Jump to content

Deep ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muxxa (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 8 June 2005 (Reworked introduction, emphasizing DE unique points i.e. Self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Development

The phrase deep ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1972, and he helped give it a theoretical foundation. Knowledge that ecosystems exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and can absorb only limited change by humans, has led to a search for new philosophical paradigms which can guide human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology is a philosophy which makes the connection between destruction of the environment and destruction of humankind.

Many of the ideas of deep ecology have been expounded in the book The Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey. The book, a fictional account of ecotage directed against dams, influenced Earth First!.

Scientific

Deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics. Deep ecologists view economics as a sub-branch of ecology, and 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 prevalent ideology of western civilisation is leading to mass extinction prompting the need for new philosophies such as deep ecology.

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 Arne Næss and 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: Template:Fn "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: Template:Fn

  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 as 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. Their view 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.

Some ecofeminists criticize deep ecology's claim of anthropocentrism. These ecofeminists maintain that the problem is actually androcentrism, and that patriarchy is responsible for the destruction of the biosphere. While deep ecologists sympathize with ecofeminism, they don't believe that egalitarian social relationships will solve the problem.

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 BodkinTemplate:Fn has compared deep ecology unfavourably with its antithesis, the wise use movement, when he sais 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

See also

Notes

  • Template:FnbNæss, Arne. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. p. 187. ISBN 0521348730
  • Template:FnbDevall, Bill. Sessions, George. (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs Smith Publishers. Salt Lake City. p. 70. ISBN 0879052473
  • Template:FnbBodkin, Daniel B. (2000). No Man's Garden: Thoreau and a New Vision for Civilization and Nature. Shearwater Books. pp. 42,39. ISBN 1559634650
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_ecology&oldid=14858947"