Deep Ecology

Presentations April 11: Hoi Kit, Lucy, Ka Hei April 16: Kathleen, Chad, Shashwati, Kuk Chun Ming April 18: Evelyn, Cloud, Matthew Final Paper: 1 st draft of paper due on April 20 Final due date: May 7

Arne Naess Norwegian philosopher ( ) Founder of Deep Ecology: biospheric egalitarianism Coined term “deep ecology” in 1973 Deep ecology now has many, many adherents in philosophy, science, political activism and literature In 1970, he chained himself to rocks (together with many other demonstrators) in front of a Norwegian fiord to protest the building of a new dam.

Naess’s Apron Diagram Level 2 conclusions are drawn from the premises of Level 1. Level 1 premises are basic and not open to justification. Naess: all deep ecologists agree on Level 2. But there is great diversity at Level 1. Isn’t that backwards?

Why “Deep”? “Deep ecology” is deep because it questions fundamental assumptions in our philosophies and world view. Attempts to deduce principles of action from basic values and premises. Examples of “deep” questions: What is an individual? What things have intrinsic value and moral standing? How should we understand nature? What is the relationship between people and nature? Deep ecology answers tend to be anti-individualist and anti-reductionist, and pro-holism.

Ultimate Premises Sources of basic values different for different ecophilosophers. Examples:  Buddhism  Taoism  Jainism  Baha’i  Native American religious beliefs  “Reformed” Christianity  Gaia hypothesis: The earth is a single living organism (James Lovelock 1960s)  Ecosophy T: Naess’s own philosophy, and the leading philosophical underpinning of deep ecology

Ecosophy T Humans are part of nature and not separate from it. The notion of “individuals” is vague. A person is no more of an individual than a cell or a species or an ecosystem. Individuals are formed and defined by their relationships with other entities. We come from nature, we are nature, nature is us. Relationships and processes are more real and lasting than individuals. “It is the idea that we can make no firm ontological divide in the field of existence: that there is no bifurcation in reality between the human and the non-human realms … to the extent that we perceive boundaries, we fall short of Deep Ecological consciousness.” (Warwick Fox, 1984)

Ecosophy T (cont.): Self-realization The ultimate good is Self-realization. Not “self-realization”: egotistical focus on the individual But “Self-realization”: understanding the Self as a large comprehensive Self including all lives, human, animal and vegetable. All of nature strives to realize its Self, and to live in harmony with its parts. The flourishing of all of nature should be our goal. Maximize symbiosis! Maximize diversity!

Guiding Principles of Deep Ecology Anti-anthropocentric All life has inherent value – and equal value. Humans have no special moral status. Richness and diversity of life are inherently good. Individuals not as important as wholes: species, ecosystems, biodiversity, the earth. The world would be better off with fewer people, and people should have less impact on the rest of nature. We need to change our economic, technical and industrial systems, philosophical world view, and materialistic consumerist lifestyle. We can’t rely on science to “fix” our current problems. Science can only treat the symptoms. We must try to cure the disease. We can have a better life if we choose a life that is closer to nature and less materialistic. We would be better off and nature would be better off. “There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.”

Criticisms Non-systematic, ambiguous and vague. Founded on unjustified anthropomorphism: imbuing animals, plants, ecosystems, the earth, with human-like feelings and interests Romanticizes nature as wise, harmonious, beautiful, good. But nature can be cruel, ugly, destructive. Where does inherent value come from? For something to have intrinsic rights or to deserve protection, it must have interests. How can plants or ecosystems have interests? How could we, as humans, possibly understand the interests of other animals, plants, ecosystems, etc. Inconsistent? There are no individuals, humans are merely a part of the whole, yet humans are uniquely responsible for environmental destruction.

Criticism (cont.) “Deep” vs. “shallow” an unfair characterization of divergent views. Naess lumps together all sorts of things as typical of “shallow” ecology, including short-sightedness, unfairness to developing countries, reliance on quick technological fixes, alienation of ordinary citizens from the problem-solving process, utilitarianism, anthropocentrism, etc. "What's wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception.” (William Grey, 1993)