DEEP ECOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTION

This introduction, and the section that follows, are taken from: Sessions, George (ed), 1995, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, Shambhala Press, Boston. Both sections have been shortened. Material has also been added to the second section in order to amplify and clarify the ideas. This additional material is taken from: Naess, Arne 1973, "The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movements: a summary." Inquiry (Oslo), v.16.

THE HEART Of DEEP ECOLOGY
Andrew McLaughlin
(adapted)

In the last few hundred years, industrial society has encircled the earth and, in requiring massive disruptions of ecological processes for its ordinary functioning, threatens all forms of life on this planet. Both capitalist and socialist variants of expansionary industrialism routinely require the destruction of species and ecosystems. Industrialism now threatens to disrupt atmospheric conditions fundamental to the whole biosphere. If ecological problems have roots in industrialism, then a perspective that takes industrialism itself as part of the problem is needed.

The transformation of industrialism will, I believe, involve a multifaceted struggle over several generations. The changes required are of the magnitude of the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

Deep Ecology is one perspective that beckons us in the right direction. In just two decades, Deep Ecology, as a theory, has become a benchmark in defining varieties of environmental philosophies.

The heart of Deep Ecology is its platform, which consists of a number of inter-related factual and normative claims about humans and their relations with the rest of nature. The platform was intended as a description of a Deep Ecology social movement and as a basis for a larger unity among all those who accept the importance of non-anthropocentrism and understand that this entails radical social change.

The platform, articulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions while they were camping in Death Valley in 1984, is a non-technical statement of principles around which, it is hoped, people with differing ultimate understandings of themselves, society, and nonhuman nature, could unite.

THE DEEP ECOLOGY PLATFORM
Arne Naess
(adapted)

A shallow, but presently rather powerful movement, and a deep, but less influential movement, compete for our attention. The Shallow Ecology movement fights against pollution and resource depletion, favoring the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. The Deep Ecology movement reflects a man-in-environment image, and favors a relational, holistic view of the world in all its diversity of life and cultures.

The platform (argument) itself consists of eight points. The platform is not put forward as requiring or allowing no further justification. Rather, it is basic in being the most general view that supporters of Deep Ecology hold in common. People may come to adopt this platform from quite diverse directions and for differing reasons. Those who start with a concern about nonhuman nature are likely to arrive at the Deep Ecology platform more directly by reflecting on what follows from a rejection of anthropocentrism and a recognition of the worth of the flourishing of all of nature. Some Deep Ecologists have emphasized the process of expanding one's sense of self towards a larger identification with all of nature to arrive at a denial of anthropocentrism, but this is not the only path. Acceptance might be based on philosophical reflection, religious conviction, personal experience, intuitions, mystical experience, aesthetic perception, or some other basis. Allowing for a variety of paths to the same position is precisely the intent of the Deep Ecology platform.

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

This is a principle of biospherical egalitarianism. The equal right to live and blossom is an intuitively clear and obvious value. Its restriction to humans is an anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the life quality of humans themselves. Our quality of life depends in part upon the deep pleasure and satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life. The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man from himself.

This is a rejection of anthropocentrism. It is an assertion that human and nonhuman life and nature in general should flourish. "Life" and "nature," in this context, are understood broadly to include, for example, rivers, landscapes, and ecosystems, with all their geo- and bio-geochemical cycles.

Perhaps the search for some sort of value in nonhuman nature, be it inherent, intrinsic, or some other sort of non-anthropocentric value, seems necessary because we cannot now fully imagine an adequate environmental ethic. But we can care for the rest of nature for reasons which have nothing to do with whether or not it has intrinsic, inherent, or whatever sort of value. Such a caring can spring, for example, from a felt sense of relatedness to the rest of nature or a love of all existence.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

This is a principle of diversity and of symbiosis. Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms. Ecologically inspired attitudes therefore favor diversity of human ways of life, of cultures, of occupations, of economies. They support the fight against economic and cultural, as much as military, invasion and domination, and they are opposed to the annihilation of seals and whales as much as to that of human tribes and cultures.

This, along with the first point, is intended to counter the often-held image of evolution as resulting in "higher" forms of life. It involves a re-visioning of life and evolution, changing from understanding evolution as "progress" from "lower" to "higher" forms to understanding evolution as a magnificent expression of a multitude of forms of life. Cherishing diversity appreciates differences and rejects any single standard of excellence.

Valuing diversity means freeing large areas of the earth from domination by industrial economy and culture. Expand wilderness! But in interpreting this injunction, it should be remembered that "wilderness" is an outsider's construct. Most of what appears to industrial peoples as wilderness has been steadily occupied or traversed by indigenous peoples for eons. Thus, preserving such areas from industrial regimes is not only protecting wilderness, but is, in some cases, also preserving indigenous peoples. The struggle for wilderness is both for biological and human diversity.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

The key point in this claim is the implied distinction between "vital" and other needs. To lose sight of it is to become trapped within an endlessly repeating cycle of deprivation and temporary satiation. Making the distinction opens to the possibility of more enduring forms of happiness and joy.

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease in human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

Once recognition is given to other forms of life, then it is clear that we humans are too many already. We have already jostled many species out of existence and the near future promises an expansion of such extinctions. Recent projections by the United Nations indicate that current trends in population growth will involve converting about 80 percent of current nature reserves to human use. This would drastically accelerate the already alarming trends towards the extinction of myriad species of life.

We should collectively recognize that an increase in human numbers is not in the best interest of humans either, much less the rest of life. The problem of coerced motherhood exists in all societies to some degree, but it is most acute in poorer countries where population growth is most rapid. The worldwide struggle for the rights of women to choose the number of children they will bear will help in at least slowing the growth of human populations.

5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

There are at least two sorts of such interference that need to be addressed. One sort is the destruction of existing areas of wilderness, such as old growth forests. This is irreparable within any moderate time scale and is wrong. In fact, the guiding principle should probably be the continuation of biological history, creating large enough wilderness areas to allow for the continued speciation of plants and animals. This does not involve dispossessing indigenous peoples who have found ways of living within those ecosystems without destroying them. Another sort of interference is based on particular forms of technology. Many technologies disrupt natural cycles far more than is necessary. For example, agricultural practices involving large-scale mono-cropping create expanding needs for fertilizer and pesticides. Multi-cropping, integrated pest management, and a variety of organic farming techniques interfere less with natural cycles and can enhance the fertility of soils.

6. 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.

Here we recognize the distinction between complexity, as exhibited in ecosystems, and complication, as exhibited in the fragmentation of life in urban and industrial societies. This complexity-not-complication principle favors integrated actions in which the whole person is active, not mere reactions. It favors complex economies, and an integrated variety of means of living. (Combinations of industrial and agricultural activity, of intellectual and manual work, of specialized and non-specialized occupations, of urban and non-urban activity, of work in city and recreation in nature with recreation in city and work in nature . . .) It requires more sensitivity toward continuity and live traditions, and-more importantly, towards our state of ignorance.

The implementation of ecologically responsible policies requires in this century an exponential growth of technical skill and invention-but in new directions, directions which today are not consistently and liberally supported by the research policy organs of our nation-states.

Not merely technical solutions to accommodate our way of life, but radical social change. The scope of the changes needed is great. We need to sustain the very conditions for the diversity of the myriad forms of life, including the cultural diversity of human life.

This principle favors local autonomy and decentralization. The vulnerability of a form of life is roughly proportional to the weight of influences from outside the local region in which that form has obtained an ecological equilibrium. This lends support to our efforts to strengthen local self-government and material and mental self-sufficiency. These efforts presuppose an impetus towards decentralization.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

This point is especially important for industrial peoples enmeshed within an ultimately unsatisfying consumerism. With a focus on quality, people can see that existing patterns of labor and consumption are not satisfying, but rather involve chronic dissatisfaction. Moving towards an appreciation of the quality of life, instead of quantities of things, leads to an increase in happiness, not a decrease. This is fundamental, since people are more apt to change when they experience change as improvement, rather than a grudging submission to necessity. As long as environmentalism seems to require only denial and sacrifice, its political effectiveness will be lessened. Deep Ecology seeks a more satisfactory way of living, an increase in vitality and joy.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

Although this is clear in claiming that we must begin to act now, it is vague in not indicating particular priorities. At this point in history, priorities cannot be made more specific. No one now knows exactly what positive changes are necessary. The problems with economic growth and the emptiness of consumerism are clear enough, but they do not show just what needs to be done now. People who accept the Deep Ecology platform may disagree about what is most urgent now, and there are many ways to attempt the needed changes. In the light of the value of diversity, such differences should be respected and not become occasions for sectarian squabble.