Deep ecology

From Academic Kids

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 asks deeper questions about the role of human life in the ecosphere.

Contents

1 Development 1.1 Scientific 1.2 Spiritual 2 Principles 3 Movement 4 Criticisms 5 Notable advocates of deep ecology 6 See also 7 Notes 8 External links

Development

Ecology has shown us that ecosystems exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and can absorb only limited change by humans. Environmentalists contend that massive human economic activity has brought the biosphere far from homeostasis through reduction in biodiversity and climate change. A consequence of this analysis is that the prevailing ideology of western civilisation is leading to mass extinction. This has prompted the need for new philosophical paradigms, such as deep ecology, which can guide human activity against perceived self-destruction.

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".

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.

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: ¹ "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."

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 morally superior to any of its parts. They offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims: ²

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 & great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

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 label "Green" and the broader political implications of that term, e.g. commitment to peace. Deep ecology has had a broad general influence on the green movement by providing an independant 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.

Criticisms

Some critics contend that deep ecology is highly misanthropic, in that it advocates human extinction, or at least a large reduction in population. Views on the natural role of epidemic diseases and famine can become quite contentious in this light. Such critics may describe deep ecology 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.

Both ecofeminism and deep ecology put forward a new conceptualization of the self. Some ecofeminists, such as Marti Kheel³, 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.

Social ecologists like Murray Bookchin claim that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. Social ecologists believe that by changing the social structure, the crises of nature can be solved, but deep ecologists maintain that anthropocentrism will merely change form and the crises will continue under another name.

Daniel Bodkin⁴ 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 (p.39) 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.

Notable advocates of deep ecology

• Fritjof Capra
• Warwick Fox
• Pentti Linkola
• Joanna Macy
• Jerry Mander
• Arne Næss
• George Sessions
• Gary Snyder

See also

• Ecofeminism
• Environmental ethics
• Ecology movement
• Ecology
• Gaian
• Greens
• Growth Fetish
• Social ecology
• Systems theory

Notes

• Note 1: Næss, Arne. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. p. 187. ISBN 0521348730
• Note 2: Devall, Bill. Sessions, George. (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs Smith Publishers. Salt Lake City. p. 70. ISBN 0879052473
• Note 3: 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

• Note 4: Bodkin, Daniel B. (2000). No Man's Garden: Thoreau and a New Vision for Civilization and Nature. Shearwater Books. pp. 42,39. ISBN 1559634650

External links

• Environmental Ethics Journal (http://www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html)
• The Trumpeter (http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/), Canadian journal of ecosophy, quite a number of articles from Naess among others.
• Foundation for Deep Ecology (http://www.deepecology.org)
• Deep Ecology Movement (http://www.deepecology.org/deepmovement.html), Alan Drengson, Foundation for Deep Ecology.
• An interview with Michael E. Zimmerman (http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm) by Alan AtKisson which discusses Deep Ecology and its relation to some other philosophiesda:Dybdeøkologi

de:Tiefenökologie ja:ディープエコロジー no:Dybdeøkologi