http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy)
that considers humankind an integral part of its environment. Deep
ecology places greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and
processes in nature than established environmental and green
movements. Deep ecology has led to a new system of environmental
ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is
Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that,
like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to
live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it
persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and
thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about
the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than
with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and
aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is
concerned with resource management of the environment for human
purposes.

Contents [hide]
1 Development
1.1 Scientific
1.2 Spiritual
1.3 Experiential
2 Principles
3 Movement
4 Criticisms
4.1 The notion of intrinsic value
4.1.1 Interests in nature
4.2 Deepness
4.3 Ecofeminist response
4.4 Misunderstanding scientific information
4.5 "Shallow" View superior
4.6 Deep ecology as not "deep" enough
5 Links with other movements
6 Early Influences
7 Notable advocates of deep ecology
8 See also
9 Notes
10 Bibliography
10.1 Further reading
11 Educational Programs
12 External links

[edit] Development
The phrase deep ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne
Næss in 1973,[1] and he helped give it a theoretical foundation. "For
Arne Næss, ecological science, concerned with facts and logic alone,
cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live. For this we
need ecological wisdom. Deep ecology seeks to develop this by focusing
on deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment. These
constitute an interconnected system. Each gives rise to and supports
the other, whilst the entire system is, what Næss would call, an
ecosophy: an evolving but consistent philosophy of being, thinking and
acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and harmony."[2]
Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their
relative value. For example, judgments on whether an animal has an
eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has consciousness
(or indeed higher consciousness) have all been used to justify the
ranking of the human animal as superior to other animals. Næss states
that "the right of all forms [of life] to live is an universal right
which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more
of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species."
This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that we
and all other beings are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".[3].
As such Deep Ecology would support the view of Aldo Leopold in his
book, "A Sand County Almanac" that humans are ‘plain members of the
biotic community’. They also would support Leopold's "Land Ethic": "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."

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy
which may, in turn, guide human activity against perceived self-
destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the science
of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by
humans or other dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the
actions of modern civilization threaten global ecological well-being.
Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems
in various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux
of nature".[4] Regardless of which model is most accurate,
environmentalists[citation needed] contend that massive human economic
activity has pushed the biosphere far from its "natural" state through
reduction of biodiversity, climate change, and other influences. As a
consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction. Deep ecologists
hope to influence social and political change through their
philosophy.

[edit] Scientific
Næss and Fox do not claim to use logic or induction to derive the
philosophy directly from scientific ecology [5] but rather hold that
scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology,
including its ideas about the self and further, that deep ecology
finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system
dynamics.

In their 1985 book Deep Ecology,[6] Bill Devall and George Sessions
describe a series of sources of deep ecology. They include the science
of ecology itself, and cite its major contribution as the rediscovery
in a modern context that "everything is connected to everything else".
They point out that some ecologists and natural historians, in
addition to their scientific viewpoint, have developed a deep
ecological consciousness--for some a political consciousness and at
times a spiritual consciousness. This is a perspective beyond the
strictly human viewpoint, beyond anthropocentrism. Among the
scientists they mention particularly are Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold,
John Livingston, Paul R. Ehrlich and Barry Commoner, together with
Frank Fraser Darling, Charles Sutherland Elton, Eugene Odum and Paul
Sears.

A further scientific source for deep ecology adduced by Devall and
Sessions is the "new physics", which they describe as shattering
Descartes's and Newton's vision of the universe as a machine
explainable in terms of simple linear cause and effect, and instead
providing a view of Nature in constant flux with the idea that
observers are separate an illusion. They refer to Fritjof Capra's The
Tao of Physics and The Turning Point for their characterisation of how
the new physics leads to metaphysical and ecological views of
interrelatedness which according to Capra should make deep ecology a
framework for future human societies.

The scientific version of the Gaia hypothesis was also an influence on
the development of deep ecology.

In their book, Devall and Sessions also credit the American poet and
social critic Gary Snyder — a man with commitments in Buddhism, Native
American studies, the outdoors, and alternative social movements — as
a major voice of wisdom in the evolution of their ideas.

[edit] 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 Warwick Fox to support this idea.

Other traditions which have influenced deep ecology include Taoism,
Buddhism, Jainism, and Evolution Theology (The Great Story) primarily
because they have a non-dualistic approach to subject and object. In
relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss offers the following
criticism: "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."[7] This theme had been expounded in
Lynn Townsend White, Jr.'s 1967 article "The Historical Roots of Our
Ecological Crisis",[8] in which however he also offered as an
alternative Christian view of man's relation to nature that of Saint
Francis of Assisi, who he says spoke for the equality of all
creatures, in place of the idea of man's domination over creation.

[edit] Experiential
Drawing upon the Buddhist tradition is the work of Joanna Macy. Macy,
working as an anti-nuclear activist in USA, found that one of the
major impediments confronting the activists' cause was the presence of
unresolved emotions of despair, grief, sorrow, anger and rage. The
denial of these emotions led to apathy and disempowerment.

We may have intellectual understanding of our interconnectedness, but
our culture, experiential deep ecologists like John Seed argue, robs
us of emotional and visceral experience of that interconnectedness
which we had as small children, but which has been socialised out of
us by a highly anthropocentric alienating culture.

Through "Despair and Empowerment Work" and more recently "The Work
that Reconnects", Macy and others have been taking Experiential Deep
Ecology into many countries including especially the USA, Europe
(particularly Britain and Germany), Russia and Australia.

[edit] 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
hold that a whole system is superior to any of its parts. They offer
an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:[9]

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.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of
these values and are also values in themselves.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to
satisfy vital human needs.
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.
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and
the situation is rapidly worsening.
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.
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 and great.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation
directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

[edit] 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 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 labels "Gaian" and
"Green" (including the broader political implications of this term,
e.g. commitment to peace). Deep ecology has had a broad general
influence on the green movement by providing an independent 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.

[edit] Criticisms

[edit] The notion of intrinsic value
Some people criticize[citation needed] the notion that the intrinsic
value of ecological systems exists independently of humanity's
recognition of it. An example of this approach is that one might say
that a work of art is only valuable insofar as humans perceive it to
be worthwhile. Such people claim that the ecosystem's value does not
reach beyond our appreciation of it. Intrinsic value is a
philosophical concept which some do not accept.[10] However, intrinsic
value defined as value existing separate from human thought may in
this case be conflated with intrinsic value defined as natural worth
existing independent of modification or application of a substance or
entity, clouding the argument.[citation needed] This entire argument,
however, assumes both the primacy and uniqueness of the ability of
humans to create value, as opposed to a collection of sentient beings
dependent on a perfectly ordered system for life or even a natural
system devoid of sentient life being incapable of possessing inherent
value. It also is a result of the confusion between anthropogenic -
something being created by humans, and anthropocentric - exclusive
value being given to humans.

[edit] Interests in nature
For something to require rights and protection intrinsically, it must
have interests.[11] Deep ecology is criticised for presuming that
plants, for example, have their own interests. Deep ecologists claim
to identify with the environment, and in doing so, criticise those who
claim they have no understanding what the environment's interests are.
The criticism is that the interests that a deep ecologist purports to
give to nature, such as growth, survival, balance are really human
interests. "The earth is endowed with 'wisdom', wilderness equates
with 'freedom', and life forms are said to emit 'moral'
qualities."[12] It has also been argued that species and ecosystems
themselves have rights.[13] However, the overarching criticism assumes
that humans, in governing their own affairs, are somehow immune from
this same assumption; i.e. how can governing humans truly presume to
understand the interests of the rest of humanity. While the deep
ecologist critic would answer that the logical application of language
and social mores would provide this justification, i.e. voting
patterns etc, the deep ecologist would note that these "interests" are
ultimately observable solely from the logical application of the
behavior of the life form, which is the same standard used by deep
ecologists to perceive the standard of interests for the natural
world.

[edit] Deepness
Deep ecology is criticised for its claim to be deeper than alternative
theories, which by implication are shallow. However despite repeated
complaints about use of the term it still enjoys wide currency; deep
evidently has an attractive resonance for many who seek to establish a
new ethical framework for guiding human action with respect to the
natural world. It may be presumptuous to assert that one's thinking is
deeper than others'. When Arne Næss coined the term deep ecology he
compared it unfavourably with shallow environmentalism which he
criticized for its utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to nature
and for its materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.[14][15] Against
this is Arne Næss's own view that the "depth" of deep ecology resides
in the persistence of its interogative questioning, particularly in
asking "Why?" when faced with initial answers.

[edit] Ecofeminist response
Both ecofeminism and deep ecology put forward a new conceptualization
of the self. Some ecofeminists, such as Marti Kheel,[16] argue that
self-realization and identification with all nature places too much
emphasis on the whole, at the expense of the independent being.
Ecofeminists contend that their concept of the self (as a dynamic
process consisting of relations) is superior. Ecofeminists would also
place more emphasis on the problem of androcentrism rather than
anthropocentrism.

[edit] Misunderstanding scientific information
Daniel Botkin[17] has compared deep ecology unfavorably with its
antithesis, the wise use movement, when he says 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, he asserts that
deep ecology must be taken seriously in the debate about the
relationship between humans and nature because it challenges the
fundamental assumptions of western philosophy. Botkin has also
criticized Næss's restatement and reliance upon the balance of nature
idea and the perceived contradiction between his argument that all
species are morally equal and his disparaging description of
pioneering species.

[edit] "Shallow" View superior
Writer William Grey believes that developing a non-anthropocentric set
of values is "a hopeless quest" He seeks an improved "shallow" view,
writing, "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."[18]

[edit] Deep ecology as not "deep" enough
Social ecologists such as Murray Bookchin[19] claim that deep ecology
fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and
hierarchy. Social ecologists believe that environmental problems are
firmly rooted in the manner of human social interaction, and protest
that an ecologically sustainable society could still be socially
exploitative. Deep ecologists reject the argument that ecological
behavior is rooted in the social paradigm (according to their view,
that is an anthropocentric fallacy), and they maintain that the
converse of the social ecologists' objection is also true in that it
is equally possible for a socially egalitarian society to continue to
exploit the Earth.

[edit] Links with other movements
Parallels have been drawn between deep ecology and other movements, in
particular the animal rights movement and Earth First!.

Peter Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation critiqued anthropocentrism
and put the case for animals to be given moral consideration. This can
be seen as a part of a process of expanding the prevailing system of
ethics to wider groupings. However, Singer has disagreed with deep
ecology's belief in the intrinsic value of nature separate from
questions of suffering, taking a more utilitarian stance.[citation
needed] The feminist and civil rights movements also brought about
expansion of the ethical system for their particular domains. Likewise
deep ecology brought the whole of nature under moral consideration.
[20] The links with animal rights are perhaps the strongest, as
"proponents of such ideas argue that 'All life has intrinsic value'".
[21]

Many in the radical environmental direct-action movement Earth First!
claim to follow deep ecology, as indicated by one of their slogans No
compromise in defence of mother earth. In particular, David Foreman,
the co-founder of the movement, has also been a strong advocate for
deep ecology, and engaged in a public debate with Murray Bookchin on
the subject.[22][23] Judi Bari was another prominent Earth Firster who
espoused deep ecology. Many Earth First! actions have a distinct deep
ecological theme; often these actions will ostensibly be to save an
area of old growth forest, the habitat of a snail or an owl, even
individual trees. It should however be noted that, especially in the
United Kingdom, there are also strong anti-capitalist and anarchist
currents in the movement, and actions are often symbolic or have other
political aims. At one point Arne Næss also engaged in environmental
direct action, though not under the Earth First! banner, when he tied
himself to a Norwegian fjord in a successful protest against the
building of a dam.[24]

Robert Greenway and Theodore Roszak have employed the Deep Ecology
(DE) platform as a means to argue for Ecopsychology. Although
Ecopsychology is a highly differentiated umbrella that encompasses
many practices and perspectives, its ethos is generally consistent
with DE. As this now almost forty-year old "field" expands and
continues to be reinterpreted by a variety of practitioners, social
and natural scientists, and humanists, "ecopsycology" may change to
include these novel perspectives.