Deep Ecology
"There is no bifurcation of reality between the
human and the non-human realms...to the
extent that we perceive boundaries we fall short
of deep ecological consciousness." Discuss
how this perception has shaped ecological
thinking in the West.
The question of a bifurcation between human and
non human realms is largely one of values.
The perception of boundaries between humans
and nature, by humanity is based on the
value placed on nature and human life. The
values placed on non human life fall into three
distinct theories. According to I. G. Simmons
(1993) these are anthropocentrism,
inherentism and intrinsicalism. The first is the
value placed on nature by modern society, the
second is the value placed on nature by the
environmental movement and the last is the value
placed on nature by the deep ecological
movement. The latter is the only theory that does
not recognise a distinction between humanity
and nature, whereas the other theories´ value
systems rely heavily on this distinction.
A discussion of the basic ‘norms´ and principles
of deep ecology is needed before it can be
shown how the other values are different from this
ethical philosophy.
Deep Ecology is a term that is used to describe
the intimate, compassionate relationship and
identification with nature. It promotes the rights of
all life and all of nature. In the eyes of the
deep ecologist the term ‘life´ includes not only
the general meaning of life but also
ecosystems, rivers, mountains etc. All of nature
is alive and as such is incorporated in the
term life by deep ecologists.
The two norms of deep ecology are self
realisation and biocentric equality.
Self realisation is concerned with an intimate
identification with the rest of the earth or the
cosmos. The ecological Self is distinguished
from the egotistic self. The self (with a lower
case ‘s´) is that which much of humanity is
concerned with, that is, the individual self which
begins and finishes at the artificial boundary of a
person´s skin. It includes the persons ego.
The Self, however, is the ecological self - the
wider Self - through which every living being is
intimately connected. In the words of Arne Naess
(1989), "we are bound to our Self as a
circle is bound to pi." It is not self centred. This
Self of a person is that which the person
identifies with. So it is the identification, or rather
the process if identification - as Self
realisation is a journey, no a place to be found or
reached. The word in Norwegian is
‘identiferising´ best translated as identiting.
Naess says that "a situation in which identification
elicits intense empathy" is the model situation of
identification and that "there must be
identification for there to be compassion" (Naess
1993). Self realisation in the growing
understanding of the interconnectedness of
nature. In Birch´s words "perfect at-one-ment"
(1991). It involves the recognition that all life is
fundamentally one.
Deep ecology must be studied with a gestalt
view, that is the nature of the parts is secondary
to and determined by the whole. Naess says that
the common saying ‘the whole is worth
more than the sum of the parts´ "beautifully
illustrates gestalt thinking." (1989). One must
examine the whole to discover what it´s parts are
rather than trying to fit the parts into a
whole. This view illustrates how each individual is
related to the whole, the cosmos.
One can move in the direction from the self
towards the Self. As one moves in this direction,
one´s "sphere of identification" (Birch 1991) is
enlarged to include nature. An extension of
understanding is the result, thus our sense of
belonging is extended from say family belonging
to ecospheric belonging. Therefore, we "care as
deeply and compassionately as possible
about the fate [of the Earth] not because it
affects us but because it is us." (Fox 1984 from
Birch 1991). The self, however, can not be
thought of as being dissolved in the Self as deep
ecology celebrates diversity. Thus, Rachel
Carson´s expression "drops in the stream of life"
may not be accurate as it implies a loss of the
drops´ individuality within the stream.
The second norm of deep ecology is biocentric
equality. Biocentric equality is the belief that
"all things - ecosystems, life and landscapes -
have an intrinsic right to exist." (Naess et al)
This intrinsic value is independent of the needs or
appreciation of other life forms, including
humans. This norm implies that the selfish use of
other life by humans is unacceptable as it
assumes that the needs of humans are of higher
importance than that of the other life forms´.
Humanity has long held the view that "humans
are central to the cosmic drama, that
essentially, the world was made for us." (Fox
1989 from Young 1991). Humanity is in no
way superior to the rest of the life on Earth and
as such has no reason to assume the position
of dominance that it has. However, human rights
"are not only no more important but also no
less important than the rights of nature." (Young
1991). So the deep ecologists ask that
humanity "embrace rather than conquer the
world" (Patsy Hallen from Naess 1993).
Along with these norms, deep ecology also has
a number of basic principles upon which it
functions. These are: i)The well being and
flourishing of human and non human life has
intrinsic value, inherent worth, independent of the
usefulness of the non human world for
human purposes; ii)Richness and diversity of life
forms contribute to the realisation of these
values and are also values in themselves;
iii)Humans have no right to reduce this richness
except to satisfy vital needs; iv)The flourishing of
Human life and culture and non human life
is only compatible with a smaller human
population.
The first is a recap of the biocentric equality
norm - the intrinsic value of all life. The second
emphasises the importance placed on diversity
as a means for realising the values of life. The
third is also parallel to biocentric equality in that
it once again emphasises that humanity is
merely a citizen of the cosmos and no more, but
also that it may use other life to satisfy vital
needs. Deep ecology recognises that humanity
is a part of ecology and as such must make
an impact of some sort upon the lives of other life
forms. The fourth concerns the extent of
the impact that humanity is making on other life
forms and how this is effecting non
humanity´s right to Self realisation. Deep
ecologists "put a reign on human exploitation on
natural ‘resources´ except to satisfy vital needs"
(Trumbore 1996). A Decrease of human
polulation to one hundred million is what the
Earth needs in order for other life forms to
flourish because of increased habitat. Young
says that this needs to be donr through
"tenacious political and economic measures"
(1991). In general, these principles extend upon
the norms of deep ecology already discussed.
Now that the basic principles and norms behind
deep ecology have been discussed, a
discussion of their implication and application to
conservation and Western society must
follow.
Deep ecologists claim that the centre of our
environmental problems lies in our dominating
attitudes towards nature, our "human-
centredness" (anon Internet). Deep ecologists point
out that our society "celebrates material wealth,
technology and progress seeing nature as an
instrument for our satisfaction." (Trumbore 1996).
In asking for the recognition of the intrinsical
rather than the instrumental value of other life
forms, deep ecology is asking for a profound
change in modern thinking. In asking for
change, deep ecologists are not only seeking a
slight reform of society, but an entire
reorientation of civilisation. The fundamental
connection between deep ecology and
conservation is that by developing Self
realisation, humanity will further see their
interconnectedness with non humanity and a
greater identification will follow. With this
identification will come an increasing desire to
protect other life forms because they are
essentially part of the individual, or rather, the
individual is part of the greater life or Self in
which the other life forms exist. "A form of
togetherness with nature which is to our own
greatest benefit" (Naess 1989), where ‘own
greater benefit´ means that which serves the
greater Self.
Another aspect of this identification is the shift
from material satisfaction to a spiritual
satisfaction. Arne Naess talks of the "great, rich
satisfaction obtained from desiring
something which will benefit other living things"
(1989). The best summary of the connection
between deep ecology and conservation is from
Naess (1989): "the greater our
comprehension of our togetherness with other
living beings, the greater the identification, and
the greater the care we will take."
These views taken by the deep ecological
movement, the theories of intrinsicalism, are vastly
different from those theories mentioned earlier -
anthropocentrism and inherentism.
Modern Western thinking, that is the
anthropocentrism, has a perception of humanity and the
environment rather than humanity in the
environment, as the deep ecologists do. The way in
which this perception of a division leads to
modern Western thinking can be seen to
generally follow these stages: i) a perception of
humanity as superior to nature ii) humanity
dominating over nature iii) nature therefore a
resource for humanity´s use iv) leads to a higher
material standard of living for humanity v) a
society where consumerism dominates vi) the
eventual degradation and demise of nature
Hence, the anthropocentric views are utilitarian
as apposed to the egalitarian views of the
deep ecologists.
Unlike their hunting and gathering ancestors,
technological humans "possessed the power to
alter ecosystems beyond their vital or legitimate
need to survive" (Nash 1990). This power
has lead to humanity viewing themselves as
superior and thus have taken a dominating role
on Earth. Birch says that historically nature is
seen as "none other than the stage on which the
drama of human life is performed" (1991). As
there is a strong distinction made between
humanity and nature, nature is only seen as
useful if it can be manipulated for the use of
humanity´s ‘progress´. Hence the concept of
‘resources´ predominates throughout our
society. "Before it is possessed and used, every
plant is a weed and every mineral is just
another rock." (Peter Drucker from Trumbore
1996).
This concept is encouraged as it leads to an
increased material standard of living. Natural
resources make the life of humanity easier every
day. A current television advertisement for
Telstra says "making it easier to grow, making it
easy for you." This is the life that modern
society promotes - easier living makes a persons
life better.
Deep ecology though, tries to demonstrate the
difference between standard of living and life
quality. Deep ecologists ask whether present
society fulfils basic human needs like love,
security and access to nature, claiming that
these are the ingredients to a high quality to life
and produce a different and higher satisfaction
than a high standard of living does. Once
again there is an emphasis on a shift from
material satisfactions to spiritual ones, and only a
high quality of life can be truly spiritually
satisfying. A logo of sorts of deep ecology states
"simplicity of means, richness of ends!", again
emphasising the distinction between the
benefits of life quality and standard of living.
Humanity´s quest for a higher standard of living
has lead to a society where consumerism
dominates. There is always a need for the latest
in a long line of ‘advancements´. As new
appliances are introduced the older ones become
obsolete and the newest range must then
be purchased for a person to reach a once again
higher standard of living. This pattern of
consumerism leads to more and more
‘resources´ being used. The continuation of this
pattern will lead to the eventual degradation and
demise of nature.
The fear of this demise of nature has lead to the
third type of value placed on nature -
inherentism - by the environmentalists. The
environmentalists have recognised the finite
character of nature and attempt to conserve it for
‘human-centred´ reasons. This is what the
deep ecologists call ‘shallow ecology´ in that it´s
motives for conserving nature are purely
human orientated. Like the anthropocentric view
point, inherentism is utilitarian. Nature is
conserved for it´s instrumental value rather than
it´s intrinsic value.
This type of value has had a long history in
Australia. An early example is in South Australia
in 1870, Heinrich Krichouff (a politician) urged
local councils to plant vacant land with local
natives, Western Australian natives and
European evergreens because South Australia´s
timber reserves were "markedly smaller than
other Australian colonies and native timber
supplies were fast diminishing." (Bolton 1992).
This is an example of taking ‘environmentally
sound´ measures for purely humanity centred
purposes.
Between 1898 and 1914, New South Wales,
Victoria and South Australia passed acts for
the reservation of National Parks but they were
"intended for public recreation rather than
the preservation of wilderness in it´s natural
state" (Bolton 1992).
Environmentalism has traditionally conveyed the
message of "look after nature because
nature looks after us" (Birch 1991). Deep
ecologists also think of nature preservation as self
preservation but only so far as this is the Self,
that is, nature is preserved for the sake of our
Self, not ourselves.
Humans have often been seen as the only moral
agents, therefore the only life forms eligible
for ‘rights´. So nature can´t have rights because it
can not communicate or recognise mutual
obligations. Australian philosopher, John
Passmore believes that nature can only be afforded
instrumental values, but humanity still needs to
be responsible for nature as a matter of
human morality and for our own well being. Thus
humans are "ethically obliged to restrain
their environmental impact" (Nash 1990).
Environmentalists are accused by deep
ecologists of offering ‘quick-fix´ solutions to
environmental problems. For example, "rather
than taking the shallow approach looking at
pollution as a control, placement and dispersion
problem to limit human toxicity, the deep
ecologist questions the production of any toxic
waste at all and evaluates it´s effect on the
total biosphere." (Trumbore 1996).
The conservation of the environmentalists "rests
on insecure foundations as long as it does
not go beyond instrumental" values. (Birch 1991).
The reasons for natures value to the
environmentalist include maintaining the
existence of all organisms for ourselves; maintaining
those organisms needed for experimental
studies; nature for recreation, leisure and aesthetic
pleasure. Deep ecologists though, criticise these
motives and ask what of those life forms
which have no use to humans. This is the reason
humanity must begin to place value upon
nature intrinsically rather than instrumentally, if
conservation of species, wilderness and
diversity is to be successful.
In conclusion, the perception of boundaries by
the anthropocentric and inherentistic views
have lead to modern society´s utilitarian attitude
towards nature, that is, nature as a resource
of some form or another - whether this involves
‘sustainable management´ or otherwise. The
intrinsicalism of the deep ecologist however,
sees them viewing humanity and nature as a
part of the same cosmos, percieving no
distinction between them and as such have radically
different views on how best to conserve species,
wilderness and biodiversity.
Reference List
Birch C. (1991) On Purpose. NSW University
Press, Kensington. Bolton G. (1992) Spoils
and Spoilers. Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, North
Sydney. Naess A., Sessions G., Deval B.,
Deep Ecology. Internet. Naess A. (1989)
Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambrdge
University Press, Cambridge. Naess A. (1993)
Self Realisation: An Ecological Approach to
Being in the World; from Van de Veer D., Pierce
C. (1993) The Environmental Ethics and
Policy Book. International Thomson Publishing.
Nash R. (1990) The Rights of Nature. First
Primavera Press, Leichhardt. Simmons I. G.
(1993) Environmental History. Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford. Trumbore Rev S. (Feb. 1996)
A Case For Deep Ecology. Internet.
Young J. (1991) Sustaining The Earth. NSW
University Press, Kensington.
Bibliography
Gordon A., Suzuki D. (1990) It´s A Matter Of
Survival. Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, North
Sydney. Hayward T. 1995) Ecological Thought.
Polity Press, Cambridge. McMichael A. J.
(1993) Panetary Overload. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
