humanity questions 1135 CT12
sozfhf
deep_ecology_readings.docxThe man now considered the founder of this decidedly post-Western world view was the naturalist Aldo Leopold(1887-1948), a Wisconsin park ranger without much formal education who spent his time writing nature essays. That's him in the photo. The best of these were collected after his death as The Sand County Almanac (1949) - like all respectable founders of new faiths, he died a martyr, fighting a forest fire. This book is now the holy scripture of the deep ecology movement. (I am using religious terminology for a good reason, as you will see.) The most important essay in the book is a short appendix entitled "The Land Ethic," and the key sentence is this: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." ("biotic community" is 1940s language for "ecosystem.") Think about this sentence before you continue: can you see why it is a profoundly new and radical definition of right and wrong? Click on the following link to read the essay, somewhat abridged by me.
Essay - The Land Ethic
But Leopold was not an academic philosopher, and it took a few more decades until his ideas were developed into a real system. The term "deep ecology" was invented by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss (1912-2009) in a 1972 article, in which he suggested that all existing approaches to the environmental crisis were "shallow" because they did not get at the social and psychological roots of our attitude towards nature. You will read more about and by Næss below, but here is the gist of his new philosophy:
1. Nearly all our thinking is "anthropocentric," or centered on human needs and desires; what we need to become is "biocentric," to think in terms of what is good for all life, not just for our own selfish species. (A better term now in use is "ecocentric," because it takes in the whole ecosystem, not just the "bio" part of it).
2. Our inability to connect with and really understand nature comes from a false definition of the "self." Is my "self" just what is contained inside my skin? Of course not, because I am constantly interchanging matter and energy with my environment, as part of vast cycles within cycles that ultimately involve the entire planet. I need to find some way to identify with the living planet (Næss suggests going alone into the wilderness to meditate and live off the land). If I can accomplish this identification, I will have "Self-realization" (with a capital S, to differentiate it from the lower-case "self" which is merely "me" as traditionally defined).
Click on the following link to view a reading from Naess. (That's him in the photo, not long before he died in 2009 at age 96.)
· Naess Reading - Deep Ecology
As another option you can look at this article by Alan Drengson, which is more recent and comprehensive but also has more philosophical jargon. Click on the following link to learn more.
· Drengson Article - Overview of Ecophilosophy
The ideas of Arne Næss gave developed into a full-blown and very radical philosophy of life, with its own organizations, publications, activist groups and fanatic followers all over the world. The principles of deep ecology are probably best expressed in the "eightfold path" developed by George Sessions and Bill Devall in their book of the same name. Click on the followoing link to read a brief selection before continuing.
Brief Selection - Basic Principles of Deep Ecology
Many deep ecologists, blaming Christianity for our twisted view of nature, have turned to various non-Western religions or to witchcraft/neo-paganism, but we'll save that latter topic until we get to ecofeminism.
Also keep in mind the readings in the previous module on general systems theory and evolution. Deep ecology probably has more support from the hard sciences than any other environmental ideology (pro or con), and so you should know a bit about this.
Deep ecology, with its sense of urgency and its call for radical changes in our civilization, has inspired a number of activist organizations. By far the most important is Earth First!, founded some twenty years ago in the Southwest by Dave Foreman. (The novelist Edward Abbey was also involved.) It has branches all over the world now, but is most active in the American West. Earth First! calls for active sabotage of the whole capitalist/industrialist complex, anyone who is polluting or otherwise damaging the environment. It has called for a 90% reduction in the human population of the Earth, the return of vast regions to wilderness (with no human intrusion), and the like - you get the idea. Foreman has written a book called Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching , with all sorts of illegal ideas for derailing the wilderness-destroyers.
Click on the links below:
· Directory - of all the chapters, worldwide - join one, and get yourself on some FBI list!
· Foreman's Ecodefense manual - a good bash, from the "Sahara Club" (as near as I can figure them out, these people want to turn the Earth into a desert as long as it means profits and more ORVs).
A basic assumption of deep ecology is that the planet is horrendously overpopulated. Click on the following link to view Look at Thomas Malthus' essay on population, the document that started the whole debate back in 1798.
Let's wrap it up with a few observations, which you can discuss further in the forum.
1. Deep ecology is genuinely radical, in the sense that it rejects many fundamental assumptions of our civilization and, indeed, wants to more or less undermine and destroy that civilization.
2. Deep ecology has very solid scientific backing, especially from the new fields of quantum physics and general systems theory.
3. Deep ecology sees humans (not just some humans) as a cancer on the earth ("chaotic attractors"), and would like to see our numbers reduced very drastically.
4. Deep ecology has many features that we would traditionally call "religious."
5. Deep ecology sees technology as inherently evil.
6. Deep ecology sees both (Platonic) Christianity and (Aristotelian) science as major culprits in the environmental crisis, and says we must look outside the West (to Taoism, witchcraft, the Indians) for an eco-friendly spiritual world view.
Here are three problems that you might choose to write about in the forum. How would you defend deep ecology against these charges?
· consider this ecofeminist objection to deep ecology: it lumps the whole human race together, blaming it for trashing the planet. But is it really everyone's fault, or is it primarily the rich, the powerful, the privileged, the white, and above all, the male?
· consider this objection from Murray Bookchin and the social ecologists: the changes demanded by deep ecology would have to be so rapid and so radical that they could only be accomplished by force. For example, if it is really true that we must quickly reduce the human population by 90% or more, how is this to be done without coercion from an all-powerful "eco-fascist" government?
· consider this objection from many other environmentalists: deep ecology is a disguised religion. The only way to achieve Self-realization is through (what many would call) religious practices, and these are not only un-Christian but even anti-Christian.
Some Links
· Deep Ecology - Envirolink's website.
· Forest Information Portal - lots of stuff on saving rainforests.
· Ecology Action Centre - Canada.
· "A Case Against Deep Ecology" - from a Unitarian minister!
· "DieOff" - an organization called DieOff; lots of great info and links on overpopulation.
· Deep Ecology - links from about.com.
· Ecology Hall of Fame - Ecotopia's website
