Deep Ecology

1
Deep Ecology
2
Presentations

• April 10 James, Agnes, Kingyu
• April 15 Andrew, Tak, Cyril
• April 17 Dominic, Christina, Sebastian
• Final Paper
• 1st draft of paper due on April 20
• Final due date May 5

3
Arne Naess

• Norwegian philosopher (born 1912)
• 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.
• They won!

4
Naesss 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. Isnt that backwards?
5
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.

6
Ultimate Premises

• Sources of basic values different for different
  ecophilosophers.
• Examples
• Buddhism
• Taoism
• Jainism
• Bahai
• Native American religious beliefs
• Reformed Christianity
• Gaia hypothesis The earth is a single living
  organism (James
  Lovelock 1960s)
• Ecosophy T Naesss own philosophy, and the
  leading
  
  philosophical
  underpinning of deep ecology

7
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)

8
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!

9
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 cant 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.

10
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.

11
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)

12
Readings

• Choose one of the following to read for Thursday
• 1) Li, Hon-Lam, Towards Quasi-Vegetarianism, on
  reserve at Philosophy Office
• (Agnes)
• 2) Cohen, Carl, The Animal Rights Debate, Chapter
  4 If Animals Had Rights, on reserve at Main
  Library
• Also recommended, The Animal Rights Debate, Part
  3, Reply to Tom Regan, also on reserve at main
  library
• (James)
• 3) Lynn, Madeleine, Ethics be dammed? Chinas
  Water Projects, at www.cceia.org/resources/ethic
  s_online/0005.html
• (Cyril)