Deep Ecology

Modern environmental currents include diverse fundamental philosophies. Some have more influence whereas others are just starting off:

• The conservationists, one of the older environmental philosophical movements. Environment and nature must be used and protected at the same time. It is thus based on an anthropocentric vision and nature has no rights beyond the fact that it is useful for the human beings. Ideologists: Pinchot, Gifford.
• The preservationists, from the 1800′s. Nature exists to be enjoyed and must therefore be preserved and protected for our future enjoyment. Once again an athropocentric premise, nature is useful only for the human being, though with more benign objectives.
• Social Ecology & Ecofeminism, both have only recently been defined and have not given birth to organizations. They have rather become part of other environmental movements. They place a high value on the human being and his/her existence, but recognize natures unique character. They would try to solve environmental conflicts by first conciliating human conflicts or relational conflicts.
• Superficial or reformist ecology, the struggle against pollution and the resource depletion or disappearance. The main objective is to protect the developed countries inhabitant’s health and living conditions.
• Deep ecology, established by Arne Naess as a concept and without any intention of it becoming an ideology of large proportion. He did not actually describe anything new, rather, he generates an integrated vision of various concepts.

The base concepts as Naess established them are:

1. Rejection of the man-in-environment image in favor of the relational, oral-field image.

2. Biospherical egalitarianism – in principle. The “in principle” clause is inserted because any realistic praxis necessitates some killing, exploitation, and suppression. All natural things, ecosystems, all lifeforms, landscape, soil, mountains, etc., all have an intrinsical right to exist. This value is completely independent of any conscience, interest or appreciation of a specifical conscious being.

3. Principles of diversity and of symbiosis. Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms.

Bill Devall explains that there exist two main lines in environmentalism today:

The “reformist environmentalists”, that try to control the worst part of air & water pollution and the inefficient use of soil resources in industrialized countries and save some pieces of what is left of nature as areas they designate as “natural”.

The “deep ecologists”, that support some of the same objectives as the reformists, but are revolutionary in the fact that they search for a new world view.

Other terms used are ecopsychology, foundational ecology, radical ecology or revolutionary ecology, but due to the associations some of these terms bring up, he prefers “deep ecology”.

Both are reactions to the success and failures of the dominating social paradigm.

A paradigm is a brief description of a world view, a collection of values, beliefs or norms that form the reference for most people in a country, a religion or a social class.

“A dominant social paradigm is a mental image of social reality that guides the expectations in a society.”

In the U.S. the dominant paradigm includes the belief  that “economic growth”, measured by the Gross National Product is a measurement of progress. There is a belief that the main goal of governments, after defense, is creating conditions that increase the production and that this will satisfy the material desires of their citizens, including the belief that technology will solve any further issues.

Nature in this paradigm is only a warehouse of resources that should be “developed” to meet the growing needs of an increasing population. The new takes precedence over the old. The goal of the citizen is the personal satisfaction of his/her needs and a higher living standard measured by material commodities (cars, houses, recreational vehicles, etc.).

For some authors, this paradigm is derived from Judeo-Christian origins of man vs. nature of man at war with nature.

For others it is due to the structure of capitalism as derived from Locke, who thought property must be “improved” to make it more valuable to the “owner” and society.

For others it derives from the modern Western science based society and its progressive domination of nature.

Deep Ecology is based on a complete integration of the person-in-nature. It is neither above nor outside nature. It is an integral part of creation in motion. A person respects, care for and show reverence for nature, respects nonhuman nature, lets non-human nature follow separate evolutionary destinies. Therefore, unlike reformists, it is not a pragmatic movement, but also questions and presents an alternative proposal to conventional forms of modern Western thinking. They understand that some of the “solutions” presented by the reformers are counterproductive and therefore seeks to transform values and social aspects.

First Influence:

The biggest influence has been of Eastern cultures, Eastern spiritualism, by Alan Watts, Daisetz Suzuki. These offer a radically different vision of man and nature. Ecophilosopher Gary Snyder was quite influential too.

They began to draw comparisons and parallels between philosophical traditions and their relationship to science, technology and human relationships and nature, some examples:

* Tao of Physics Fritjof Capra. Making a parallel between Eastern philosophies and modern physics.

* Joseph Needham, Science and Technology in China, which highlighted the high level of science, technology and civilization reached by the East for millennia, giving an alternative approach to science and human values.

* Work Huston Smith and others highlighted the environmental crisis, they associate it with the dominant values in the Western paradigm and then shift their focus to Eastern philosophies and religious-spiritual guides.

Second influence:

The reassessment of the native American Indians & cultures all over the continent, not as “noble savages” but comparing, analyzing and from a objective point of view. How did they face environmental changes and technological innovations. Separate realities what were the in the eyes of the natives? Carlos Castaneda and his experience shows that Western intellectuals are almost completely unprepared to understand esoteric traditions.

Native American’s vision contrasts sharply with the Western paradigm, for example, a quote from Luther Standing Bear, an Oglala Sioux:

“We did not think that the great plains, or that large beautiful hills, winding creeks or the tangled growth, are “wild”. Only in the white man’s eyes was nature “wild”, only in his eyes was the land “infested” with animals and savage people. For us it was calm. The earth was fruitful and we were surrounded by the blessings of the Great Mystery. When the hairy man came from the East, with his brutal madness did injustice fall upon us and our beloved families, then it became “wild”. When even forest animals began fleeing in his presence, that was when the “wild” west began.”

Third Influence:

Lesser known Western philosophical and religious sectors, such as Spinoza, Leopold, Muir, Theophrastus, San Francisco de Asis, etc. who preached an inextricable interconnection of God-Nature-Man. Some authors view the influential philosopher Spinoza as the creator of a biospheric equality ethics.

Fourth Influence:

Ecology, but as a perspective and not as a science. Therefore, it does not have remedial functions, a position that makes an ecologist very much like an environmental engineer, a role rejected by deep ecologists, but as subversive in perspective, intellectual leaders like Aldo Leopold are a strong challenge to prevailing social paradigms.

Last Influence:

Artists opposed to pop art, minimalism and conceptual art, such as Ansel Adams, Morris Graves and Larry Gray. They show clarity and objectivity in their views of nature.

So Deep Ecology calls for:

1. A new metaphysical cosmic / ecological view that stresses the identity of human non-human nature as the only viable way to establish an eco-philosophy. Biological equality.

2. It requires an objective approach to nature.

3. A new psychology that can integrate metaphysics into the minds of postindustrial society.

4. That is an objective basis for environmentalism, but not based on a narrow set of analytical scientific methods, as prevalent today. Rather, based on ancient wisdom and the ancient perspective of science as spectator of the cosmos aiding in expanding the knowledge of self and of creation.

5. There is a wisdom inherent in natural processes that are undisturbed by human intervention.

6. Neither should the quality of human life, nor human well-being, be measured based on material things, products. Technology should become an appropriate means to obtain human welfare and not as an end in itself.

7. The optimal level of burden must be determined for the planet, the biosphere, and specific industries, etc. A drastic reduction of population growth must be obtained through humane methods of birth control.

8. The economy must be a subordinate of ecological-ethical criteria. The economy must become a subsection of ecology.

9. An industrial society is not necessarily something that every society should try to achieve and emulate.

10. Diversity is desirable culturally and is the foundation of health and ecosystem stability.

11. A rapid trend toward methods “soft” power generation technologies and use of “appropriate” energy methods. This implies a drastic reduction of energy consumption in developed countries and an  increase of “appropriate” power use in underdeveloped countries.

12. Education should promote spiritual development and the rich personality of the members of a community as the main objectives.

13. More leisure time contemplating arts, dance, music and physical skills as a starting point to the full development of individuals and cultural achievement.

14. Local autonomy and decentralization.

15. Sectors of the biosphere and atmosphere will be declared off-limits to industrial logging and large-scale human settlement, to achieve a stable economy and social pattern changes.

SUMMARY TABLE

DOMINANTE PARADIGM	DEEP ECOLOGY
The domination of nature	In harmony with nature
Nature as a human resource	All nature has an intrinsic value
A growing human population with access to economic and material growth	Elegantly simple needs
Believes resources are unlimited	Limited resources
Progress and technological solutions	Appropriate technology, non-dominant science
Consumerism	Live with what you need, recycle, efficiency
Centralized societies / nations	Minority traditions / bioregions

Arne Naess

REFERENCES

• Merchant, Carolyn, ed. 1995. Key concepts in critical theory, Ecology. Doubleday Publishers. USA. Pages 121-139.
• Knauer, Josh. 1997. Environmental Ethical Theory Applied to Modern Environmental Movement.
• Naess, Arne. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A summary. Inquiry 16 (Oslo, 1973), pp. 95-100.
• Devall, Bill & Sessions, George. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Matters. Layton, UT: Peregrine Smith Books.
• Various sources on the WWW