NATURE AND HUMANITY

200 CHAPTER

3. WuAT Is DrmP Ecowcw? The phrase "deep ecology movement" has been used up to this point without trying to define it. One should not expect too much from definitions of movements; think, for example, of terms like "conservatism," "liberalism," or the "feminist movement." And there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same cleflnition, or to any definition, for that matter. It is the same with characterizations, criteria, or a set of proposed necessary conditions for application of the term or phrase. In what follows, a platform or key terms and phrases, agreed upon by George Sessions and myself, arc tentatively proposed as basic to deep ecology.'1 More accurately, the sentences have a double function. They are meant to express important points which the great majority of supporters accept, implicitly or explicitly, at a high level of generality. Furthermore, they express a proposal to the effect that those who solidly reject one or more of these points should not be viewed as suppmtcrs of deep ecology. This might result because they are supporters of a shallc)\,v (or reform) environmental movement or rather they may simply dislike one or more of the eight points for semantical or other reasons. But they may well accept a different set of points which, to me, has roughly the same meaning, in which case I shall call them supporters of the deep ecology movement, but add that they think they disagree (maybe Henryk Skolimowski is an example of the latter). The eight points are:

,,_, .... �,

\ 1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in

J themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are indepen- dent 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 needs.

200 CHAPTER

people who believe in its validity, rather than merely its usefulness. This, I think, will come to be understood more and rnorf' by· those in charge of educational policies. Quite simply, it is indecent for a teacher to proclaim an ethic for tactical reasons only.

Furthermore, this point applies to all aspects of a world conservation strategy. Conservation strategies are more eagerlv implemented by people who love what they are conserving, and who are cmJ\'incE'cl that what thE';-' love is intrinsically lovable. Such lovers will not want to hide their attitudes and \·alucs. rather they will increasingly give voice to them in public. The;-· possess a genuine ethics of conservation, not merely a tactically useful instrument for human survival.

In short, environmental education campaigns can fortunately combine human-cen­ tered arguments with a practical environmental ethic based on either a deeper and more fundamental philosophic or religious perspective and on a set of norms resting on intrinsic values. But the inherent strength of this overall position will be lost if those who work professionally on environmental problems do not freely give testimony to fundamental norms.

The above is hortatory in the positive etymological sense of that word. I seek "to urge, incite, instigate, encourage, cheer" (Latin: hor/;ari). This may seem unacaclemic but I consider it justifiable because of an intimate relationship between hortatory sentences and basic philosophical views which I formulate in section 8. To trace what follows from fundamental norms and hypotheses is eminently philosophical.

3. WuAT Is DEEP EcoLOGY? The phrase "deep ecology movement" has been used up to this point without trying to define it. One should not expect too much from definitions of movements; think, for example, of terms like "conservatism," "liberalism," or the "feminist movement." And there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any definition, for that matter. It is the same with characterizations, criteria, or a set of proposed necesSaJ)' conditions for application of the term or phrase. In what follows, a platform or key terms and phrases, agreed upon by George Sessions and myself, are tentatively proposed as basic to deep ecology:1 More accurately, the sentences have a double function. They are meant to express important points which the great majority of supporters accept, implicitly or explicitly, at a high level of generality. Furthermore, they express a proposal to the effect that those who solidly reject one or more of tlwse points should not be viewed as supporters of deep ecology. This might result because they are supporters of a shallow (or reform) environmental movement or rather they may simply dislike one or more of the eight points for semantical or other reasons. But they may well accept a different set of points which, to me, has roughly the same meaning, in which case I shall call them supporters of the deep ecology movement, but add that they think they disagree (maybe Henryk Skolimowski is an example of the latter). The eight points are:

··-"----------•·

\ l. The well-being and flou:·ish_ing of huma:1 and nonhuman l�fo on Earth hav� value in J themselves (synonyms: mtrms1c value, mherent worth). 1 hese values are mdepen-

dent 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

needs.