Categories
- Spiritualism (9)
- Ecology (31)
- Indigenous Nations (3)
What’s so deep about ecology?
The word “deep,” was first associated with ecology by Norwegian naturalist and philosopher Arne Naess at the Third World Futures conference in 1972. Naess remarked that environmentalism had already diverged into (1) a “deep,” ecocentric, long-range movement advocating respect toward wild nature for its own intrinsic value; and (2) a “shallow,” anthropocentric ecology that treated nature as a “resource” for human economics.
Dolores LaCapelle, Paul Shepard, Gary Snyder, Lynn White, and others built on this theme that nature possesses intrinsic value independent of human needs. Some environmentalists felt insulted by being depicted as shallow, and criticized the deep ecology movement as elitist. Naess, however, simply intended to distinguish core ecological values from human concerns. He referred to his approach as “ecosophy,” approaching wisdom from nature’s point of view.
Paul Sears called ecology the “subversive subject” in 1964, because it signalled a shift in awareness that would revolutionize all human enterprise, economics, politics, biology, cultural mythologies, engineering, everything about human habitation on the earth.
We either learn ecology, deeply, or experience a drastic crash. And by “learn” ecology, I don’t mean 10% recycled paper cups, solar panels on the ski lodge, and hybrid cars. I mean learning that we remain a natural species that must find our place, in peace with our host, fully integrated with the systems that sustain us. This will mean re-designing human technologies to a scale appropriate with a living earth. Learning from nature means shifting focus from consumption to the authentic qualities of life.
Naess articulated this well four decades ago as “simple means, rich goals.” Ivan Illich, about the same time, wrote Tools for Conviviality, advocating that we “invert” technological society from massive, centralized systems, to simple tools that foster “independent efficiency.” Illich depicted optimum human technology, for example, as the bicycle.
So-called “deep” ecological awareness refers to humanity’s reunion with nature. We are animals, and regardless of our technologies, we live from the bounty of a wild habitat. Even as we learn ecology and the laws of exponential growth, we still cannot engineer or “manage” the planet solely for human enterprise and benefit.
During the whale campaigns of the 1970s, Greenpeace did not set out to protect whales or seals for human enjoyment. We pointed out that whales possess their own inherent value, their own communities, and vital needs. We protected whales, seals, and forests for their own sake first.
An ecological renaissance does not mean a planet engineered for 12 billion humans, mining nutrients from every acre of soil, diverting every river, burning the last coal deposit. An ecology renaissance means honouring nature and experiencing the joy of being a natural being in a paradise that once fed us without any farms, oil, or computer chips.
For more on this, see my "Deep Green" column at Greenpeace International.
Tags: Arne Naess, Deep ecology, Ecology, Greenpeace, Paul Sears
This was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 9:02 am and is filed under Ecology . Feel free to respond, or trackback.
6 Responses to “What’s so deep about ecology?”
-
Andrea Peloso Says:
Deep Ecology…
One small difference I have with deep ecology theories is the attempt to highlight the independence of nature from humanity. It is true that nature would exist without us, probably could thrive without us at the given moment. We, in contrast, are the dependent ones. I think that it is a point taken to an extreme in order to highlight that the earth does not exist for our desires. This is important.
Yet I wonder ultimately where highlighting nature’s independence from us leads. In one philosophy of the environment course I took, the point was made that humans might actually exist in order to host the dust mites on our skin. This species may outlive our own and thus we become a stepping stone in evolutionary history. I can’t help but laugh since I’m not sure that the dust mites are dancing at this triumph.
Who are we writing and speaking for if not ourselves? It seems like a strange form of humanism to talk about how unimportant we are related to other species. Of course, scientifically it is obvious that our current overpopulation and abuse is destructive to everything that lives. But beyond this how do we know? In many more traditional societies such as ones in the rainforest humans may actually be a necessary part of the ecosystem.
It seems like this sense of belonging is a more worthwhile focus for us, regardless of the bigger picture.
What I value most about Deep Ecology theory – from what I understand – is the truth that each individual is really connected inextricably to nature’s systems. That when one aspect of the earth is harmed, so are we and that the real quality of our lives depends on the quality of health of the planet as a whole.
These truths – points you highlight at the end of your article – seem common. They are common because they are true. It is this simplicity both in our lives and in our thoughts that leads the way to ecological health and our meaningful inclusion in the chorus of life. Our wealth is in our interconnected participation in the planet.
This basic truth helps me find meaning and purpose in life:
1. Since we are all connected through interlocking systems, everything that we do matters. We do not have to search, or go to a “career counsellor” to find value in our life. We resonate, and are resonated with constantly.
2. Nothing is common save perhaps our lack of attention. There is no “wasteland”. The most simple bright snowflake, or flower, or handshake, carries within it a mysterious peice of the source of ourselves, and our lives. This may seem human-centric, and it is…but I don’t know how else I could see it. Yet, I know that I am small compared to it, but feel great because of it.
So, it is these basic priniciples of Deep Ecology that help me.
A quote that talks about the uncommon common in nature and simple life…
Karen Houle – poet
“Give me the common or the rare, as they roll.
We are mistaken in what we survive, in what we must eliminate.
The ladies at the plate glass persist,
reviving their brutal martyrdoms,
worn thin by the abuse of soap,
the contour of tea cups in unisonagainst smallpox, cosmetic agriculture, and wartime rape. And a woman
they believe unrecognizable as such.
She is given to volatility around faith. Faith in where the unlivable gathers
like thistle,
like wild yeast’s affinity for chance …Be perverse in your indifference to recommend a local history. Keep the virus for study, keep this loss of mime. I know,
so little,
my arts are often mistaken in their assemblies,
their lambic filiations
among grain and tool. Butit is such hands
as mutate all along the breed,And travelling against,
and loud.” -
Terrance S. Says:
I’m not sure that deep ecology advocates actually suggest that nature is “independent of humanity” any more than it is independent of any other species. In nature, species come and go, as humanity has come and will one day go.
Nature is the sum total of all these life forms and the life support systems that they require: water, nutrients, energy, etc.
More to the point is that humans are NOT independent from nature. We exist as one species in nature’s intricate system. Yes, true, we’re amazing, we have big brains, and we’ve figured out how to manipulate the resources around us, but it is still true that we share most of our attributes and all of our material and energy with other species in this very complex living system.
-
Andrea Peloso Says:
Thanks Terrance. Yes, humans will go. A very different thought when we realize how much we have in common with other life. I hadn’t thought that we also share a lot of our DNA.
This makes me think about pets. I love pets, and there are wonderful elements in having a pet, but there is also a bit of a problem here.
I think that we as people humanize fuzzy cute pets as being like ourselves. We seperate them from other animals. Thus, it is easier to protect certain endangered species than others for example. Pets are a great source of joy to their owners. This is great but also can have many problems. Recently it a headline in the Toronto Star mentioned that impoverished people and pets seem to be in competition for the same food.
I sometimes think that our love of pets can reflect a misplaced affection of attention and care onto the wrong species. We need to do the hard work of loving other humans. And we need to reach out and connect more with nature, rather than bring a small, fuzzy part of nature into our homes.
Of course, as a blanket statement this would be mean, since many people benefit from their pets.
I wondered though what it says in more general terms and what deep ecology might say.
I think there is a lot of projection that goes on that could be more well thought out.
From reading the Greenpeace book and watching the news, I realize how much work has been done to give people more awareness of the whales. But with pets, I really think that something has happened in our societies where people need these animals to fill a void. Perhaps it is nature, or enough love from our communities. In ealier societies, animals were loved but also generally had a role. Cats caught mice, etc…
The idea in the article about nature being inherently thereateutic makes me wonder if we are attempting to connect with a small amount of nature in our pets. Meanwhile, however, nature as a whole suffers…
Pets give great pleasure and are not always a problem, but i’m just looking at a general societal pattern.
-
Andrea Peloso Says:
An idealist wakes up in the morning, and considers how to best live their day…
“you are a species that is part of a larger whole. never mind that you will soon die – but your entire culture, and species will also be just a passing moment on the world stage, – learn to identify beyond your kind and let this inform how you act… and remember that this is all just a small speck of time…”
not exactly words to springboard a person on to their next “big” project.
while I have tried to think of myself as a species among many, I must admit that it has not always been as inspired as my more human-centered thoughts.
but recently, while learning to work my indoor worm composter, I have had a few sweet moments as I watched worms turn the ads in the paper into their carbon abode. the alchemy of often alien ads turned into cool, dark soil. goodbye cold image of someone half naked who I know nothing about, become leaf…fall to the forest floor, soil, peace, potential, comfort, …thankyou worms.
hopefully we are slowly leaving our destructive ways in the past like old skin or parts. or at least, it is possible.
taking my nephew to a movie about dinosaurs last week we were amazed at the size of a flying dinosaur… he didn’t make the transition to later times, but his wings did. they are here in tiny fluttering birds all around us.
perhaps in our shoulder blades.
so, I am a species among species and will transform, hope to survive but leaving impossible ways behind… and I’d like to hope that somewhere in our collective future, we’d be so great as to leave if not all of us, something like a wing.
open eyes… aspire to wing.
-
Peter English Says:
I don’t find it at all depressing or uninspiring to think of humanity as part of a vast interconnected ecological system. Imagine a billion years of life on Earth, billions of species come and gone, 50 million years of primate evolution, living in families, relating, communicating, gathering food. All of our instincts come from this history.
A few hundred years of burning oil and creating industrial society is almost nothing in this long span of time and evolution. I love my life. I love humanity. I love being alive. But let’s be realistic. We’re a blip in nature’s long story. Our link to the rest of nature, past, present, and future, is in our relationships.
Thank you for writing about this. I’m so glad to hear some people discussing these things and reminding us of Arne Naess and the others who have really embraced nature.
-
Andrea Peloso Says:
so our linking is our link…
like a long, old, new, conversation…
parts of it so deep in memory that they become body…or disappear as an invisible connection to what remains.
so wonderful to think of our reaching out to life as the trace itself…
thankyou also.
RSS Feed