NAMING THE HUMAN ANIMAL: GENESIS 1–3 AND OTHER ANIMALS IN HUMAN BECOMING

Recently the paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman has proposed what she calls the animal connection as the human trait that connects all other traits. Theologians and biblical scholars have proposed many relational, functional, and ontological interpretations of the image of God in humans and human nature, but have generally not included a connection with animals. Genesis 1–3, however, weaves human and animal creation in a variety of ways, and Adam's naming of other species implies they are understood as family or kin. Thus Genesis 1–3 understands a relationship with other animals as integral to human becoming and uses family or kinship as a root metaphor for human–animal relations.     

The Mysterious Silence of Mother Earth in Laudato Si'

Laudato si' attempts simultaneously to disrupt prevailing global environmental discourse and to reorient central concepts in Catholic moral tradition by requalifying the meaning of dominion and by ecologically expanding human dignity. The image of Earth crying out to humans from within a kinship relation plays a central role in both arguments. However, the political consequences of those shifts remain vague because the “voice” of Earth remains silent in crucial loci of the encyclical's argument.     

From dissonant dominance to synchronic sanctity: Relational extraction as counter-resonance to extractivism

There is a growing tendency within various disciplines of the humanities to conflate the terms extraction and extractivism. While the first word has many everyday uses—tooth extraction, vanilla “extract”—the latter term was specifically coined to identify a malevolent imaginary that indemnifies the removal of so-called “resources,” especially when that displacement involves layers of violence and/or looks solely to satisfy a particular economic aim. Given these disparate denotations, the unqualified use of “extraction” synonymously with “extractivism” introduces unnecessary ambiguity, inviting divergent arguments that ultimately diminish an otherwise worthy discussion and losing sight of the grave issues that underlie the conversation's original intent. As such, this essay investigates the biblical origins of this false equivalency and suggests how this usage might be disentangled to properly recenter the malevolence its users are attempting to describe.     

Dominions in quasivarieties of universal algebras

The dominion of a subalgebra H in an universal algebra A (in a class ) is the set of all elements such that for all homomorphisms if f, g coincide on H, then a^f = a^g. We investigate the connection between dominions and quasivarieties. We show that if a class is closed under ultraproducts, then the dominion in is equal to the dominion in a quasivariety generated by . Also we find conditions when dominions in a universal algebra form a lattice and study this lattice.Special issue of Studia Logica: Algebraic Theory of Quasivarieties Presented by M. E. Adams, K. V. Adaricheva, W. Dziobiak, and A. V. Kravchenko     

Creaturely Solidarity

This essay examines several recent contributions to the growing literature on animal ethics from Christian perspectives. I categorize the four books under review in one of three ways depending on the scholars' methodological points of departure: (1) a reconstruction of the place of other animals in Christian history through a selective retrieval of texts and practices; (2) an identification of a key Christian ethical principle; and (3) a reconsideration of foundational doctrines of systematic theology. On the premise that social ethicists are interested in not only understanding the world, but also changing it, I observe that these authors have offered different answers to the following three questions: (1) whether the theoretical basis for reform is ultimately grounded upon notions of human sameness or difference with other animals; (2) whether scholar‐activists should emphasize logic over passion or values over interests (or vice versa) in their calls for transformation; and (3) whether moral motivation for their targeted audiences is best served by reliance upon secular argumentation and interdisciplinary research or upon the distinctive claims of revelation and other tradition‐specific norms. I conclude by offering my own thoughts about which approaches might prove more effective than others.