out of fear of being killed for her beauty and selling her to the Pharaoh for prostitution. Then, Abraham mistreated his slave, but when she bore him a son, he sent them both into the desert to die, while he took his other son to the mountains to sacrifice him to God, only to be stopped by divine intervention (Hughes 2012).

In discussing the actions of Abraham, particularly in relation to Sarai and Hagar, it is important to recognize that there are multiple interpretations across different religious traditions and scholarly perspectives. While the narrative in Genesis presents a complex interplay of faith, obedience, and human frailty, Jewish Midrash and Islamic Tafsir literature often provide alternative readings that emphasize different aspects of the story (Ginzberg 1998). For instance, in Islamic tradition, Hagar is revered as a key figure in the establishment of the Kaaba, and her story is framed within the context of divine providence and dignity (Ibn Kathir 2000). Moreover, modern feminist scholars, such as Phyllis Trible, have critiqued the patriarchal elements of the narrative, highlighting the marginalized position of Hagar (Trible 1984). These varied interpretations underscore the richness of the Abrahamic narrative and remind us that the ethical implications of Abraham’s actions are subject to ongoing theological and scholarly debate. Therefore, while this manuscript references certain critiques of Abraham’s behavior as discussed by Hughes, it is essential to acknowledge that these actions are viewed differently across religious and scholarly contexts, with some interpretations offering alternative perspectives.

Given that the essence of Homo Religiosus is derived from the religious norms discussed in this article, determining how a religious person should act, it becomes acutely necessary to examine the influence of these religious rights on modern law. Homo Climaticus is without borders until they are defined. In the modern world, borders arise from various normative acts that specify certain duties to be followed. Thus, Homo Climaticus is created precisely by applying the rights and duties contained in religious texts.

Regarding Homo Climaticus’ rights and duties, these are understood and applied as environmental rights, encompassing various normative act bases with a common goal—protecting the environment, ensuring a favorable and sustainable quality of life for future generations. Environmental rights include reducing the use of non-renewable resources, lowering emissions, using renewable energy, and preserving habitat diversity. However, examining the religious texts of the mentioned religions reveals that they also include rights and duties defining Homo Religiosus’ lifestyle concerning the environment created by God and deemed good. Thus, Homo Religiosus’ duty is to love and protect God’s creation, not to destroy it. This article will cite verses from the books of Moses that apply to both Judaism and Christianity, as they are included in both the Torah and the Bible, specifically the Old Testament.

The Bible contains God’s assigned duty to his created man to care for all his creation: “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis, 2:15). This verse and the following chapter clearly state that God is the creator of everything and that he has appointed man as the protector of all that is natural. In the same chapter, God told man: “But the Lord told him, “You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden,”” (Genesis, 2:16), indicating that God created the surrounding environment to serve man as a basis for survival. However, to protect it, God commanded man to cultivate and guard it. This verse applies to Homo Climaticus thinking. Homo Climaticus also understands that they cannot survive without utilizing what is available in the surrounding environment. This includes not only food and drink but also various other requirements, such as warmth in cold weather (fuel). Thus, environmental resources are used for various human needs. However, Homo Climaticus aims to prevent harm to the environment, striving to preserve it so that future generations can live in a favorable environment. The authors conclude that this verse places Homo Religiosus and Homo Climaticus in comparable situations, as both archetypes share the duty to care for the surrounding environment, ensuring its preservation.

The ownership of the land by God is also stated in Leviticus, where God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying “The land may be permanently bought or sold. It all belongs to me—it isn’t your land, and you only live there for a little while” (Leviticus, 25:23). In the same chapter, God also spoke to Moses, commanding him and all the children of Israel to work the land for six years, gather its produce, and sow the fields, but rest on the seventh year, during which they should neither sow the land nor prune the vineyards (Leviticus, 25:2–4). These verses again emphasize that God created the land and everything on it, and it belongs to him alone. However, his followers, Homo Religiosus, are allowed to cultivate it, provided they obey God’s commands and care for this “gift.” Caring for God’s given land undoubtedly includes protecting nature. Causing harm to the environment and climate is considered harming God’s creation and is thus seen as disrespectful to the creator. In relation to the duty to rest on the seventh year, specific instructions on how to fulfill this God-given duty of caring for the land he created are observed. The practice of fallowing, as in Moses’ time, is comparable to the current practice of fallowing. The practice of fallowing, as discussed in this manuscript, specifically refers to the sabbatical year (Shmita) observed by the ancient Israelites, as instructed in Leviticus 25:1–7. During this period, the Israelites were commanded to leave the land completely untouched—meaning they did not prepare, sow, prune, or weed the land—allowing the land to rest and regenerate without human intervention. A fallow is an arable field where no agricultural production takes place during the season. The purpose of fallowing is to prepare the field for the next crop by controlling weeds or replenishing soil nutrients (Agroresursu un Ekonomikas Institūts 2021). The establishment of fallows is also linked to Homo Climaticus thinking, ensuring the rest and improvement of arable land to grow plants that serve as food for humanity in the following years while possibly reducing the consumption of animal-derived products or industrially produced food. In addition, by maintaining fallows, farmers do not need to leave unprofitable fields to establish agricultural land elsewhere, thereby preventing environmental destruction, such as deforestation. Thus, it is concluded that God has assigned a specific duty to Homo Religiosus, which he related to the creation of the land—that is, God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, which, in the mentioned chapter, is applied to years: work the land for six years but rest on the seventh.

David sang a song to God, stating: “The earth and everything on it belong to the Lord. The world and its people belong to him” (Psalms, 24:1). This verse again points to God as the patron of the land. It clearly states that both the land and everything on it belong to God. Consequently, Homo Religiosus is merely a user of the land. However, they cannot claim it as their own and use it according to their wishes. Homo Religiosus is fundamentally based on trust in God and his prescribed rights. In other words, Homo Religiosus, living on God’s created land, is not entitled to use it for their benefit but to survive and follow God’s will. While Homo Religiosus is committed to the stewardship of the land, this does not preclude the possibility of exploiting the land for profit, provided that such activities serve God’s will and adhere to religious principles. Profit-driven activities must be carried out with the intention of honoring God and ensuring the sustainability and well-being of his creation. This relates to the earlier-mentioned verse from Genesis, indicating that humans are appointed as stewards of the environment by God. God created the land and everything on it; it belongs solely to God, while humans—Homo Religiosus—cultivate, respect, and protect the land given by God. This aspect of Homo Religiosus thinking is closely related to Homo Climaticus thinking, as Homo Climaticus lives in harmony with the surrounding environment, protecting it and striving to prevent any harm already done. The reference to land as God’s property is also observed in the Book of Jeremiah: “I brought you here to my land, where food is abundant, but you made my land filthy with your sins” (Book of Jeremiah, 2:7). This verse describe a scene of divine retribution where God judges the dead and rewards his faithful servants, while also punishing those who have destroyed the Earth. This highlights the theme of divine justice, where each person’s actions, particularly those that cause harm to the Earth, are met with corresponding consequences. This is a clear indication that environmental exploitation is seen as a grievous offense in the eyes of God, warranting severe punishment.

This passage can also be interpreted as a warning to humanity about the moral and ethical responsibility to care for the Earth. It emphasizes that harming the environment is not only a physical act but also a moral transgression that disrupts the divine order. This interpretation aligns with the broader Christian understanding that humans are stewards of God’s creation, and that any damage done to the Earth is an affront to God’s sovereignty.

From this, it can be inferred that God has assigned the responsibility and duty to Homo Religiosus to not destroy and ruin the land given by God.

The Old Testament or Torah includes not only agricultural duties but also ethical norms towards animals and a prohibition on polluting the surrounding environment. It states that the righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel (Proverbs, 12:10). This verse clearly expresses that Homo Religiosus, who cannot be unrighteous, also cares for their animals. Meanwhile, in Numbers, there is a command which states that God’s followers must not defile the land where they live because God lives among them (Numbers 35:33–34). This verse refers to environmental pollution, imposing a divine command to preserve the purity and sanctity of the life-sustaining environment.

References to environmental protection are also found in the New Testament, considered the most current collection of religious texts for Christians. For example, Paul’s letter to the Romans states: “In fact, all creation is eagerly waiting for God to show who his children are. Meanwhile, creation is confused, but not because it wants to be confused. God made it this way in the hope that creation would be set free from decay and would share in the glorious freedom of his children. We know that all creation is still groaning and is in pain, like a woman about to give birth” (Letter to the Romans, 8:19–22). This verse reflects the belief that all creation is valuable and awaits redemption, emphasizing the responsibility to care for creation as part of a larger divine plan.

Another example is found in the Book of Revelation: “When the nations got angry, you became angry too! Now the time has come for the dead to be judged. It is time for you to reward your servants the prophets and all of your people who honor your name, no matter who they are. It is time to destroy everyone who has destroyed the earth. The door to God’s temple in heaven was the opened, and the sacred chest could be seen inside the temple. I saw lighting and heard roars of thunder. The earth trembled and huge hailstones fell to the ground” (Book of Revelation, 11:18–19). These verses warn of the destruction of those who harm the Earth, suggesting divine judgment against environmental exploitation and urging the preservation and care of the Earth.

The Torah’s Devarim of Deuteronomy states: “When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls” (Deuteronomy, 20:19–20). This verse introduces the law of Bal Tashchit (Heb. בל תשחית), which today is also included in Jewish laws, establishing a general prohibition against unnecessary destruction and the waste of resources.

References to environmental protection are also found in the Qur’an. For example, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:205 states that when people turn away from Allah, they seek to spread corruption in the land and destroy crops and livestock. Allah does not like such evil (Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani 2010). This suggests that people who distance themselves from the Islamic God do not care about preserving the environment and sustainable living, which is displeasing to Allah.

Surah Al-A’raf 7:31 states: “O children of Adam! Take your adornment at every masjid, and eat and drink, but be not excessive. Indeed, He likes not those who commit excess” (Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani 2010). This verse addresses the excessive use of resources. One of the most important goals of Homo Climaticus in addressing environmental problems is to reduce the use of non-renewable resources and practice sustainable agriculture, reducing pollution from waste. This verse clearly expresses Allah’s displeasure with human wastefulness, which results in environmental pollution. Regarding sustainable agriculture and product use, Surah Al-An’am 6:142 states: “And of the fruits and produce (of the earth), He creates gardens, trellised and untrellised; and the date-palm, and crops of different shape and taste (its fruits and its seeds) and olives, and pomegranates, similar (in kind) and different (in taste). Eat of their fruit when they ripen, but pay the due thereof (its Zakat according to Allah’s Orders) on the day of its harvest, and waste not by extravagance. Verily, He likes not Al-Musrifun (those who waste by extravagance)” (Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani 2010).

Allah’s anger towards the destruction of the ecosystem is expressed in Surah Ar-Rum 30:41: “Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned, so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness]” (Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani 2010). This verse serves as a warning against environmental harm caused by human actions.

4.2. The Value Scale of Homo Religiosus and Its Connection to “Green” Thinking

Previous studies have shown that capital can increase some forms of happiness, particularly when it helps individuals meet their basic needs and achieve personal goals, although this relationship is influenced by various factors and is not universally applicable (Diener and Biswas-Diener 2002; Hagerty and Veenhoven 2003; Clark et al. 2008). Therefore, examining individuals based only on general values leads to the conclusion that capital increases happiness. However, increasing individual capital harms the environment. Various researchers have pointed out that in our era of global ecological crises, the dominant form of valuation is a true reflection of capitalism’s social and environmental degradation, which necessitates profit from the destruction of the planet (Foster and Clark 2009).

Economic prosperity and growth have been important goals of government policy since the rise of capitalism in early modern history. However, it has been found that rapid growth inevitably leads to the greater use of natural resources and higher pollution emissions, which in turn puts more pressure on the environment. In the modern context, this connection immediately raises questions about potential conflicts between two strong current trends—the market-oriented economic reform process now widely accepted globally and environmental protection (Munasinghe 1999).

Although there is debate among researchers about whether individual capital increases happiness, studies show that national income indeed contributes to national happiness, which is consistent with the theory of absolute utility. This arises from the fact that citizens of poorer countries have unmet needs that can be satisfied with various goods and services, reducing the marginal utility of income (Hagerty and Veenhoven 2003).

The authors conclude that people’s happiness is often related to their income level because it allows them to purchase necessary and desired goods and services, simultaneously improving their quality of life, including healthcare. However, capital accumulation is associated with various environmental problems, such as pollution and gas emissions. Therefore, in the pursuit of worldly values and the desire to become happier, people pose threats to the environment.

Conversely, the Old Testament or Torah includes teachings from God and followers, emphasizing the need to refrain from pursuing worldly values. For example, “Give up trying so hard to get rich. Your money flies away before you know it, just like an eagle suddenly taking off” (Proverbs, 23:4–5). Similarly, in Ecclesiastes, it is mentioned that whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless (Ecclesiastes, 5:10).

The New Testament also includes advice against accumulating capital, encouraging the accumulation of spiritual values instead. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew it is stated: “Don’t store up treasures on earth! Moths and rust can destroy them, and thieves can break in and steal them. Instead, store up your treasures in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy them, and thieves cannot break in and steal them. Your heart will always be where your treasure is” (Gospel of Matthew, 6:19–21).

The Qur’an also suggests that this worldly life is nothing but play, amusement, luxury, mutual boasting, and competition for wealth and children. It is like rain that produces vegetation, bringing delight to the farmers; then it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes debris. In the Hereafter, there is severe punishment or forgiveness from Allah and approval, whereas the life of this world is nothing but a deceiving enjoyment (Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani 2010). This verse highlights the transient and deceptive nature of worldly life and contrasts it with the permanent reality of the afterlife, encouraging believers to prioritize their spiritual commitments over material gains.

The authors note that from the mentioned verses, it follows that Homo Religiosus does not find happiness in material gains or capital. Homo Religiosus strives for spiritual gains. Therefore, this archetype, like Homo Climaticus, does not place material values above the land created by God and everything on it, resulting in less environmental degradation. Comparing Homo Religiosus and Homo Climaticus from this perspective, it is concluded that both archetypes place higher value on the environment rather than material benefits obtained by harming it.

4.3. The Priority Scale of Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus

The main difference between Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus concerning the environmental aspect is the top point of their priority scale. The previous subsection concluded that both archetypes value the environment above material benefits, but the very top of this scale features different priorities. For Homo Religiosus, the main priority is God, with everything else created by God following afterward. For Homo Climaticus, the priority is humanity, with the goal of protecting the environment to ensure favorable living conditions for humans.

The Gospel of Matthew contains the words of Jesus: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment” (Gospel of Matthew, 22:37–38). This verse clearly expresses that Homo Religiosus’ highest priority is love for God.

This difference in priority scales significantly influences Homo Religiosus’ view of the environment, namely, that the environment is protected as long as it serves God’s glory. The sixth to ninth chapters of Genesis describe the destruction of the world by the flood and its repopulation due to human wickedness. “The Lord saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. He was very sorry that he had made them, and he said, “I’ll destroy every living creature on earth! I’ll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I’m sorry I ever made them”” (Genesis. 6:5–7). Further chapters describe how Noah, who found favor with God, built a massive ark, bringing pairs of every kind of animal and creature—male and female—so they could repopulate after the world’s destruction. Then, God destroyed everything on the Earth with a flood, allowing only those in Noah’s ark to survive (Genesis, 7–9).

Another example is found in Genesis, which describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It states that the Lord’s (God’s) wrath has been provoked by the wickedness of the inhabitants of these cities, and he sent two of his angels to destroy them (Genesis, 19:13). The destruction is described as follows: “and the Lord sent burning sulfur down like rain on Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed those cities and everyone who lived in them, as well as their land and the trees and grass that grew there” (Genesis, 19:24–25).

From these stories, it can be inferred that Homo Religiosus’ main priority is to live according to God’s commandments, honoring God. Additionally, the consequences of not following these commandments and acting wickedly are evident. Homo Climaticus does not only consider the actions of surrounding individuals, while seeking to ensure environmental problem-solving and protection, whereas Homo Religiosus cultivates and protects only the land that is pleasing to God. God, who is fundamental to Homo Religiosus, is willing to destroy the Earthand everything on it if the people living on it do not honor God.

Continuing with the priority scale, the status of the individual as a person should be examined. As previously mentioned, when God created the world, he also created humans in his image—male and female. Then, God blessed them and said: “Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth” (Genesis, 1:28). Thus, it is concluded that God placed himself as the priority for Homo Religiosus, followed by humans, who have the duty to subdue everything on God’s created earth. Conversely, as depicted in the image in Appendix A, Homo Climaticus lives in equality and harmony with the surrounding environment. Homo Climaticus’ priority is humanity, making its primary goal to ensure a favorable environment for humanity to live in. Homo Climaticus does not concern itself with whether a person lives according to rules unrelated to environmental preservation.

5. The Reflection of Homo Religiosus Thinking in Homo Climaticus Normative Acts

Within the framework of this article, it was emphasized that Homo Religiosus lives according to God’s commandments, and quite often, the laws created by God align with the lifestyle of the modern Homo Climaticus. Given that Homo Climaticus lives in accordance with environmental rights, the authors have analyzed how the laws created by God pertain to environmental protection and sustainability strategy, reflecting this in the current normative framework.

The foundation of Christianity and Judaism is the Ten Commandments given by God. Although these commandments are not directly inscribed in contemporary environmental laws, the moral justification they contain has influenced various aspects of the legal system, including principles of good governance in regulatory environmental laws.

Theologian and philosopher Joshua Ensley explains the 8th Commandment, “Do not steal” (Exodus, 20:15), as a command that involves a call to respect personal and community integrity. J. Ensley emphasizes that theft not only encompasses the usual physical theft of property but also issues such as corruption, online piracy, and similar problems. Meanwhile, the 10th Commandment, “Do not want anything that belongs to someone else. Don’t want anyone’s house, wife or husband, slaves, oxen, donkeys or anything else” (Exodus, 20:17), is explained by J. Ensley as a command that encourages society to find satisfaction only in God, not to seek more (Ensley 2023). Evaluating these verses in conjunction with the points previously mentioned in this article, it can be concluded that the 8th and 10th Commandments are also applicable to contemporary environmental rights. The basis of environmental rights is environmental preservation, so in the process of developing environmental rights, it is essential to understand the primary cause of environmental destruction.

Industrial production and economic improvement are often mentioned as the main reasons for environmental changes. It is clear that the environment must function to provide an economy suitable for the needs of the world’s population. Otherwise, there would be no agriculture, energy, forestry, etc. All economic units—companies, the public sector and households—must operate to generate profit and ensure prosperity (Kļaviņš and Zaļoksnis 2011). Given the rapid worldwide population growth and continuously increasing economic needs, there has also been a rise in environmental problems. Therefore, the 8th and 10th Commandments are applicable to contemporary environmental policy. God’s commands not to steal and not to covet apply to the surrounding environment, as previously concluded, God created the environment, and humans are appointed as stewards. From this, it follows that God is the owner of everything, and we, as humans, are appointed as stewards of God’s property. Causing harm to the environment with the aim of improving one’s life—boosting the economy and prosperity—is considered theft and coveting, thereby damaging God’s property, namely, the surrounding environment.

In modern environmental laws, the preservation and protection of God’s property—the environment—is regulated by various requirements that must be observed. For example, foresters are not entitled to cut down all forests for profit. Forestry includes requirements to establish new plantations where forests have been cut. This example of forestry, demanding various agreements and including requirements for reforestation, illustrates that environmental rights encompass prohibitions against theft and coveting. Similarly, just as violators of these commandments are punished, those who violate environmental protection requirements are also penalized.

Additionally, environmental rights integrate the 9th Commandment, “Do not tell lies about others” (Exodus, 20:16). This commandment emphasizes the importance of honesty and transparency, highlighting principles such as justice, truth, and integrity (Ensley 2023). These principles are undeniably crucial cornerstones for ensuring environmental protection. It is essential to have disclosure requirements for companies and institutions within environmental laws to ensure their operations comply with environmental rights.

Similarities to these religious norms can be found in modern legislative acts, such as those within the European Union’s Green Deal legislative framework. The Article 1 of the Regulation (EU) 2023/839 of the European Parliament and of the Council states that the Member States have commitments for the land use, land use change, and forestry sector that contributes to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement and meeting the greenhouse gas emission reduction target of the Union (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2023). Additionally, Article 6 paragraph 1 of the regulation determines that Member States shall account for emissions and removals resulting from afforested land and deforested land calculated as the total emissions and total removals for each of the years in the period from 2021 to 2025 (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2023). The aim of this regulation is to ensure proper land management and emission reduction, ensuring land preservation. This is directly related to the duty included in the Bible and the Qur’an to care for God’s created earth, not to pollute or destroy it.

Similarly, the amended Article 3 paragraph 3 of the Directive (EU) 2023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources and repealing of Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 states that Member States shall not grant new support or renew any support for the production of electricity from forest biomass in electricity-only installation (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2023). Amended Article 29 paragraph 6 regulates that the harvesting must be carried out considering the maintenance of soil quality and biodiversity in accordance with sustainable forest management principles, with the aim of preventing any adverse impact, in a way that avoids the harvesting of stumps and roots, degradation of primary forest, and degradation of old-growth forests as defined in the country where the forest is located, or their conversion into plantation forests, and avoids harvesting on vulnerable soils, such that harvesting is carried out in compliance with maximum thresholds for large clear-cuts as defined in the country where the forest is located and with locally and ecologically appropriate retention thresholds for deadwood extraction and that harvesting is carried out in compliance with requirements to use logging systems that minimize any adverse impact on soil quality, including soil compaction, and on biodiversity features and habitats (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2023). These articles contain similarities to God’s ordained rules to care for the surrounding nature even when it is used to serve people as a basis for survival, or in this situation to harvest renewable energy, while preserving soil quality, forests, and biodiversity.

Lastly, God’s ordained duty to care for all living things is reflected in Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. For example, Article 1 states that this Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes (The Council of the European Union 1998). Article 3 of the same Directive dictates that Member States shall make provisions to ensure that the owners or keepers take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury (The Council of the European Union 1998). This Directive reflects the Homo Religiosus lifestyle, namely, that God created animals to be used for human survival, but at the same time established a duty to care for these animals. It can be concluded that the Directive, similarly to the Bible or Qur’an, includes the obligation to care for animals kept at home or used in livestock farming, without causing them unnecessary pain and suffering.

Considering the aforementioned, authors conclude that the duties ordained by God and included in the Bible, Qur’an, or Torah, which regulate the life of Homo Religiosus, are incorporated into various European Union legislative acts. This, in turn, creates regulations aligned with Homo Climaticus values, which must be observed by all European Union member states.

6. Comparison of Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus through Max Weber’s Capitalist Prism

As has already been pointed out, there are huge similarities between Homo Religiosus and Homo Climaticus regarding environmental protection, namely, the duty of both archetypes to care for the surrounding environment. Although the priorities of these two types differ, from the perspective of environmental protection, they can be placed in comparable positions.

Therefore, the authors wanted to reinforce this similarity by examining a completely different archetype, namely, Max Weber’s capitalist, while also considering Max Weber’s ideas related to religion.

When summarizing the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Max Weber concludes that “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life. Economic acquisition is no longer subordinated to man as the means for the satisfaction of his material needs. This reversal of what we should call the natural relationship, so irrational from a naive point of view, is evidently as definitely a leading principle of capitalism as it is foreign to all peoples not under capitalistic influence. At the same time it expresses a type of feeling which is closely connected with certain religious ideas” (Weber 2001).

This conclusion perfectly illustrates the value scale of a capitalist. For a capitalist, the priority is making money. A capitalist achieves happiness by increasing its capital. This is a fundamental difference from Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus, for whom capital cannot bring happiness. On the contrary, as previously noted, a person who strives to increase their capital does not consider the needs of the surrounding environment and does not think about environmental protection. Environmental problems are mainly associated with the desire to earn money; i.e., it is precisely entrepreneurs who create various environmental problems, such as CO₂ emissions, deforestation for timber processing, and the use of non-renewable environmental resources. On the other hand, Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus strive to ensure environmental protection. Although they have different goals for ensuring environmental protection, the achieved result is relatively similar.

Although it is considered that the first Bible text that was given to Weber at his confirmation in 1879, and undoubtedly selected by his mother, was “The Lord is the spirit, but where God’s spirit is, there is freedom” (Ghosh 2014), Weber believed that some religions restricts the freedom to accumulate wealth. However, Weber famously argued that Protestantism, especially Calvinism, paradoxically promoted the accumulation of wealth. This is because Protestant ethics valued hard work, discipline, and frugality, seeing economic success as a sign of divine favor (Weber 2001). In this case, religion did not restrict but rather facilitated the pursuit of material wealth within a morally justified framework.

In letter written to his brother Alfred, Weber writes: “So it has come about that everything that we nowadays assemble under the name of “our Kultur” is based in the first instance of Christianity; that today in the institutions and structures of human society as a whole, everything is linked to it and depend on it—so much so that we ourselves never notice and are no longer aware that in everything we do and think, we stand under the influence of Christian religion” (Ghosh 2014). Weber believed that capitalistic tendencies have arisen from religion; however, Homo Religiosus can never be considered a capitalist. Thus, a religious person or Homo Religiosus within the meaning of this article, while being obedient to God, is limited in their ability to accumulate capital.

Religion compels a person to always become a “better” individual and to renounce life’s pleasures to achieve a religious or moral ideal. Weber applied such extreme abstinence from life’s pleasures, or asceticism, when comparing the capitalist with Homo Religiosus. Analyzing Richard Baxter’s “The Saint’s Everlasting Rest”, where it is described that “wealth as such is a great danger; its temptations never end, and its pursuit is not only senseless as compared with the dominating importance of the Kingdom of God, but it is morally suspect,” Weber concluded that asceticism “seems to have turned much more sharply against the acquisition of earthly goods” (Weber 2001).

However, for Homo Religiosus to live according to God’s laws, specific norms are needed that clearly define what these divine laws are. As indicated by K. Zariņš and I. Kronis, according to Max Weber, “in the sociology of the religious school there is a “cult” of norms and obedience, as dictated by a collection of Laws, where article follows article” (Kronis and Zariņš 2023).

Evaluating Weber’s ideas regarding religion and capitalism, it can be concluded that Homo Religiosus is ascetic, and its main goal is to achieve religious ideals, which include unconditional obedience to God’s laws. Max Weber’s analysis illustrates that while certain religions, particularly Protestantism, have historically encouraged and facilitated the pursuit of material wealth, the ultimate goal of a Homo Religiosus is not the wealth itself, but rather obedience to divine laws. For the religious individual, accumulating wealth is not an end in itself but a means to fulfill their spiritual and moral duties. This includes adhering to ethical principles that extend to the protection of the environment, as part of their broader responsibility to uphold God’s laws. Thus, it can be concluded that religious persons may, and even should, strive to accumulate wealth, but this pursuit must always align with their commitment to divine principles, including environmental stewardship and sustainable living. Therefore, Homo Religiosus, like Homo Climaticus, does not strive for life’s pleasures and wealth but seeks to ensure the “cleanliness” and “morality” of the environment, while capitalism does not foresee environmental protection. Both Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus lifestyles involve caring for others and even future generations, whereas the spirit of capitalism is concerned only with personal well-being and capital. This is also understood through the consequences that each archetype sees arising from actions that may harm the environment. Homo Climaticus points to environmental problems caused by human activities that harm the environment, such as global warming, air pollution, depletion of non-renewable resources, etc. Homo Religiosus points to God’s wrath for not adhering to God’s laws, whereas Max Weber’s capitalist does not worry about environmental problems but rejoices in their capital.

7. Conclusions

Homo Climaticus is characterized as a person deeply aware of the reality of climate change and advocating for socially responsible actions to reduce environmental degradation. This archetype prioritizes a sustainable lifestyle, promotes renewable energy use, and practices eco-friendly consumption. The challenges faced by Homo Climaticus include navigating the complexities of the global economic system, political inertia, and the potential of technological solutions that sometimes overlook deeper social and ethical aspects.

Conversely, Homo Religiosus is characterized by making decisions based on faith and spirituality, seeking meaning and connection with the sacred. This archetype encompasses a wide range of religious and spiritual traditions and practices, emphasizing rituals, morality, and a transcendent orientation towards life.

In this article, the authors have examined the synergy and conflict between these two archetypes, especially concerning environmental management. Although Homo Religiosus is usually not discussed in the context of environmental issues, the authors conclude that Homo Religiosus also acknowledges the divine command to protect the environment, viewing nature as God’s creation that must be preserved and respected.

Furthermore, the interaction between these archetypes shows that while both have a duty to protect the environment, their approaches differ significantly. Homo Climaticus operates based on rational and scientific understanding of sustainability, while Homo Religiosus is motivated by religious teachings emphasizing the sanctity of the natural world.

Overall, this article highlights that both Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus play crucial roles in addressing environmental problems. Despite their different motivations—rational and spiritual—they share a common responsibility for sustainable environmental management, reflecting the complex interplay of knowledge, faith, and action in human society.

The 10 Commandments of God included in the second book of Moses (Exodus) can be considered the foundation of environmental rights. Although the 6th, 9th, and 10th Commandments are not directly included in environmental rights, contemporary environmental rights have been developed based on these commandments, setting specific requirements and duties to ensure environmental protection.

In conclusion, this article serves as an initial exploration of the concepts and ideas surrounding Homo Climaticus and Homo Religiosus, with a focus on identifying their commonalities and differences. Due to the scope of this article, we have limited our discussion to certain key aspects, leaving room for broader exploration in future work. We acknowledge that topics such as Max Weber’s views on capitalism and its impact on climate change, as well as other related issues, warrant further investigation. As part of an interdisciplinary project, this article introduces a relevant, broad, and diverse discussion that we plan to expand upon in a subsequent article. In future work, we intend to address the feedback received and explore these topics in greater depth, continuing the dialog initiated here.