Deep ecology

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Deep Ecology)

Deep ecology is a recent philosophy or ecosophy based on a shift away from the anthropocentric bias of established environmental and green movements. The philosophy is marked by a new interpretation of "self" which deemphasizes the rationalistic duality between the human organism and its environment, thus allowing emphasis to be placed on the intrinsic value of other species, systems and processes in nature. This position leads to an ecocentric system of environmental ethics. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it is concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the role of human life as one part of the ecosphere, in distinction to ecology as a branch of biological science, and to merely utilitarian environmentalism based on the well-being of humans alone.

Contents

[edit]

Development

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other external influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global ecological well-being. Over the years, ecologists have desribed change and stability in ecological systems in various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature" (Botkin, 1990, below). Regardless which model is most accurate, environmentalists contend that massive human economic activity has pushed the biosphere far from its natural state through reduction of biodiversity, climate change, and other influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction. Deep ecologists hope to influence social and political change through their philosophy.


The phrase deep ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1972, and he helped give it a theoretical foundation. Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For example, judgements on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has consciousness have all been used to justify the ranking of the human animal over other animals. Næss states that "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species." This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that we and all other beings are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".

Certain elements of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, particularly his critique of technocratic reason, have also been held to tie in with deep ecological principles.Template:Fact

[edit]

Scientific

Deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics. Næss and Fox do not use logic or induction to directly derive the philosophy from scientific ecology, but rather claim that scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology, including its ideas about the self.

The scientific version of the Gaia hypothesis was also an influence on the development of deep ecology.

[edit]

Spiritual

The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth and not separate from it. A process of self-realisation or "re-earthing" is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realise ourselves. Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea.

Other traditions which have influenced deep ecology include Taoism and Zen Buddhism, primarily because they have a non-dualistic approach to subject and object. In relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss offers the following criticism: "The arrogance of stewardship [as found in the Bible] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation."<ref>Næss, Arne. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. p. 187. ISBN 0521348730</ref>

[edit]

Experiential

Drawing upon the Buddhist tradition is the work of Joanna Macy. Macy, working as an anti-nuclear activist in USA, found that one of the major impediments confronting the activists' cause was the presence of unresolved emotions of despair, grief, sorrow, anger and rage. The denial of these emotions led to apathy and disempowerment.

We may have intellectual understanding of our interconnectedness, but our culture, experiential deep ecologists like John Seed argue, robs us of emotional and visceral experience of that interconnectedness which we had as small children, but which has been socialised out of us by a highly anthropocentric alienating culture.

Through "Despair and Empowerment Work" and more recently "The Work that Reconnects", Macy and others have been taking Experiential Deep Ecology into many countries including especially the USA, Europe (particularly Britain and Germany), Russia and Australia.

[edit]

Principles

Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. The ethics of deep ecology holds that a whole system is superior to any of its parts. They offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:<ref>Devall, Bill. Sessions, George. (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs Smith Publishers. Salt Lake City. p. 70. ISBN 0879052473</ref>

  1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
  2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
  3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
  4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
  5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
  8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
[edit]

Movement

In practice, deep ecologists support decentralization, the creation of ecoregions, the breakdown of industrialism in its current form, and an end to authoritarianism.

Deep ecology is not normally considered a distinct movement, but as part of the green movement. The deep ecological movement could be defined as those within the green movement who hold deep ecological views. Deep ecologists welcome the labels "Gaian" and "Green" (including the broader political implications of this term, e.g. commitment to peace). Deep ecology has had a broad general influence on the green movement by providing an independent ethical platform for Green parties, political ecologists and environmentalists.

The philosophy of deep ecology helped differentiate the modern ecology movement by pointing out the anthropocentric bias of the term "environment", and rejecting the idea of humans as authoritarian guardians of the environment.

[edit]

Criticisms

[edit]

Deep ecology is misanthropy

Some critics contend that deep ecology is misanthropic, in that it advocates a reduction in human population. Deep ecologists' views on the natural role of epidemic disease and famine have been interpreted negatively to support this position. Deep ecologists would defend themselves against charges of misanthropy by pointing out that population reduction can be achieved by lowering birth rates. Deep ecologists would also counter that scarcity increases value and excessively high populations decrease the value of the human individual. This second counter-argument is viewed as even more misanthropic because it claims that individual human life is devalued to begin with.

Respect for nature includes a belief in the inherent worth of all beings that are a part of the natural world. Only those humans who are alienated from the natural world and participate in its destruction are to be opposed. However, by deep ecology's own standards, the overwhelming majority of humanity is alienated from nature and participates in its destruction at least to some degree. Some would argue that the deep ecologists' opposition to the overwhelming majority of humanity is the very definition of misanthropy.

The political philosophy of deep ecology has been criticised as ecofascism. In response, deep ecologists claim that they advocate a new relationship between humanity and the ecosphere, a relationship that seeks to end authoritarianism through decentralizaton, and espouse a less dominating and aggressive posture towards nature; a position that appears to be the opposite of fascism. Fascism is not defined by its posture towards nature, though, but by its position towards human society.

[edit]

Deepness

Deep ecology is criticised for the claim that the theory is deeper than other theories, which by implication are shallow. It may be presumptuous to assert that one's thinking is deeper than others'. The term shallow ecology was coined at the same time as deep ecology by Arne Næss, who critiqued shallow ecology for having a utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to nature and having a materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.<ref>Great River Earth Institute, Deep Ecology: Environmentalism as if all beings mattered</ref> <ref>Animal Ethics Clarifier, Deep Ecology</ref>

[edit]

Ecofeminist response

Both ecofeminism and deep ecology put forward a new conceptualization of the self. Some ecofeminists, such as Marti Kheel<ref>Kheel, Marti. (1990): Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology; reflections on identity and difference from:

Diamond, Irene. Orenstein. Gloria (editors), Reweaving the World; The emergence of ecofeminism. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco. pp 128-137. ISBN 0871566230</ref>, argue that self-realization and identification with all nature places too much emphasis on the whole, at the expense of the independent being. Ecofeminists contend that their concept of the self (as a dynamic process consisting of relations) is superior. Ecofeminists would also place more emphasis on the problem of androcentrism rather than anthropocentrism.
[edit]

Misunderstanding scientific information

Daniel Botkin<ref>Botkin, Daniel B. (2000). No Man's Garden: Thoreau and a New Vision for Civilization and Nature. Shearwater Books. pp. 42,39. ISBN 1559634650</ref> has compared deep ecology unfavourably with its antithesis, the wise use movement, when he says that they both "misunderstand scientific information and then arrive at conclusions based on their misunderstanding, which are in turn used as justification for their ideologies. Both begin with an ideology and are political and social in focus." Elsewhere though, he asserts that deep ecology must be taken seriously in the debate about society and ecology as it challenges the fundamental assumptions of western philosophy.

[edit]

Interests in nature

For something to require protection in itself, it must have interests. Deep ecology is criticised on the idea of the plant environment having its own interests. Deep ecologists claim to identify with the environment, and in doing so, understand what the environment's interests are. These critics suggest that the interests that a deep ecologist gives to nature, like: growth, individuality, balance and fairness, are really human interests. "The earth is endowed with "wisdom", wilderness equates with "freedom", and life forms are said to emit "moral" qualities."<ref>Joff, The Possibility of an Anti-Humanist Anarchism</ref>

[edit]

Deep ecology as not "deep" enough

Social ecologists such as Murray Bookchin claim that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. Social ecologists believe that environmental problems are firmly rooted in the manner of human social interaction, and protest that an ecologically sustainable society could still be socially exploitative. Deep ecologists reject the argument that ecological behavior is rooted in the social paradigm (according to their view, that is an anthropocentric fallacy), and they maintain that the converse of the social ecologists' objection is also true in that it is equally possible for a socially egalitarian society to continue to exploit the Earth.

[edit]

Socially biased

Some criticize deep ecologists as bourgeois in that they advocate a way of living that is easier for people who are more affluent. That is to say, it is often difficult for certain groups of people, namely Native American tribes such as the Makah to have healthy diets in exclusion of animals. Additionally, in the case of the Makah, whaling is an integral part of the culture, and as such, critics may ascribe any move to stop it as ethnocentric or imperialistic. Those who criticize deep ecology for its misanthropy would likely argue that this proves how the movement is destructive to the human race. Some deep ecologists would likely retort that whaling in the case of the Makah is acceptable, since it does not endanger the environment on the whole as industrialism does, and in many ways recognizes whales as equal, but still part of the food chain. At this point, their practices are little different from animals who diet on other animals to stay alive.


[edit]

Notable advocates of deep ecology

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

<references/>

Botkin, Daniel B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford Univ. Press, NY, NY. ISBN 0-19-507469-6.
[edit]

Further reading

  • Jozef Keulartz, Struggle for nature : a critique of radical ecology, London [etc.] : Routledge, 1998
  • Murray Bookchin, Graham Purchace, Brian Morris, Rodney Aitchtey, Robert Hart, Chris Wilbert, Deep Ecology and Anarchism, Freedom Press (1993) ISBN 0-900384-67-0.
  • Michael Tobias ed, Deep Ecology, Avant Books (1984, 1988) ISBN 0-932238-13-0.
  • John Seed, Joanna Macy, Pat Flemming, Arne Naess, Thinking like a mountain: towards a council of all being, Heritic Books (1988), ISBN 0946097-26-7, ISBN 0-86571-133-X.
  • Harold Glasser (ed), The Selected Works of Arne Naess, Volumes 1-10. Springer, (2005), ISBN: 1-4020-3727-9. (review)
[edit]

External links

de:Tiefenökologie fr:Écologie profonde ja:ディープエコロジー no:Dybdeøkologi nn:Djupøkologi

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Deep_ecology"