Box 24, Item 1697: Draft of Deep ecology and green politics

Box 24, Item 1697: Draft of Deep ecology and green politics

Typescript of draft, undated. Handwritten note attached to paper: Basis of book right here! Includes partial draft of same paper, pages 1 to 6.

The University of Queensland's Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291, Box 24, Item 1697

This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, Dr. N.A.J. Taylor.

For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library.

[46] leaves. 58.01 MB.

Manuscript

Australian National University - Filing Cabinet 1 - Top Drawer

DEEP ECOLOOY AHO OREEH POLITICS
Deep Ecology ts an envtronMentaL theory or pLatforM wtth poLtttcaL
stgntftcant
wtth
pLatforM
LMpLtcattons. Green PoLtttcs ts a poLtttcaL
envtronMentaL LMpLtcattons. Both arose tn Large part tn reactton to prevatLtng
envtronMentaL practtces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theorettcaL
refLectton, Green PoLtttcs on practtcaL actton. Deep
and
tnvesttgatton
questtontng of the underLytng doMtnant attttudes, seen as the Major source of
ecoLogtcaL and other probLeMs, Led to arttcuLatton of the Deep Ecology pLatforM,
partly outLtned tn "slogan" forM tn the foLLowtng table.

TABLE 1.

DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED ~ITH OOMIHAHT ATTITUDES

OOMrnAtn ATT HUDES (OOMrnAtH PARADIGM]

DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EttV IROHMEHTAL PARADIGM]

Hature a Resource; Intrtnstc
Value conftned to HuMans

Natural EnvtronMent Valued for
ltseLt; Btocentrtc E9aLttartantsM

MatertaL EconoMtc Growth
a predoMtnant goaL

Hon-MatertaL Goals, espectaLLy

ConsuMertsM

Dotng wtth Enough/RecycLtng

CoMpettttve LtfestyLe

Cooperattve Ltfeway

CentraLtzed/ Urban Centred/

DecentraLtzed/ Btoregtonat/ ·
Hetghbourhood focus

tia t Lona L focus

SeLf-ReaLtzatton

Power structure HterarchtcaL

Hon-hterarchtcaL/ Grassroots
DeMocracy

Htgh Technology

Approprtate Technology

~htLe Deep Ecology grew froM the work of one envtronMentaL phtLosopher
(Haess tn 1972), Green PoLtttcs arose (tn ~est GerMany stnce 1976) froM the
synthests of several MoveMents - ecology, ctttzens, aLternattve, peace and other
MoveMents. The platforM of Green PoLtttcs, whtch ts butlt around four ptllars
soctaL responstbtltty, grassroots deMocracy, and non-vtoLence
ecology,
reflects these ortgtns.
The ftrst of these ptLLars, ecology, ts based on the stMpLe theMe that
LtMtted ecoLogtcaL systeMs cannot sustatn unltMtted econoMtc growth, or such
questtonabLe types of growth as nuclear power, wtthout sertous rtsk of daMage
and degeneratton. The Green atM ts to Move to systeMs of productlon and
consuMptton whtch Matntatn and restore natural processes and cycles rather than
doMtnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wtth nature. The second ptllar
of Green Poltttcs, soctal responstbtltty, tMpLtes opposttton to the tnequaltttes
tn power and doMtnatton relattonshtps of present soctety, and reMovaL of
dtscrtMtnatton, econoMtc hardshtp and explottatton, both regtonaLly and as
regards the Thtrd ~orld. The Green atM - to be achteved prtMartly froM below,
ts to butLd stable and just soctaL
through those adversely affected
arrangeMents, wtth coMprehenstve deMocrattc rtghts and freedoMs (both tn GerMany
-1-

and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd ~orLd). These changes are to be
brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased
reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and
coordLnatLon .of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (LocaL, coMMunLty and dLstrLct) whLch
are 9Lven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of
referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and
fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpLLes the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve
practLces, not MereLy by More powerfuL peopLe, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups
and states, and aLso, More posLtLveLy, actLve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of
socLaL protest, resLstance and defence. The coMpatLbLLLty of Means wLth ends
serves here as an LMportant underLyLng prLncLpLe: that a just, non-vLoLent,
huMane• end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vLoLent, LnhuMane
Means. 1
Green PoLLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLaL change, whLch
LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecoLogLcaLLy focussed Deep EcoLogy pLatforM as a
quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of
MoveMents of whLch Deep EcoLogy represents one
LMportant
strand.
The
Lnter-reLatLons are shown pLctorLaLLy at the second LeveL of the foLLowLng
12
dLagraM:

DIAGRAM l.

DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IN PLACE

B

p

1. Deep EcoLogy fundaMentaLs;
e.g. BuddhLst (B), ChrLstLan
(C) and (Eco)-Phi.LosophLc
(P) uLtLMate bases

C

I
2

Exp Lana.t Lon
DLrecti.on
2. Deep Ecology platforM
2C . ReforMi.st envLronMental
posi.ti.on
2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of
Green platforM

Der Lvat Lon
Di.recti.on

j

3 . . General norMs and theMes,
substantLaLLy derLved
froM pLatforM
~- PartLcular norMs and
concrete decLsLons,
applyi.ng to relevant
practLcaL sLtuatLons .

The ecoLogLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not 90 very deep; Lt May
onLy be based upon reforM envLronMentaLLsM (or shaLLow ecoLogy as Lt used to be
• Starred notes LndLcate poLnts at whLch readLngs wLth the correspondLng nuMbers
May be Lnserted or undertaken.

-2-

catted), whLch aLMs to reforM soMe of the worst abuses and excesses of the
doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross pottutLon, extensLve despotLatLo n of land and
takes and oceans, tLttte thought for the future, MLstreatMen t of anLMals, etc.
On shallow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltsetf, but as a resource,
that Ls LnstruMent atty, for what Lt can be used for by huMans. By contrast, Deep
Ecology argues (e.g. froM preMLsses of level I) that the envLronMent Ls
LntrLnsLcat ty valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that,
LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted . ThLs projectLon of
furtherr,ore ,
egatLtarLan or Lr,partLatLt y prLncLptes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the
whole of tLfe Ln the natural world, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtte, BLocentrLc
EgalLtarLanL sM. The prLncLple, not part of Green PolLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most
controversL al of the central prLncLptes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe
substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value
beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to explaLn how value Ls
dLstrLbuted . Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLo n through what Ls
' •3
.
presented as a ' core der,ocracy Ln the b~osphere .
Deep Ecology grew out of a phLtosophL cal dP~penLng of the new features of
the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run
of reductLonLs t scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes;
systeMs whLch are More than the sur, of theLr ator,LstLc parts; eMergent eler,ents,
tLke lLfe, organLsatLo n, etc.). Deep Ecology quLckly allLed Ltself wLth the
subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcutar, the eMphasLs on the
lLMLts, and ultLMate faLture of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and
phLlosophy. ~Lth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surpr~s~ng that there Ls lLttle
dLrectty about such r,aLn pLllars of Green PotLtLcs as socLal responsLbLl Lty and
non-vLotenc e Ln the platforM of Deep Ecology. However Deep Ecology Ls cor,patLble
wLth these Green pLllar prLncLptes, and Lndeed perr,Lts theLr derLvatLon. ~hat Ls
supposed to result are general norMs, lLke Ho exploLtatLo n, Ho subjectLon, Ho
vLolence, at level 3. (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLolenc e prLncLple froM the
Deep Ecology prLncLple of r,axLMLzLng Self-realLs atLon Ls atter,pted by Haess Ln
the frar,ework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLloso phy).•~
A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan relatLons wLth the
natural envLronMen t, away froM doMLnant exploLtatLv e practLces. The natural
envLronr,ent coMprLses Lter,s of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng hur,ans (who are not
above or separate fror, Lt), and accordLngty Ls to be treated wLth the care and
respect valuable Lter,s warrant, and not LrresponsLb ly. Thus Lt would be contrary
whLch
to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued Lter,s vLolently
such
(consLder
however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do
wLdespread phenor,ena as "rape of the envLronMen t", ·of the land", •of the
forests"). SLnce hur,ans are not apart fror, or superLor to nature, Lt follows
froM the Deep Ecology platforr, that natural and proper relatLons also exclude
vLolence towards other hur,ans or classes of huMans.
Because Lt covers a pluralLty of posLtLons, LncludLng shallow ecologLcal
posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More ar,elLoratLv e and reforMLst Ln character
than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further rer,oved froM dor,Lnant attLtudes, More
hardLLne, and r,ore radLcat. ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMenta ts, and
focusses on Ldeats and theory, Green PotLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal
poLLtLcat probler,s of an envLronr,en tat or socLat kLnd, such as acLd raLn or
rLver pottutLon or MLssLte deptoyMent, and (LLke the Peace Mover,ent Ln
AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLples or
workLng out an envLronMen tat (or peace) phLtosophy. Because of Lts envLronMen tal
depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural

-3-

radLcaL
the
envLronMent Lssues, such as wLLderness, rare specLes, and
transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL
MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach.
Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous
Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMagLng LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLoLence
and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of
the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcaL actLon,
LncLudLng typLcaL protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLoLence aLso
LMpLLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary practLces, socLaL defence.
WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLoLent Methods and socLaL
defence, other Lesser factLons hoLd that force Ls necessary to brLng about
varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes.
The Deep EcoLogy pLatforM LncLudes severaL prLncLpLes that wouLd be
recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLpLes
(whLch however, unLLke BLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM, wouLd not be wLdeLy opposed by
reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of
MaxLML2Ln9 SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of seLf-reaLLsatLon of varLous reLLgLous
posLtLons, of the fuLL unfoLdLng and deveLopMent of the person, Ls vastLy
expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to LncLude brLngLng to fuLL fruLtLon not MereLy one's
own person, but aLL that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded SeLf, whLch
Ls taken to be not MereLy one's faMLLy or feLLows or feLLow natLonaLs, nor
MereLy ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whoLe huMan race, but the whoLe naturaL
1
systeM.
The SeLf-reaLLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened
personaL seLf-Lnterest prLncLpLe, has an exceLLent phLLosophLcaL pedLgree (at
Least as appLLed to huMans or neLghbourLng cLasses of huMans). Thus rather than
beLng argued for, a dLffLcuLt Matter Ln the case of uLtLMate prLncLpLes, SeLfreaLLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLLosophLcaL or reLLgLous posLtLons at
LeveL I of the doubLe pyraMLd, froM those that heLp sustaLn Deep EcoLogy.
However the expansLon LnvoLved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow seLf to
coMprehensLve SeLf, severs the usuaL justLfLcatory LLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy
one's seLf-Lnterests wLth · those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed
LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder
reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan
SeLf, Nature personLfLed
prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc.
Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcaL and
spLrLtuaL ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the
16
AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the sLogan
sLogan, "SLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends".
one uses and where one LLves
technoLogy
of
are those concernLng what kLnd
(the Matter of dweLLLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent vaLue and the LLke), what and
how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around
of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have
MaxLML2atLon
eMphasLsed both MaterLaL goaLs and MaterLaL Means, partLcuLarLy personaL
consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for
envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyLes are approprLate? Deep EcoLogy,
LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLaL and spLrLtuaL ends and
eMphasL2es the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLLabLe. The resuLt, of course,
Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, doLng wLth enough, and,
More generaLLy, practLces whLch LLe LLght on the Land and the naturaL worLd. In
a properLy ecoLogLcaL way of doLng thLngs, these wLLL be Lntegrated (Ln
syMbLotLc and other naturaL styLes) wLth the naturaL systeMs LnvoLved, workLng
wLth rather than agaLnst the naturaL fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL
approprLate to regLonaL
wLLL accordLngLy be ecoregLonaL
arrangeMents,

-4-

ecologtcal grouptngs - or btoregtonal, as they have coNe to be called. • 7
Approprtate Means tnclude, tn turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce
and theory .of Deep Ecology. HLgh technologLes such as nuclear power are not
approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLal socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of
the envLronMental and socLal costs and rLsks such technologLcal forMs LMpose. On
both deep and green perceptLons, what Ls requLred are relLable careful
technologLes whLch are not ecologLcally daMagLng or socLally rLsky or otherwLse
undesLrable; but the technologLes adMLtted wLll dLffer accordLng to the
prLncLples of the posLtLons they answer back to (e.g . farMLng technLques wLlt
need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLtLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such
prLncLptes as bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM). In each case the practLcat use of
approprLate technology falls at the bottoM, actLon level, of the double
. •a
pyraN~d.
WhLle Deep Ecology supplLes an appeatLng blueprLnt for dLfferent socLal and
lLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed land reached? A MaLn part
of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLal feature of Deep
Ecology: EcologLcal ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of
other older LdeologLes (e.g. of relLgLous, or of revolutLonary, conscLousness).
What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtual or LdeologLcal conversLon Ls agaLn broadened
froM the personal and socLat to coMprehend the full envLronMental predLcaMent.
In thLs explanatLon, of how people get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and
Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper
explanatory prLncLples. A thorough conversLon process Lnvolves elevatLon to the
top livet, spLrLtuat transcendence of the daLly econoMLc and polLtLcat actLon
level. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology
wLlt be put Ln place, lLke Green PolLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures.
LLke the fundaMental sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes
practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at
EcologLcal ConscLousness. SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and
conteMptatLon, are derLved froM the fundaMental sources. But other Methods whLch
extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecologLcat experLence, Lnclude value
reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon
seeLng thLngs dLfferently, and
coMLng to apprecLate the worth and well-beLng of other thLngs. Connected wLth
these wLdened experLentLal bases, and LnforMLng theM, goes a holLstLc shLft Ln
values and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon, affordLng dLrect lLnkage
wLth parts and wholes of the natural world. •IO By these Methods, a person May
coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the real world, a convert to Deep
Ecology , a fellow and advocate of Lts Messages and lLfe-ways .
ESSAY QUESTIOHS
I. To what extent do Green PolLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and
address the saMe probleMs? CrLtLcally coMpare and contrast theLr proposa l s,
especLally as regards the natural and the buLlt envLronMent.
2. Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four, levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to
explaLn carefully the LnterrelatLons aMong these levels. Uhere does Green
PolLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probleMatLc scheMe?
3 . "BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM - Ln prLncLple appears as a key theMe of Deep
Ecology. CrLtLcally assess Lts adequacy. Shouldn't Green PolLtLcs Lnctude such a
prLncLpte?

4. Is Non-vLolence an unstated prLncLple of Deep Ecology? ExplaLn why Deep
Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLolence to the degree Lt Ls? In your answers . take
-5-

\

account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLctLons between the use of
vLoLence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vloLence Ln
nature; ttt. the need for coerclve Methods to preserve the natural envtronMent.
5. Uhat justlfLes expandLng _seLf-reallsatLon to SeLf-reaLlsatlon? ExpLaLn the
Meanlng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLlsatLon for Deep Ecology and dLscuss Lts
adequacy. Uhy does lt not feature ln Green PolLtlcs?
6. ExpLaLn the MeanLng of the deLLberateLy vague slogan ·slMple ln Means, rlch
ln ends·, or of soMe other hlgh-lMpact slogan of Deep Ecology. Indlcate how the
vagueness Mlght work for and agalnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be
alternatLve LnterpretatLons, and lndlcate soMe of the
suggest
applled,
alternattves.
these
of
raMLflcatlons
7. OutLlne btoregtonaLL3M, lndlcatlng what practlcaL envlronMental probleMs bloreglonallsM lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bloreglonallsM derlved froM Deep Ecology?
Conslder to what extent bloregLonallsM fLts wLth the slogan, •Thlnk globally,
act LocaLly".
deeper, or to any,
envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vlews of Deep Ecology and Green
PolLtLcs on the role of varlous types of technology.
8~ Is More hLgh technology an unprobleMatLc

soLutLon

to

9. Uhat Ls EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for
Deep Ecology? If Lt ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green
PoLltlcs?
10. A reLatlonaL, total-fLeLd LMage of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been
quletLy oMLtted froM the orLglnal pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt
pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated?
READINGS
1:

DEEP ECOLOGY AND GREEN POLITICS

The Greens consLder theMseLves the poLltLcal voLce of the cLtLzens' MoveMents, that Ls, ecology, antl-nuclear-power, peace, feMLnLst, and others. Most
MeMbers of the Green party are also actLvLsts Ln one or More of those MoveMents,
and thLs dLverse orLentatLon Ls reflected Ln the wLngs, or factLons, of the
party: the vLslonary/hollstlc Greens, the Eco-Greens, the peace-MoveMent Greens,
and the radlcal-Left Greens. A great deaL of overlapplng occurs wlth any categor~z~ng of Green LdentltLes and soMe people say there are no actual factlons,
but clearly there are dtfferent prtorltLes aMong the four clusters.
The More that people perceLved the LnterconnectLons aMong prLncLpLes of
ecologLcaL wlsdoM, a truly secure peace, an econoMy wLth a future, and a
partLcLpatory deMocracy wLth power channeled dLrectly froM the grassroots Level,
the More they notLces the absence of such LdeaLs aMong the exLsttng poLLtlcaL
partles.
[Green] pollcLes are gutded by long-terM v~s~ons for the future and are
founded on four basLc prLncLples: ecology, socLal responsLbLLLty, grassroots
deMocracy, and nonvLoLence.
The fLrst of the ·four pLLlars, • ecology, has several MeanLngs Ln Green
poLLtLcs. Green poLLtLcs, Ls Lnherently hoLLstLc Ln theory and practLce. It Ls
based on ecoLogLcal, or ·network·, thLnkLng, a terM used frequently by the
Greens. EcoLogLcaL thLnkLng also Lncludes the realLzatLon that the seeMLngLy
-6-

rtgtd structures we percetve Ln our envLronMent are actually ManLfestatLons of
underlytng processes, of nature's contLnual dynaMLc flux. Interrelatedness and
ongoLng process are the lessons the Greens take froM and apply to the ecosysteMs
surroundLng us. They support •soft" energy productLon (such as solar power) that
works wLth the cycles of the sun, the water, and the wLnd, and the flow of the
rLvers. They call for the developMent of approprLate technology that reflects
our Lnterdependence wLth the Earth. They advocate regeneratLve agrLculture that
replenLshes the soLl and Lncorporates natural Means of pest control. Above all,
the Greens deMand a halt to our ravagLng of natural "resources" and our poLsonLng of the bLosphere through the duMpLng of toxLc wastes, the accuMulatLon of
so-called acceptable levels of radLatLon exposure, and the pollutLon of the aLr.
The broader applLcatLons of ecologLcal thLnkLng lead to ·socLal ecology,
the perceptton of soctetal structures and huMan Lnteracttons as an Lntrtcate web
of dynaMLc systeMs that are sLMultaneously Lnterrelated parts and coMplete Ln
theMselves. That eMphasLs on relatLonshLps and Lnterconnecttons Ls the basts of
the
Greens'
ecologtcal work that focuses specLfLcally on envLronMental
protectLon. TheLr prograMs Ln thts area call for huMans to ftnd our place Ln the
ecosysteMs:
~e defLne ecologLcal polLtLcs as those Measures that understand huMan betngs
and our envLronMent as beLng part of nature. HuMan lLfe, too, Ls eMbedded Ln
the lLfe cycles of the ecosysteMs; we Lnterfere wLth our actLons and thLs,
Ln turn, acts back on us. ~e Must not destroy the stabLlLty of the ecosysteMs. In partLcular, ecologtcal polLtLcs presents an all-encoMpassLng rejectLon of an econoMy of exploLtatLon and plunderLng of natural resources
and raw MaterLals, as well as the destructLve LnterventLon Lnto the cycles
of nature's household.
The second of the four pLllars, ·soctal responsLbLlLty, • Ls understood by
Most Greens to Mean socLal justLce and assurance that the poor and the workLng
class wLll not get hurt by prograMs to restructure the econoMy and our consuMer
socLety ecologtcally.
The radLcal-left Greens, however, read sozLal as a codeword for socLalLsM,
that Ls, deMocratLc MarxLsM~ SLnce that polLtLcal Model Ls specLfLcally not what
the vLsLonary, lLberal and conservatLve Greens have Ln MLnd, a battle developed
over establLshLng the basLc prLncLples. The MajorLty wanted the new party to
stand for possLbLlLtLes other than etther socLalLsM or the capLtalLst status
quo. The radLcal-left contLngent, on the other hand, LnsLsted on not only
Lncludtng socLalLsM but also on excludLng nonvLolence as a guLdLng prLncLple.
So one of the four pLllars, lLke so Much else Ln the Green party, has a
paradoxLcal character: Lt Means soMethLng dLfferent Ln dLfferent parts of the
party. All factLons of the party concur that socLal, econoMLc and ecologLcal
Lssues are Lnherently lLnked. The ecologLcal and socLal spheres belong Lnseparably together: the econoMy of nature Ls ltnked to the econoMy of huMans for
better or worse .
The thLrd pLllar, grassroots deMocracy, was LnspLred by the ~est GerMan
cLtLzens' MoveMents throughout the 1970s, whLch Ln turn were Lnfluenced by the
cLvLl rLghts, ecology, consuMer, and other MoveMents ~n the Un~ted States.
OLrect, or partLcLpatory, deMocracy locates a greater aMount of power and
control wLth the local groups, the grassroots. ThLs orLentatLon ~nforMs the
structure of the Green party. An organLzatLon structured wtth partLcLpatory
deMocracy sets Lts basLc polLcy accordLng to the votLng at large asseMblLes. It
allows LndLvLduals access to all party offLcLals, and Lt eschews hLerarchLcal
structure. Instead of allowtng power to be concentrated Ln a few people who

-7-

reMaLn at the top of a hLerarchy for years, such groups generally elect steerLng
coMMLttees.
The fourth pLllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both
personal vLolence and •structural vLolence, • that Ls, vLolence and oppress Lon
LMposed by the state and by LnstLtutLons. (See ReadLng 4; Green PolLtLcs,

pp.3-4, 29-43)
The tenets of [the Deep Ecology] MoveMent Nay perhaps be roughly forNulated
as follows: (1) The well-beLng of nonhuMan lLfe on Earth has value Ln Ltself.
ThLs value Ls Lndependent of any LnstruNental usefulness for LLMLted huNan
purposes. (2) RLchness and dLversLty Ln lLfe forMs contrLbute to thLs value and
Lnterfere
Ls a further value Ln Ltself. (3) HuMans have no rLght to
destructLvely wLth nonhuMan lLfe except for purposes of satLsfyLng vLtal needs.
(4) Present Lnterference Ls excessLve and detrLMental. (5) Present polLcLes Must
therefore be changed. (6) The necessary polLcy changes affect basLc econoMLc and
LdeologLcal structures and wLll be the More drastLc the longer Lt takes before
sLgnLfLcant change Ls started. (7) The LdeologLcal change Ls MaLnly that of
apprecLatLng lLfe qualLty (focusLng on sLtuatLons LnvolvLng Lnherent. value). (8)
Those who subscrLbe to the foregoLng poLnts have an oblLgatLon dLrectly or
LndLrectly to try to LMpleMent the necessary changes. (Defence, p.266)
It should be fully apprecLated that the sLgnLfLcant tenets of the Deep
Ecology MoveMent are clearly and forcefully norMatLve. They express a value
prLorLty systeM only Ln part based on results (or lack of results) of scLentLfLc
research. Today, ecologLsts try to Lnfluence polLcy-MakLng bodLes largely
resource
and
through threats, through predLctLons concernLng pollutants
depletLon, knowLng that polLcy-Makers accept at least certaLn MLnLMUM norMs
concernLng health and just dLstrLbutLon. There are polLtLcal potentLals Ln thLs
MoveNent whLch should not be overlooked and whLch have lLttle to do wLth
pollutLon and resource depletLon. In plottLng possLble futures, the norMs should
be freely used and elaborated. (Shallow and Oeep 1

p.99)

A Major dLfference between the theorLes lLes Ln the dLstrLbutLon of values.
Deep ecology, lLke sLMpler utLlLtarLanLsM, offers a unLque LnLtLal dLstrLbutLon:
each lLvLng thLng Ls assLgned equal value and nothLng else has LntrLnsLc value.
Value Ls assessed through soMe MLx of value-NakLng characterLstLcs, LncludLng
such defeasLble ecologLcal unLversals as stabLlLty, resLlLence, naturalness,
rLchness, scarcLty and so forth . But there are consLderable
dLversLty,
constraLnts on how thLs Ls done . . . . One constraLnt, that of LMpartLalLty whLch
excludes certaLn types of class chauvLnLsM, a thLng cannot be ranked as valuable
or ahead or another sLMply by vLrtue of belongLng to soNe specLes (e.g. beLng
huNan) or favoured bLologLcal class; such class features are not Ln theMselves
value-MakLng characterLstLcs. Such an account of how value Ls assessed reNaLn
however far froM specLfLc, and soMetLMes of lLttle use Ln practLce. (CrLtLque,
pp.59- 60)
POINTS OF UNITY
1. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. Ue base our phLlosophy on a proper understandLng of the
purposes and workLngs of nature and do not try to LNpose an Ldeology upon Lt . Ue
seek to transforM socLety based upon thLs understandLng.
2. CONSENSUS DEMOCRACY. Ue conduct all our MeetLngs accordLng to the prLncLples
of consensus deNocracy, eNphasLzLng unanLMous or near-unanLMous agreeMent on all
decLsLons. No representatLve May Make decLsLons on behalf of the Greens wLthout
the approval of the entLre NeMbershLp. Ue encourage the use of consensus
deMocracy Ln all socLal, econoMLc and polLtLcal LnstLtutLons.

-8-

3. NONVIOLENCE AND FREEDOM. ~e oppose the threat or use of phystcal vtolence to
resolve tnternatlonat, clvll, polltlcal and personal confllcts. ~e encourage the
nonvlolent enforceMent of all prlvate and publlc rules and Laws. ~e recognlEe
that a nonvlolent soclety would be a very free soclety and encourage tolerance
of others' vlews and actlons.
~- SOCIAL ECOLOGY. ~e eMphaslze the connectton of doMlnatlon and vlolence toward
the envlronMent and toward our fellow huMans. ~e seek a nonvlolent soclety ln
whlch the needs of lndlvlduals, coMMunltles and bloreglons are balanced and
lntegrated and ln whlch econoMtc resources are used consclousty, deMocratlcaLLy
and approprlatety to further thls end.
5. STRATEGY. ~e wlLL oppose ecologlcatty and soclatty destructlve pollcles and
dlsobedlence
clvll
and
protest
practlces through nonvlolent polltlcal
actlvltles. ~e wlLL proMote alternatlve projects and lnstltutlons conslstent
wlth our Green phllosophy. ~e wlLL cooperate ln solldarlty wlth all groups ln
substantlal agreeMent wlth these polnts of unlty as partlclpants ln the
lnternatlonal Green MoveMent. (Deep Ecology, pp.36-7).
2:

DEEP ECOLOGY LEVELS

In dlscusslng the relatlonshlp between deep ecology and Major tradltlons
such as BuddhlsM and Chrlstlanlty, Naess stresses that people can agree broadly
on a set of prlnctptes and dlsagree greatly on other aspects of ldeology and
other tradttlons thusly:
In order to factlttate dlscusslon lt May be helpful to dlsttngutsh a coMMon
platforM (baste prlnclples) of deep ecology froM the fundaMentaL features of
phllosophles and rellglons froM whlch that platforM (baste prlnctples) ls
derlved, lf the platforM ls forMulated as a set of norMs and hypotheses
lf . verballEed, are Buddhlst,
(factual assuMptlons). The fundaMentals,
or phllosophlc wlth
persuaslons,
rettgtous
other
Taolst, Chrtsttan or of
afftnltles to the baste vlews of Splnoza, Uhltehead, Hetdegger, or others.
The fundaMentals are Mutually More or Less lncoMpattble or at Least
dtfflcult to coMpare l~ terMs of cognltlve contents. The tncoMpattblltty
does not affect the deep ecology prlnclples adversely.
The baste prlnclples wlthln the deep ecology MoveMent are grounded ln
retlglon or phllosophy. In a Loose sense, tt May be sald to be dertved froM
the fundaMentals. Because these are dtfferent, the sltuatlon only reMlnds us
that very slMllar or even tdenttcal conclustons May be drawn froM dlvergent
preMlses. The prlnclples (or platforM) are the . saMe, the fundaMentaL
preMlses dtffer.
In order to clartfy the dtscusston one Must avold Looktng for one deftntte
phllosophy or rellgton aMong the supporters of the deep ecologlcal MoveMent.
Fortunately there ls a rlch Manlfold of klnds of consequences dertved froM
the prlnclples.
The dtscusston has four Levels to take lnto account: verballzed fundaMentaL
phllosophlcal and rellglous ldeas and lntultlons, the deep ecology baste
prlnclples, the More or Less general consequences dertved froM the platforM
Llfestytes and general pollcles of every klnd - and Lastly, descrlpttons
of concrete sltuatlons and declstons Made ln theM. (See DlagraM 1)
Arne Naess has atteMpted to provlde a Loglcal dlagraM or systeMatlzatlon of
hls own verslon of deep ecology or ecosophy whtch he calls •Ecosophy r·. He

-9-

caLLs thts a norMattve systeM whtch tncLudes both norMs (or baste values) and
factual hypotheses_ The Lower norMs or actton stateMents are dertved froM the
top norMs tn a Loosely LogtcaL sense_ The top or Most baste norMs are arrtved at
by the deep questtontng Lntutttve process_
Naess stresses that Ecosophy T Ls onLy hts verston of deep ecology, and
that Many versLons need to be worked out_ SoMe people NLght be crLtLcaL that
Many of the norMs of deep ecology are heLd on an tntutttve basts, but Naess
potnts out aLL theortes begtn soMewhere beyond LogtcaL constructtons_ (DEEP
ECOLOGY, pp-225-7)
In order to factLttate dtscusston about deep ecology aMong phtLosophers tt
May be heLpfuL to dtsttngutsh a coMMon pLatforM of deep ecology froM the
fundaMentaL features of phtLosophtes and reLtgtons froM whtch that pLatforM Ls
derLved, tf tt ts forMuLated as a set of norMs and hypotheses (factual
assuMpttons)_ The terM 'pLatforM' ts preferred to 'prtncLpLe' because the Latter
May be NLsunderstood to refer to the uLtLMate fundaMentaLs_ FurtherMore, the
forMuLatton of a pLatforM should be short and conctse (as a synopsts), whereas
the fundaMentaLs, tf verbaLtzed, are Buddhtst, Taotst, ChrLstLan or of other
reLtgtous ktnds, or they are phtLosophLc wtth afftntttes to the baste vtews of
SpLnoza, ~hLtehead, HeLdegger, or others_ The fundaMentaLs are MutuaLLy More or
Less LncoMpatLbLe or at Least dtffLcuLt to coMpare tn terMs of cognLttve
contents_ Supporters of deep ecology May have great dLfftcuLttes understandtng
each other's uLtLMate vLews_
The pLatforM of the deep ecology MoveMent Ls grounded tn reLtgLon or
phLLosophy tncLudtng ethLcs_ It May be saLd to be derLved froM
these
fundaMentaLs_ As used here the terM 'dertved' ts open to a vartety of LnterpretatLons_ If the vaLLdLty of a norM or a hypothesLs Ls justLfLed by reference
to one defLnLte set of assuMptLons of a phtLosophtcaL or reLLgtous ktnd, the
norM or hypothests ts Ln a sense dertved froM those assuMpttons_ The set
acquLres a character of preMLses for parttcuLar concLusLons_ But cLoseLy · sLMLLar
or even tdenttcaL concLustons May be drawn froM sets of LncoMpatLbLe preMLses_
ThLs expLaLns the coMbLnatLon of 'bewLLderLng' dLverstty of vLews at the deepest
LeveL wtth agreeMent of vtews at the next LeveL_
In assesstng constructLve crttLctsM of deep ecology Lt Ls useful to try to
ftnd out whLch LeveL Ls LnvoLved_ An exaMpLe: In the tntroductLon to hLs The
EthLcs of EnvtronMentaL Concern, (Oxford: BLackweLL 1983), Robtn AttfLeLd says:
Yet I do not accept, wLth the so-caLLed 'deep, Long-range ecology MoveMent',
the vtew that our prLncLpaL Loyalty should be focussed not on feLLow-huMans
or feLLow creatures but on the bLosphere as an organtc whole, __ _
I suppose there are soMe supporters of the deep ecology MOVeMent who
propose focusstng Loyalty on the bLosphere as an organLc whole Ln the sense
suggested by AttfteLd_ The conceptLon of the bLosphere as an organLc whole and
of such a kLnd of Loyalty belongs to the reaLM of fundaMentaLs, that Ls LeveL
one, rather than to the other Levels_ Therefore that AttfLeLd does not accept
the vtew he descrtbes ts not relevant tn arguMentatton for or agatnst deep
ecology- One Matn potnt tn deep ecology ts tts deep arguMentatton, that ts,
arguMentatton froM uLttMate (phLLosophLcaL, reLtgtous) preMtsses, but there Ls
rooM for very dLfferent sets of such preMLsses_ A supporter of deep ecology May
or May not have any conceptton of a prLMary Loyalty focussed on the bLosphere as
an organtc whole_
[The] dtsttnctLon of Levels Ls useful when tryLng to ptn down exactly what
a crttLcLsM Ls focusstng on_ The dLagraM furnLshes onLy a ktnd of stattc ModeL_

-10-

A supporter of deep ecology wLLL norMaLLy ModLfy the sentences at the dLfferent
Levels froM tLMe to tLMe. Hew LnforMatLon May change any hypotheses and
therefore also change norMs whLch Ln part have been justLfLed on the basLs of
the hypotheses beLng changed.
Renewed ethLcaL consLderatLon or new LnforMatLon May Make the supporter
change a norM. If a norM Ls changed norMally new sets of hypotheses are
Lnvolved, and old ones are dLscarded. ThLs agaLn wLLl cause reverberatLons Ln a
sMaLLer or greater part of the fLeld.
F roM a po Ln t of v Lew of no rMa t Lve sys teMa t t·~a t Lons what goes on when
changes are Made at one or More Levels Ls rather coMpLLcated. But part of Lt Ls
processes of derLvatLon. OLagraM l pretends only to Lllustrate LMportant
dLfferences of the Levels of derLvatLon and the specLfLc character of Level 2.
It represents a condensed forMulatLon of the deepest-Level norMs and hypotheses
whLch supporters of the deep ecology MoveMent can agree upon. ThLs Level Ls
LLLustrated as the penultLMate (next to ultLMate) Level of arguMentatLon
characterLstLc of those supporters of deep ecology who try to artLculate theLr
baste vLews. At the thLrd and fourth Level dLsagreeMents May arLse. At the fLrst
Level supporters May dLsagree, or fLnd each others vLews' LncoMprehensLb le, or
LncoMparable as to valLdLty.
Ls not a Measure of value prLorLtLes or of
A 'dLrectLon of derLvatLon
ethLcaL prLorLtLes. And Lt does not LMply that what Ls derLved Ls a Means Ln
relatLon to what Lt Ls derLved froM. A sLMple exaMple Ls enough to clarLfy thLs.
FroM 'do not kLlL huMans! ·, follows, Lf you concede 'all Mothers are huMans' the
conclusLon 'do not kLLL your Mother!'. ThLs rather concrete norM Ls here derLved
froM the More general and abstract one. But thLs does not LMply that huMans Ln
general have a hLgher value or a kLnd of prLorLty Ln relatLon to Mothers. It
does not say that Ln a norM confLLct you should be More careful not to kLLL
huMans than not to kLLL your Mother. An absurd posLtLon! And Lastly, Lt Ls
rather strange to refraLn froM kLllLng your Mother as a Means to a goal, · naMely
not to kLLL huMans.
The forMulatLons of Level 2 have the character of proposals. It May turn
out that proposals wLLL dLffer substantLaLLy or show a natural dLversLty of
terMLnologLcal and conceptual LdLosyncracLes . UnhappLLy Lt Ls quLte coMMon to
MLx the, Ln a broad sense, LogLcal relatLon of derLvatLon wLth other relatLons.
These are at Least as LMportant, but nevertheless are dLfferent. (BASIC, pp.1-5)
ScheMatLcally we May represent the total vLews LMpLLed Ln the MoveMent by
and
norMs
streaMs of derLvatLon f roM 'h Lghest', L.e. Most fundaMentaL
sLtuatLons.
lLfe
partLcular
Ln
descrLptLve assuMptLon, to partLcular decLsLons
Answers to the deepest questLon, L.e. hLghest norMatLve prLncLples and
basLc assuMptLons about the world MLddle range answers. Lower derLvatLonaL Level
derLvatLons towards decLsLons Ln partLcular LLfe sLtuatLons. Level of actLon Ln
concrete partLcular sLtuatLons.
The LLLustratLon reseMbles those of hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeMs. One
MaLn dLfference Ls that soMe sentences at the top Level are norMatLve,
expressed by LMperatLves. ThLs Makes Lt possLble to furnLsh
preferably
LMperatLves at the Lowest derLvatLonaL Level, sentences such as ·Turn to the
Left!" ·voteforN.N. !.
Just as Ln hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeM, Let us say Ln physLcs, only the
two upper Levels of the pyraMLd Ls thought of as part of physLcs as a systeM,
only those parts are Ln norMatLve systeMs characterLstLc of the total systeM.
-11-

The sentences
change.

Ln

the

Lowest

part

change froM day to day as LLfe sLtuatLons

The above kLnd of presentLng the derLvatLonaL structure of a totaL vLew
Must not be taken too serLousLy. SoMe wLLL absoLuteLy refuse even to consLder
such a way of exposLtLon. And Lt does not Ln any Manner characterLze thLnkLng
wLthLn the deep ecoLogLcaL MoveMents. SoMe of us wLth a professLonaL background
of scLence and anaLytLcaL phLLosophy fLnd Lt heLpfuL, however.
Arne Naess's systeMatLEatLon LLLustrates the reLatLonshLp of deep ecoLogy's
basLc prLncLpLes or Lts "platforM" (LeveL 2), to varLous · possLbLe and relLgLous
"fundaMentaL preMLsses
on the one hand (LeveL 1) and varLous possLbLe
theoretLcaL and practLcaL "consequences" on the other (LeveLs 3 and~). Althou~h
thLs systeMatLzatLon Ls presented Ln terMs of
"fundaMentaL
preMLsses,
consequences", and a dLrectLon of "derLvatLon• froM LeveLs (1) to(~), thLs
should not be taken to Mean that a sentence at one Level Ls held to follow by
vLrtue of necessLty or probabLLLty froN sentences at a prevLous Level L.e~,
Naess Ls not proposLng a deductLve or an LnductLve systeM. As he coMMents
hLMself, Lt Ls only Ln a "Loose sense• that the deep ecology pLatforM "May be
saLd to be derLved froM fundaMentaLs·.
In other words, derLvatLon or precLseness Ls a Matter of deLLMLtLng a
range of possLble LnterpretatLons. For exaNpLe, we MLght proceed froN a
fundaMentaL (L.e. Level 1) reLLgLous or phLLosophLcal preMLss such as "ALL Ls
One" or the SpLnozLst Ldea that "there Ls onLy one 'substance• • and, Ln the
sense descrLbed, "derLve" the (More precLse) central "plank" Ln the deep ecology
"pLatforM" that "there are no boundarLes Ln the bLospherLcaL fLeld", or that
"aLl entLtLes are constLtuted by theLr relatLonshLps" (LeveL 2). Further
precLsatLon MLght express the realLsatLon that "the sense of oneself as a skLn
encapsulated ego Ls not Ln accord wLth thLs ' seaMLess web' ontoLogy• (Level 3).
None of the steps Ln the above exaMpLe Ls held to foLLow by necessLty
(deductLve Lnference) or probabLLLty (LnductLve Lnference) froM sentences at a
prevLous LeveL. ALL we have (Ln logLcaL terMs) Ls a chaLn of precLsatLons
fLowLng Ln one or Many possLble dLrectLons of LnterpretatLon. Ue could have
easLLy started froM the saMe vague, general fundaMentaL preMLss and proceeded to
deveLop a chaLn of precLsatLons Ln a very dLfferent dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon.
Thus, the "dLrectLon of derLvatLon· shown Ln the dLagraMMatLc LLlustratLon of
Naess's systeMatLsatLon shouLd be understood as referrLng to both the leveL of
precLsatLon and the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon. The greater the Level of
precLsatLon the More evLdent the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon (or what Naess has
prevLousLy referred to as the "defLnLteness of LntentLon")_
Uhat Ls the vaLue of tryLng to provLde a systeMatLsatLon of deep ecology
(or any other faLrLy coMprehensLve vLew) when the connectLve LLnks between
fundaMentaL preMLsses (LeveL I) and practLcaL consequences (Level~) are as weak
as that of "possLbLe LnterpretatLon"? An LMportant answer Must be that such a
systeNatLsatLon eMphasLses the contLnuaLLy-beLng-forgotten fact that our Most
sophLstLcated and precLse, non-trLvLaL (L ~e. nontautoLogLcaL) reasonLngs are
aLways eMbedded or grounded Ln a very generaL "underLyLng perceptLon of the way
thLngs are." ThLs eMphasLs, thLs contLnual reMLndLng, constLtutes the Most
sLgnLfLcant and dLstLnctLve structural feature of deep ecologLcaL thought.
(GUIDING STARS, pp.203-4)
OnLy LeveL one contaLns phLLosophLes (LncLudLng MetaphysLcs, of course) and expLLcLt reLLgLous foundations. There Ls, and hopefuLLy wLLL never be, Many
sLgnLfLcant COMMon characterLstLcs on Level 1. The cLeanLng of 'rubbLsh' on thLs
Level Ls a hazardous undertakLng froN MY poLnt of vLew.

-12-

In a coMprehensLve phLLosophy of Level l, for lnstance ln an 'ecosophy' ln
MY terMlnoLogy, every key terM of the pLatforM forMuLatlon, (Level 2), would
have to be .coM"ented upon and elucLdated. ThLs "ay be seen as a clearLng up
operatlon. A hlgher level of preclseness Ls achLeved and eLLMLnatlon of
ph~Losoph~caLLy unsuLtable rhetorLcs. (HOTES ON SYLVAN, pp.8-9)

3:

ON BIOCENTRIC EGALITARIANISM

The Lntultlon of blocentrlc equaLlty ls that aLL thlngs Ln the blosphere
have an equal rlght to Llve and bLossoM and to reach thelr own LndLvlduaL forMs
of unfoLdLng and self-reaLlzatlon wlthln the Larger SeLf-reallzatlon. Thls basLc
Lntultlon Ls that aLL organLsMs and entltles Ln the ecosphere, as parts of the
lnterreLated whole, are equal Ln LntrlnsLc worth. Naess suggests that bLocentrlc
equaLLty as an LntuLtlon Ls true ln prLncLpLe, although ln the process of
LLvLng, aLL specLes use each other as food, shelter, etc. Mutual predatlon ls a
b~ologLcal fact of lLfe, and "any of the world's relLgLons have struggled wLth
the spLrltuaL lMpllcatlons of thts. SoMe anlMaL llberatlonLsts who atteMpted to
sLde-step thLs probLeM by advocatlng vegetarLanlsM are forced to say that the
entLre plant ktngdo" LncLudLng raLn forests have no rLght to thelr own
exlstence. ThLs evaslon fLles ln the face of the basLc LntuLtlon of equalLty.
Aldo Leopold expressed thLs Lntultlon when sald huMans are •pLaLn cLtlzens• of
the btotlc coMMunlty, not Lord and Master over all other specLes.
BlocentrLc equaLlty ls lntlMateLy related to the aLL-LnclusLve SeLfreaLlzatLon ln the sense that Lf we harM the rest of Nature then we are harMLng
ourselves. There are no boundarles and everythlng ls lnterreLated. But Lnsofar
as we percelve thlngs as LndLvLduaL organlsMs or entLtLes, the LnsLght draws us
to respect aLL huMan and nonhuMan lndLvLduals ln theLr own rLght as parts of the
whole wLthout feeLLng the need to set up hlerarchLes of specles wlth huMans at
the top.
The practlcaL LMpLlcatlons of thLs lntultlon or norM suggest that we should
LLve wlthLn MlnLMuM rather than MaxlMUM lMpact on other specLes and on the Earth
ln general. Thus we see another aspect of our guldlng prLnclpLe: ·slMpLe ln
Means, rLch ln ends.• (Deep EcoLog~, pp.167-9)
blospherLcaL egaLltarlanlsM Ln prlnclpLe' and certaln
The abstract terM
slMlLar terMs whlch I have used, do perhaps More harM than good. They suggest a
posLtLve doctrLne, and that ls too Much. The LMportance of the LntultLon ls
but
MOMentary,
only
perhaps
the
rather lts capaclty to counteract,
Less
seeMs
what
towards
attltude
Lordly
and
consequentlaL, self-congratulatory
developed, Less coMplex, Less MlracuLous.
A rlch varLety of acceptable Motlves can be forMuLated for belng More
reluctant to Lnjure of klLL a LLvLng beLng of klnd A than a beLng of klnd B. The
cultural settlng ls dLfferent for each belng Ln each culture, furtherMore there
are few general norMs, only vague guLdeLLnes. One factor: felt nearness,
deterMlnes Largely our capactty to ldentLfy ourselves wlth a sort of beLng, to
suffer when they suffer. One cannot put forth ethLcaL rules of conduct wlthout
takLng such feeltngs and our lLMlted capacLtLes serLously. If Lt Ls dLffLcuLt to
avotd klLLLng A because of Lts sMalLness, whereas klLLlng B ls easlLy avolded,
we tend to protect B rather than A. Indeed we Llve wLth an obvLous dLversLty of
obLlgatlons. Ue have speclaL oblLgatlons towards our own chLldren: Ln Most
cultures any anlMaL May be kLLLed ln order to feed one's starvLng chlLd.
ObLlgatLons toward specLes that have been MeMbers of our llfe coMMunLty for Long
perLods are greater than toward accldentaL vlsltors. FurtherMore, we have the

-13-

relevance of sufferLng:
capacLty of sufferLng?

Is

the sufferLng of A less than that of B? Has A the

The sLMpLe thLng I try to convey here L3 that an ethLcs concernLng
dLfferences between non-huMan LLvLng beLngs Ls of a coMparable level of
coMpLexLty to ethLcs concernLng dLfferent people and groups wLth whoM we have to
do. (lntuLtLon, p.202)
Those of us who procLaLM the rLght of all LLfe forMs to LLve and bLossoM
thLnk of thLs rLght as an aspect of the 'value Ln LtseLf' whLch we attrLbute to
the bLosphere wLth Lts closely Lnterconnected LLfe forMs. The procLaMatLon seeMs
to steM froM an LntuLtLon for whLch a graduatLon Ls soMethLng foreLgn. If there
Ls such a basLc rLght, Lf Lt can be gLven a faLrly precLse MeanLng, Lt Ls the
naMe for all lLfe forMs. It Ls LMportant enough to be terMed bLospherLcaL
egaLLtarLanLsM. But Lt Ls perhaps the best to abstaLn froM such Labels. They
LnvLte a varLety of LnterpretatLons Most of whLch May be MLsLeadLng.
As to the consequences of a posLtLve answer, I thLnk we can learn froM
certaLn cultures of hunters and gatherers where bLg anLMaLs are only kLLled
after elaborate cereMonLes and excuses'. There Ls acknowLedgeMent of equal
rLght, but also of a rLght to kLlL Ln order to Meet vLtaL needs. There Ls a
'norM conflLct' whLch Ls solved through addLtLonal norMs: the perforMance of
certaLn rLtes and behavLors of other kLnds. What I thLnk we need not proclaLM Ls
that we as huMans are Most or More valuable, or have a hLgher rLght. ~e need not
say '1 have a hLgher rLght to LLve and bLossoM than you have, obnoxLus MosquLto,
so I kLLL you!' or 'BeLng Much More valuable than you are, I kLlL you and your
offsprLng, dLrty rat!' In so far as we have vLtal needs to kLlL, and Ln so far
as Lt Ls LnevLtabLe Ln practLce, we May justLfy thLs through varLous norMs whLch
are Ln harMony wLth general ecoLogLcal thLnkLng.
Do these words solve the relevant probLeMs? Of course not. ~hat I aM
drLvLng at Ls the prLorLty of MaLntaLnLng a sort of egalLtarLanLsM Ln p~LncLple.
How we can LLve thLs that prLncLpLe Ls a questLon of ethLcs Ln a very general
sense, proceedLng froM Many prLncLples whLch LnevLtably Lead to norM confLLcts
requLrLng adjustMents froM day to day. (PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, pp.27-9)
AccordLng to Naess, a bLospherLc egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe, of equal value of
to the
all LLfe, Ls an LntuLtLveLy clear and obvLous value axLoM', at least
aLMost
ecoLogLcaL fLeLd-worker' (73, p96)!. But eMpLrLcaL surveys would
certaLnLy not sustaLn Haess's claLMs. The prLncLpLe seeMs generally neLther
LntuLtLve nor obvLous, and Ln several ways Lt appears LncoMpatLbLe wLth the
wLder deep ecology pLatforM. It Ls not even obvLous that soMethLng has value by
vLrtue of havLng LLfe. On the contrary, value seeMs, lLke yellowness, to be Much
More patchLLy dLstrLbuted across the unLverse. SpecLal places, for Lnstance, are
especLaLLy valuable. Hor Ls value always dLstrLbuted on LLvLng thLngs, but
colours toMbs of the dead; and soMetLMes Lt flakes off consteLlatLons of LLvLng
thLngs, for exaMpLe thLngs Ln excess, such as Locusts or rats Ln a plague.
But even Lf every LLvLng thLng were assLgned value, Lt would not follow (Ln
the way soMetLMes LnvaLLdLy argued) that every thLng has Lt equally. ~hLLe Lt
could be saLd that thLngs are equal Ln havLng Lt, thLs Ls rather LLke pretendLng
that people are equal Ln an LnegaLLtarLan socLety where all have soMe Money - a
subterfuge. Indeed proposed prLncLpLes of deep ecology LnforM us, correctly,
that soMe ecoLogLcaL LteMS are More valuable than others. For Lnstance, a
certaLn sort of coMpLexLty Ls a vLrtue (Naess 73, prLncLpLe (6)), so presuMabLy
an LteM wLth that coMpLexLty Ls More valuable than a sLMple bLoLogLcal LteM.
SLMLLarLy, dLversLty of systeM Ls a vLrtue, a prLMe ground of value (prLncLpLe
(2)). The upshot appears to be that a hLghly dLverse ecosysteM Ls More valuable

-14-

than a sLMpLLfLed and LMpoverLshed one_
FurtherMore, bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM Ls LnconsLstent wLth the hoLLstLc,
antL-reducLLonL3tLc, antL-LndLvLduaLL3tLc ethos whLch deep ecoLogy LMports froM
hoLLstLc ecotogy.
AnaLogous concLu3Lons can be reached for •equaL rLghts• forMuLatLons_ For
one thLng, equaL rLghts are characterLstLcally based on equal MerLt or equal
worth_ For another, arguMents lLke those gLven can be rerun wLth rLghts suppLantLng values_ As a theoretLcaL prLncLpLe, bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM has to
be scrapped_ The LMMense dLffLcuLtLes of such a prLncLpLe Ln practLce Naess had
already partLally recognLsed, qualLfyLng egalLtarLanLsM to equalLty Ln prLncLple 'because any realLstLc praxLs necessLtates soMe kLllLng, exploLtatLon, and
suppressLon' (p_95). The extent of erosLon Ln equalLty thLs affords reMaLns
obscure; but Lt couLd be close to total, wLth theoretLcaL equaLLty LapsLng whenever confLLct of rLghts or values LooMed_ Such egaLLtarLanLsM would be LLke a
MaxLM of honesty Ln prLncLpLe, whLch appLLed Ln practLce only when Lt was not
LnconvenLent; that Ls, but an eMpty MaxLM_
~hatever Naess's Lntended qualLfLcatLon, Lt stLLL seeMs to people wLth
Much practLcaL experLence on the Land or Ln gardenLng, especLaLLy Ln places
where the surroundLng natural envLronMent has not been totally transforMed, that
he has consLderabLy underestLMated the extent of quaLLfLcatLon needed, and that
the prLncLpLe. BLospherLc
strangle
to
begLn
does
quaLLfLcatLon
due
theLr own shelter or
supply
not
do
who
egaLLtarLanLsM Ln practLce Ls for people
sustenance, but pass the busLness of ecosysteM Lnterference and ModLfLcatLon on
to others (as they typLcaLLy pass the butchery of theLr Meat and the LLke on to
others)_ Even were Lt desLrabLe, unLversaL hunter-gatherLng Ls no Longer
possLbLe or feasLbLe, wLth so Many Mostly unsuLted and LLL-adapted huMans; and
a substantLaL
even hunter-gatherers terMLnate the LLves of Many creatures
Lnterference wLth theLr rLghts to LLve and bLossoM - and, More LMportant,
and
dLrectty
LnterferLng
substantLaLLy ModLfy theLr envLronMents, thus
LndLrectly wLth enorMous nuMbers of LLvLng thLngs_
~hatever rLghts sLMpLer LLvLng organLsMs, especLaLLy ones such as bacterLa
and vLruses, have to LLve and bLossoM, they have decLdedLy quaLLfLed and Much
attentuated ones. ULth bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM (Ln prLncLpLe) the deep ecology
MoveMent has Latched onto a prLncLple whLch Ls both too powerful, and yet, Lf
the ·Ln prLncLpLe" quaLLfLcatLon Ls appLLed so as to cover typLcaL LLfestyLes of
deep ecoLogLsts, a prLncLpLe so rLddLed wLth exceptLons as to barely hang
together. But wLthout soMe of the Lntended force of bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM,
deep ecology Ls Ln danger of coLLapsLng (LLke Many of Lts followers) Lnto an
LnterMedLate posLtLon, as no other part of the pLatforM adequately sustaLns Lts
LLMLted
separatLon_ Part of what Ls sought wLth the egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe
Lnterference, huMan Lnterference to an extent and on a scale far below that
of
theMe
the
Ls already afforded a basLs Ln
presently prevaLLLng
Ls
what
wLth
values-Ln-nature and outsLde the huMan sphere, sLnce Lnterference
of value Ls (Lpso facto) LLMLted. Such a prLncLpLe of LLMLted Interference
deserves, Ln any case, separate forMuLatLon (whLch Lt usually gaLns Ln deep
ecology pLatforMs)_ But even so Lt hardly achLeves the requLsLte separatLon,
sLnce LnterMedLate posLtLons can, and do, grant or MaLntaLn soMe such prLncLpLe
of lLMLted or reduced Lnterference (thus e-g- BLrch, AttfLeLd, SLnger)_
~hat Ls requLred Ls a posLtLve equLvaLent of the separatLng feature, of the
rejectLon of the greater vaLue assuMptLon, and therewLth of the rejectLon of
huMan supreMacy, of the value pLcture of huMans as always nuMber one_ What Ls
needed, More generaLLy, Ls a prLncLpLe teLLLng agaLnst the favourLng of one
over others sLMpLy on the basLs of specLes, a
specLes - huMans Ln partLcuLar

-15-

prLncLple of bLospecLes LMpartLalLty, to gLve Lt a sLMLlar grandLose tLtle.
There Ls soMe reason to suspect that, as elsewhere, a requLreMent of LMparttalLty has been hardened Lnto one of egalLtarLanLsM, that faLrness, because often
dLfftcult to assess, has been MLstakenly taken to Lnvolve equaltty. BLospecLes
LMpartLalLty LMplLes the avoLdance of specLes chauvLnLsM, that Ls the avotdance
of unfaLr treatMent of LteMs outstde the gLven specLes. Because unfaLr, the
treatMent concerned lacks any sufftctent justLfLcatLon. Hence, the avotdance of
spectes chauvtnLsM Lnvolved Ls effectLvely that prevLously explaLned as a
specLal case of class chauvLnLsM. SLMLlarly, the requLreMent of bLospecLes
LMpartLalLty Ls a specLal case of the requlreMent of class (or natural group)
LMpartlallty, for whlch the arguMents are the saMe as those for the avoldance of
class chauvLnLsM.
The danger of specLes partLalLty, of favourLng soMe specLes, Ls Much
encouraged by a specles fallacy, whLch Ls coMMonly lnvoked ln favourlng huMans.
ThLs Ls the error of concludLng that because a few MeMbers of the specles have
accoMplLshed soMethtng of (LMMense) value, all MeMbers of the spectes therefore
are (hlghly) valuable; all MeMbers of the specles Manage to free-load for the
rtde, obtatned by a few MeMbers, so to say. The arguMent, once challenged,
usually falls back on an arguMent that goes by way of capacltLes: the reMaLnLng
MeMbers of the specles have the capactty to achleve these sorts of thlngs
also. But, fLrstly, that Ls not true: LntellLgence, skLlls, and the lLke, vary
soMewhat wtthLn specLes, and froM our narrow perspectLve, vary consLderably
aMong huMans, soMe of whoM have no capacLty for advanced MatheMatLcs or MusLc.
a
Secondly, Lt requLres More than capacLty: Lt requLres cLrcuMstances,
favourable envlronMent to exercLse theM (hence, ln part, the folly of More
huMans ln conspLcuously suboptLMal cLtLes), together wLth a wlll and drlve
actually to follow through approprLately on capacLtLes. (CrLtLque, pp.12-16)

4.

NON-VIOLENCE

The fourth plllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both
personal vLolence and -structural vlolence·, that Ls, vLolence and oppresslon
LMposed by the state and by Lnstltutlons. For these reasons the Greens support
the concept of self-deterMlnatLon for lndLvLduals and groups. They also advocate
peace educatLon Ln the schools, whLch would teach nonvLolent Means of conflLct
resolutLon and show chLldren that the cult of the soldLer Ls a cultural, not a
natural condltLon. The Greens also call for an end to the vLolence and
oppressLon toward woMen, chLldren, and MLnorLty groups so coMMon Ln patrLarchal
socLetLes. They want to develop a nonexploLtatlve econoMlc systeM Ln whLch
eMployee-owned and -controlled busLnesses replace huge operatlons dLctated by
or corporate lnterests. They want to transforM our vlolent
state
the
relatLonshLp wlth nature lnto one of balance and respect. Petra Kelly expresses
the centralLty of thLs prLncLple when she says, ·NonvLolence Ls the essentLal
Lngredtent ln an ecologLcal socLety. •
Most of the Greens eMphatLcally eMbrace the prLncLple of
Although
nonvLolence, they also realLze that Lts appllcatLon Ls often probleMatLc. Roland
Vogt polnted out one of the areas of confll~tlng values:
What we have not yet accoMplLshed Ls to say how we show ourselves to be
nonvLolent at the MOMent when we partLcLpate Ln governMental functLons,
because the state Ls Ltself an LnstLtutLon of vLolence. For exaMple, how
wlll a Green cLty counctl act agalnst people who don't pay thelr rent,
although they really could because they recelve welfare or because they earn
enough. The norMal course Ls warnLng, warnLng, evLctLon notLce, and then
evLctLon by force and by polLce. We haven't solved thLs. That Ls, there are
stLll no thought-out concepts of how we can reconcLle the deMands of socLal

-16-

responsLbLL Lty wLth the deMands of non vLoLence.
The Greens extend theLr prLncLpLe of nonvLoLence to theLr actLve resLstance
agaLnst the Most MassLve and potentLaLLy deadly "anLfestatL on of structural
vLoLence: the nuclear arMs race proMoted by the MLLLtary-L ndustrLaL coMpLex and
the governMent. In theLr natLonaL headquarter s Ln Bonn the Greens have a poster
of OandhL s adage "there Ls no way to peace; peace Ls the way• and one of
Thoreau
0

Those who eMbrace nonvLoLent cLvLL dLsobedLenc e, coMMLttLng breaches of Law
on the grounds of conscLence, are prepared to suffer · vLoLence or punLshMent
theMseLves rather than LnfLLct vLoLence or LnjustLce on others or share
responsLbLL Lty for such acts by reMaLnLng passLve. •1,, however, the Law Ls
so proMuLgated that Lt of necessLty Makes you an agent of LnjustLce agaLnst
another, then I say to you: Break the Law."
The MajorLty of Greens strongly endorse - and lLve - the concept of actLve,
nonvLoLence resLstance. However, the MarxLst-orL ented MeMbers of the party have
never been fully supportLve of that prLncLpLe. They vLew Lt "ereLy as a
·MoralLstLc " tactLc that should be abandoned Ln favor of escaLatLng resLstance
Lf Lt does not prove suffLcLentL y effectLve. Petra Kelly's account of the
LeftLsts' attLtude on thLs Lssue was sLMLlar to what we had heard froM Many
other Greens:
They do not understand that nonvLolent actLon Ls an extre"ely subversLve
force. They thLnk Lt's harMLess, Ls a for" of obedLence, and changes
nothLng, that Lt's LLke beggLng froM the state. ·1t's just a tactLc, a
toot," they say. To theM everythLng Ls to be used. But there are soMe thLngs
you should never "Lsuse - or even use. They are sLMpLy LntegraL. NonvLoLence
cannot be coMproMLsed.
Although Many of the advocates of nonvLoLent . resLstance argued that ·such a
course cannot be dLsMLssed as "Merely MoraLLstLc" sLnce Lt Ls also absolutely
ratLonaL (that Ls, hLstory shows that vLoLence breeds vLolence - structural as
welt as personal - so we "ust fLnd another way to effect change, especLaLLy Ln
the nuclear age). For Most MeMbers of the greens the choLce was clear, as
expressed wLth a cLtatLon froM MartLn Luther KLng: •~e no Longer have a choLce
or
nonvLoLence
between vLoLence and nonvLoLence . The choLce Ls eLther
nonexLsten ce." (Green PoLLtLcs, pp.~3-7)
Deeply coMMLtted persons Ln the ecology Move"ent sense the vuLnerabLLL ty of
natural processes to huMan LnterventLo n, and the fundaMentaL necessLty of
MaLntaLnLng bLologLcal dLversLty. AffLrMatLon of the LntegrLty of ecosysteMs
frequently LnvoLves a caMpaLgn to save froM developMent soMe rLver of canyon or
wLLderness area.
In a real sense, ecologLcaL resLstance LnvoLves beco"Lng frLends wLth
another specLes or a rLver or a MountaLn, for exaMpLe. In general, the resLster
takes up the burden of responsLbLl Lty, the burden of wLtnessLng for the other as
Self. ThLs process of befrLendLng "ay be based on ArLstotle's crLterLa for
frLendshLp: the proMotLon of the other's good for the other's own sake. Or
frLendshLp can be the extensLon of self. When OandhL was asked Lf hLs good deeds
Ln a vLLLage expressed hLs huManLtarLa nLsM, he repLLed he worked "to serve no
• GandhL s stateMent defLned MaturLty. ALtruLsM was
one else but Myself
unnecessary because hLs self eMbraced the whole vLLLage.
0

There are Many dLfferent tactLcs of LndLvLduaLs and organL2atLo ns Ln
save the Earth•, but
or
poLLtLcaL caMpaLgns whLch seek to ·save the rLver

-17-

there Ls one overrLdLng or baste norM of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng: non-vLoLence.
Ecology teaches us that MankLnd Ls not the center of LLfe on the planet.
Ecology has taught us that the whole earth Ls part of our "body" and that we
Must Learn to respect Lt as we respect ourselves. As we feel for ourselves, we
Must feel for aLL forMs of LLfe - the whales, the seals, the forests, the seas.
The treMendous beauty of ecoLogLcaL thought Ls that Lt shows us a pathway back
to an understandLng and an apprecLatLon of LLfe LtseLf - an understandLng and
apprecLatLon that Lt Ls LMperatLve to that very way or LLfe.
As wLth the whales and the seals, LLfe Must be saved by nonvLoLent
confrontatLons, by what the Quakers caLL "bearLng wLtness•. A person bearLng
wLtness Must accept responsLbLLLty for beLng aware of an LnjustLce. The person
May then choose to do soMethLng or stand by, but he May not turn away Ln
Lgnorance. The Greenpeace ethLc Ls not onty to personally bear wLtness to
atrocLtLes agaLnst lLfe; Lt Ls to take dLrect actLon to prevent theM. ~hLLe
actLon Must be dLrect, Lt Must also be non-vLoLent. Ue Must obstruct a wrong
wLthout offerLng personal vLoLence to Lts perpetrators. Ue Must know that our
greatest strength Ls LLfe LtseLf, and the coMMLtMent to dLrect our lLves to
prbtect others.
EcoLogLcaL resLstLng could be defLned as keepLng the peace of the neLghborhood. Rarely are vandals or vLolent neLghbors welcoMe Ln the neLghborhood. Uhen
the neLghbors Lnclude rLvers and MountaLns, seashores and prarLes, then the
LntegrLty of the ecosysteM Ls MaLntaLned.
In hLs explLcatLon of GandhL's theory of nonvLoLence, Arne
several norMs of nonvLoLent potLtLcat caMpaLgns. These Lnctude:

Naess

lLsts

l. Announce your case and the goal of your caMpaLgn explLcLtty and clearly,
dLstLnguLshLng essentLaLs froM nonessentLats.
2. Seek personal contact wLth your opponent and be avaLLable to hLM. · BrLng
confLLctLng groups Lnto personal contact.
3. Turn your opponent Lnto a beLLever Ln and supporter of your case, but do
not coerce or expLoLt hLM.
~- You provoke your opponent Lf you deLLberateLy or carelessly destroy hLs
property.
of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng denounce
theorLsts
LeadLng
nonvLoLence as tactLcs. But as Rober ALtken RoshL wrote:

vLoLence

versus

Non-vLoLence Ls not just a tactLc for people who Make Lt a practLce ... The
end Ls the Means, Ln other words. Look at poLLtLcaL hLstory or at the
hLstory of any MoveMents. Uhen we work for certaLn goals, those goals tend
to betray us. Ue defeated L.B. Johnson only to get RLchard NLxon. Ue got rLd
of the B-1 BoMber (teMporarLLy) and the CruLse MLssLle appeared. Ue have to
Make our actLon the goal. Our actLon Must LtseLf be the truth. Our actLon
Must be Lts own defense, Lts own procLaMatLon, Lts own purpose. (Letter to
the author, June 1982)
Both on practLcaL and ethLcaL grounds, vLoLence Ls rejected as a Mode of
ecotogLcal resLstance. TerrorLst attacks on nuclear plants or MLssLle sLtes
could cause ·red" alerts and vLolent responses froM governMent agencLes.
PLacLng one's own LLfe at rLsk, such as sLttLng Ln front of bulldozers or
polLce cars at a deMonstratLon to protest destructLon of the raLn forest, May be
LLLegaL but not vLoLent. And spontaneous acts such as the decoMMLssLonLng of a
power generator or bulldozer May draMatLze the contLnuLng destructLon of a

-18-

spectal ecosysteM.
Ecologtcal reststance also Means defendtng natural dtverstty through
educatLon, publLc speakLng, and use of lawsuLts; tryLng to convert publtc
opLnton to the cause; and tnforMLng poltttctans and dectsLon Makers. ResLstance
Ls another naMe for afftrMatLon - joyful affLrMatton of the tntegrLty of Nature,
natural dLversLty, and MLnLMuM huMan LMpact on place. (Deep Ecolo9H, pp.16-17)
The Deep Ecology MOVeMent and peace MoveMent.
Ftfteen years ago close cooperatton between supporters of deep ecology and
actLvtsts Ln the peace MoveMent was out of reach. Rather suddenly thts sttuatton
Ls totally changed. SoMe of us, ltke Myself, favour unLlateral dtsarMaMent and
establtshMent of MtlLtant, but unherotc, non-vtolent defence.
At thts potnt Lt ts tMportant for actLvtsts to stress the dtstLnctLon
between actLon, caMpaLgn and MOVeMent. They May be tllustrated by three
concentrLc cLrcles. The LnnerMost coMprLse the dLrect actLons wLthLn a caMpatgn,
for Lnstance, a dated deMonstratLon at a parttcular locatLon agatnst the
butldtng of a daM, or the non-vtolent obstructton of the transport of the
MachLnery on the way to the daM sLte. ThLs May be part of a ten year old
caMpaLgn to save a rtver (LncludLng of course tts ecosysteM) froM developMent of
soMe sort. Ten dLrect acttons May be fatlure, but nevertheless theLr LMpact May
conflLct,
contrtbute to vLctory of the caMpaLgn. (Or May polarLze the
antt-actLvtsts
Many
what
Ls
That
contrLbutLng to the faLlure of the caMpatgn?
MaLntaLn.) The rLver caMpaLgn together wLth other analogous caMpaLgns May be
seen as part of a MoveMent of greater or lesser generaltty. A MoveMent to save
rtvers, or More generally a conservatton MoveMent. Many caMpatgns May be
fatlures, but the MOVeMent goes on. (Hates on Poltttcs, pp.l~-JS)
Gandhtan and other forMs of non-vtolence are wtdely found wLthtn the deep
ecologLcal MoVeMent. There Ls a reluctance to accept destructLon of MachLnery Ln
efforts to stop destructton even of holy places. There Ls soMe dtsagreeMent on
thts and related subjects. I do not thtnk that the coMpletely general norMs of
care and consLderatLon should be looked upon as part of the specLftc platforM of
the deep ecology MoveMent . . (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, p.31)
In suM, the paradtgM of deep ecology Ls revolutLonary tn tts MetaphysLcs,
epLsteMology, and cosMology, but deep ecologLsts do not seek to overthrow
governMents by force of arMs or to Lssue anythLng lLke a coMprehensLve, alleMbracLng polLtLcal prograM for brLngLng about the new order. The conteMporary
deep ecology MoveMent seeMs to be what Robert NLsbet has called a "wLthdrawal
and renewal" MoveMent such as has perLodLcally arLsen .Ln ~estern socLety sLnce
the fall of the RoMan EMpLre.
There ts no poltttcal party of "deep ecology,· no cadre of poltttcal
revoluttonarte s. Thts ts not an approprtate approach for deep ecologtsts. No
frontal confrontatLons wLth reforMLst envLronMental tsts or wLth the doMLnant
socLal/polttLc al order Ls destred. It would be counter-product Lve by Maktng
people More defensLve of thetr LdeologLcal posLtLon. Deep ecology Ls not an
atteMpt to add one More tdeology Ln the crowded fLeld of Modern LdeologLes. Deep
ecologLsts are questLng for ways to lLberate and cultLvate the ecologLcal
conscLousness. FroM ecologtcal conscLousness wtll naturally flow an ecologtcal
reststance. (Deep Ecology MoveMent, pp.316-17)
5:

ON SELF-REALIZATION

Naess: Self-realtzatLo n ts

the

realtzatLon

of

-19-

the

potentLaltttes

of

ltfe.

OrganLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln three ways gLve us Less dLversLty than
organLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln one hundred ways. Therefore, the selfreaLLzatLon we experLence when we LdentLfy wLth the unLverse Ls heLghtened by an
Lncrease Ln the nuMber of ways Ln whLch LndLvLduals, socLetLes, and even specLes
and lLfe forMs realLze theMselves. The greater the dLversLty, the, the greater
the self-realLzatLon. ThLs seeMLng duaLLty between LndLvLduaLs and the totalLty
Ls encoMpassed by what I call the Self and the ChLnese call the Tao. Most people
Ln deep ecology have had the feelLng - usually, but not always, Ln nature - that
they are connected wLth soMethLng greater than theLr ego, greater than theLr
naMe, theLr faMLLy, theLr specLaL attrLbutes as an LndLvLdual - a feelLng that
Ls often called oceanLc because Many have Lt on the ocean. ULthout that
LdentLfLcatLon, one Ls not easLLy drawn to becoMe LnvoLved Ln deep ecology.
Many people have thLs feeLLng when they see a death struggle - for Lnstance
tLny anLMaLs LLke fLtes or Mosquttoes fLghtLng for thetr ltves. Uhen they see
anLMals sufferLng, they May LdentLfy wLth LLfe forMs they usually don't LdentLfy
wLth. Such sLtuatLons offer us an opportunLty to develop a More Mature poLnt of
vLew. Insofar as thLs conversLon, these deep feelLngs are reLLgLous, deep
ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent, and those people who have done the Most to
Make socLetLes aware of the destructLve way Ln whLch we LLve Ln reLatLon to
natural settLngs have had such relLgLous feeLLngs. Rachel Carson, for exaMpLe,
says that we cannot do what we do, we have no reLLgLous or ethLcaL justLfLcatLon
for behavLng as we do toward nature. Her arguMent Ls not calculated or
reasonable Ln the usual sense, sayLng that, Lf we contLnue poLsonLng nature, we
wLLl be Less healthy, or wLLL have fewer resources, and so on. She Ls sayLng
that we are sLMply not perMLtted to behave Ln that way. SoMe wLll say that
nature Ls not Man's property, Lt's the property of God; others wLLL say Lt Ln
other ways. The MaLn poLnt Ls that deep ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent,
fundaMental LntuLtLons that everyone Must cuLtLvate Lf he or she Ls to have a
LLfe based on values and not functLon LLke a coMputer. Uhereas shallow ecology,
Lf taken to Lts logLcaL extreMe, Ls lLke a coMputerLzed, cost-benefLt anaLysLs
for huMans. (SLMpLe tn Means, p.11)
If the terM seLf-reaLLzatLon Ls applLed, Lt should be kept Ln MLnd that
Me", "ego , and self have shLftLng denotatLons. NothLng Ls evLdent and
•1·,
LndLsputabLe. Even that we are Ls debatable Lf we Make the questLon dependent
upon answertng what we are.
Self-realLzatLon Ln Lts absolute MaxLMUM Ls, as I see Lt, the Mature
experLence of oneness Ln dLversLty as depLcted Ln the above verse. The MLnLMUM
Ls the seLf-reaLL2atLon by More of Less consLstent egotLsM - by the narrowest
experLence of what constLtutes one's self and a MaxLMUM of alLentatLon. As
eMpLrLcaL beLngs we dweLL soMewhere Ln between, but Lncreased MaturLty LnvoLves
tncrease of the wLdeness of the self.
The seLf-reaLtzatton MaxLMuM should not necessarLLy be conceLved as a
MystLcal or MedLtattonaL state. ·ey MedLtatLon soMe perceLve the Self tn the
self by the self; others by the path of knowledge and stLLl others by the path
of work (karMa-yoga) [Gtta: Chapter 13,, verse 2~]. GandhL was a karMa-yoga,
reaLLzLng hLMseLf through socLaL and poLLtLcaL actLon.
The terMs MystLcal unLon and MystLcLsM are avoLded here for three reasons:
Ftrst, strong Mysttcal tradLtLons stress the dtssolutLon of Lndtvtdual selves
Lnto a nondLversLfLed supreMe whole. Both froM cultural and ecoLogLcaL poLnt of
vtew dLversLty and LndLvtdualLty are essentLaL. Second, there Ls a strong
terMLnoLogtcaL trend wtthtn sctenttftc coMMuntttes to assoctate MysttcLsM wtth
MystLcs tend to agree that MysttcaL
ThLrd,
confuston.
and
vagueness
conscLousness Ls rarely sustatned under norMal, everyday condLttons. But strong,

-20-

w~de LdentLfLcatLon can color experLence under such condLtLons.
GandhL was only MargLnally concerned wLth 'nature'. In hLs ashraM poLsonous
snakes were perMLtted to tLve LnsLde and outsLde huMan dwettLngs. AntL-poLson
MedLcLnes were frowned upon~ GandhL LnsLsted that trust awakens trust, and that
snakes have the saMe rLght to tLve land btossoM as the huMans. (IdentLfLcatLon,
pp.259-6)
In keepLng wLth the spLrLtual tradLtLons of Many of the worlds s retLgLons,
the deep ecology norM of setf-reatL2atLon goes beyond the Modern western self
hedonLstLc
whLch Ls defLned as an Lsotated ego strLvLng prLMarLly for
gratLfLcatLon or for a narrow sense of LndLvLduat satvatLon Ln thLs tLfe or the
next. ThLs socLatty prograMMed sense of the narrow self or socLat self
dLslocates us, and leaves us prey to whatever fad or fashLon Ls prevalent Ln our
socLety or socLat reference group. Ue are thus robbed of be9LnnLn9 the search
for our unLque spLrLtuat/b.LologLcal personhood. SpLrLtual growth, or unfotdLng,
begLns when we cease to understand or see ourselves as Lsolated and narrow
coMpetLng egos and begLn to LdentLfy wLth other huMans forM our faMLly and
frLends to, eventually, our specLes. But the deep ecology sense of self requLres
a further MaturLty and growth, an LdentLfLcatLon whLch goes beyond huManLty to
Lnclude the nonhuMan world. Ue Must see beyond our narrow conteMporary cultural
assuMptLons and values, and the conventLonat wLsdoM of our tLMe and place, and
thLs Ls best achLeved by the MedLtatLve deep questLonLng process. Only Ln thLs
way can we hope to attaLn full Mature personhood and unLqueness.
A nurturLng nondoMLnatLng socLety can help Ln the "real work" of becoMLng a
whole person. The ·real work• can be suMMarLzed syMbolLcally as the realLzatLon
of "self-Ln-Self- where ·setf· stands for organLc wholeness. ThLs process of the
full unfoldLng of the self can also be SUMMarLzed by the phrase, •No one Ls
saved untLt we are all saved,· where the phrase •one• Lncludes not only Me, an
LndLvLduat huMan, but all huMans, whales, grLzzly bears, whole raLn forest
ecosysteMs, MountaLns and rLvers, the tLnLest MLcrobes Ln the soLt, and so on.
(Deep Ecology, pp.66-7)
of
norM
SubscrLbLng to these prLncLples, Naess asserts, coMes froM the
self-realLzatLon, that ·.~. wLth MaturLty, huMan beLngs wLtl experLence joy and
sorrow when other tLfe forMs experLence sorrow. Not only wLll we feet sad when
our brother or the dog or cat feels sad, but we wLll grLeve when lLvLng beLngs,
LncludLng landscapes, are destroyed. In our cLvLlLzatLon, we have vast Means' of
destructLon at our dLsposal but extreMely lLttle MaturLty Ln our feelLngs. Only
a very narrow range of feetLngs have Lnterested Most huMan beLngs untLt now.•
ThLs deepenLng of feetLngs seeMs to run counter . to the trend Ln Modern
socLety toward superfLcLat relatLonshLps . . . . Arne Naess asserts that ·setfrealLzatLon cannot develop far wLthout sharLng joys and sorrows wLth others, or
More fundaMentalty, wLthout the developMent of the narrow ego of the sMall chLld
Lnto the coMprehensLve structure of a Self that coMprLses all huMan beLngs. The
ecologLcal MoveMent -- as Many earlLer phLlosophLcat MoveMents -- takes a step
further and asks for developMent such that, there Ls a deep LdentLfLcatLon of
LndLvLduals wLth all lLfe."
I suggest that the leaders of the ecology MoveMent devetopMent theLr ethLcs
after they had Moved along thLs path of Self-reatLzatLon. (Stone/Sky, pp.6-7)
But what Ls wrong wLth the wLdely applauded atteMpt, runnLng through Much
LdeatLstLc and Eastern thLnkLng, to explLcate value through self-realLsatLon?
FLrstly, lLke utLlLtarLan explLcatLons, such as those through happLness and
satLsfactLon, Lt Ls Much too experLentLal. It renders value a feature of those

-21-

who exper~ence value - roughly of valuers - rather than of what ~s valued, and
bears value. It Ls lLke sayLng that colour Ls a Matter of those (huMans) who
perceLve colour, not of the (coMposLtLon of) thLngs that are coloured. And
reMove the experLences, those undertakLng self-realLsatLon, as Ln the days
before lLfe appears and value dLsappears. And that too Ls wrong.
Secondly, even Lf self-realLsatLon were always worthwhLle and never tLed to
by contrast wLth lLfe - there are exaMpLes of value whLch fall beyond
evLl
(Ln
presented
often
seLf-reaLLsatLon. A certaLn sort of dLrectLon Ls
bLocheMLstry texts Lnterested Ln explaLnLng lLfe) as a MLnLMal condLtLon of lLfe
of an organLsr1 or syster1: caLL that dLrectLon, s·eLf-dLrecti.on. Thus, deep
ecology, Lnsofar as Lt values (just) LLfe, values (just) self-dLrectLon. In
these terMs, the contractLon froM seLf-dLrectLon to self-realLsatLon, as Ln
Ecosophy T, Looks LLke a M~stake. A s~r1LLar M~stake appears to underLLe
contractLons to ecologLcal conscLousness (as Ln Devall); for self-realLsatLon
Looks rer1arkabLy L~ke consc~ous seLf-d~rectLon, roughly an LntersectLon of
seLf-dLrectLon wLth conscLousness.
The argur1ents asser1bLed thus underMLne both of what Devall presents as the
uLtLMate norMs of deep ecology', nar1eL~eLf-reaLLsatLon and bLocentrLsM.
'These are not proved but "felt"' (83, p.5). But they are not felt, at least by
those who perceLve value beyond what lLves; rather they are dLsproved, by a
serLes of counterexar1ples to each as uLtLr1ate norr1s. (CrLtLque, pp.2~-5)
In partLcular presentatLons of a partLcular phLLosophy froM whLch the
Naess-SessLon platforM Ls derLved, naMely Ecosophy r' I use a Model where
'Self-realLzaHon!' and sLr1LLar short forr1uLatLons are taken to express a top
norr1 of a norr1atLve systeM.
~e r1ay artLcuLate 'r1odeLs' of a very cor1prehensLve norr1atLve syster1, and
use Lt to explore the LnterrelatLons of our own vLews and those of others. I
have extensLvely used a Model of a cor1prehensLve yLew I call 'Ecosophy r ·' and I
use only one top norM whLch on the Most crude ser1antLcaL Level Ls expressed by a
one word sentence 'seLf-realLzatLon! '.
A r1aLn LnspLratLon for - the choLce cor1es froM the use of the terN by
GandhL. Another MaLn LnspLratLon Ls the strong trend Ln Uestern LndustrLaL
states towards an LndLvLdualLsM favourLng lLfe as a Long ego-trLp full of
'happenLngs' . In France there Ls a group of 'egologLsts' , the nar1e beLng chosen
as a contrast to 'ecologLsts ' : ~hatever the reLatLons between LndLvLdual beLngs,
huMan nature Ls such that the egocentred Lnterests of each of us Ls stronger
than any other. To foster the kLnds of soLLdar~ty the pol~t~cal left ~s taLkLng
about, or the soLLdarLty wLth other lLfe forMs wh~ch . ecologLsts (the greens)
preach, w~ll therefore never succeed and ~s apt to hurt the LndLvLduaL .
' seLf-reaL~zatLon!' Ls a norM that LnLtLaLLy arLses vLvLd Lnterest aMong
those who are LnfLuenced by the ego-trLp trend, but are then astonLshed and
bewLLdered by the d~stLnctLons between ego, self and Self. Th~s ~s new to Most
of theM and they are often Led to recons~der theLr LndLvLduaL~st posLtLon. ThLs
reconsLderLng Ls for Me a confLrMatLon of the SocratLc value of the choLce of
forr1ulatLon.
The r1aLn poLnt Ln thLs connectLon Ls that huMans undergo a r1aturLn9
process, and only Lf thLs process coMes to a 'prer1ature' halt, LndentLfLcatLon
wLth others and solLdarLty faLL to develop. If we, as I do, add the SpLnozLst
(courageous) hypothes~s that the joy and equLMLndedness you exper~ence as a
Mature person ~s deeper and rLcher than that you exper~ence as an ~r1r1ature grown
'reaLLzaHon of the (wLde) Self!' gets to be an ~nstructi.ve and ~nsp~rLng
up,

-22-

forMu l,a.
The Self-realLzatLo n norM proposed by Me has been taken too serLously as Lf
one, two or three world expressLons were adequate phLLosophLcaL expressLons
of a hL9hest' norM. An adequate expressLon LMplLes that the LntrLcate subject
ego, se Lf, Se Lf ', that Ls, b Lo Log Lea L, soe La L and Hetaphys Lea L se Lf ar·e
dLstLnguLshed. Only Ln relatLon to a faLrly Large body of phLlosophLcaL analysLs
we can forMulate adequate phLlosophLcal prLncLples. It has always been that way.
(Notes on Sylvan, pp.17-19)

HY

0

6:

OH LIFESTYLE

The deep ecologLcal MoveMent Ls recruLted froM people who do not look upon
natural surroundLngs as a Means for recreatLon and repaLr. LLfe and work Ln
natural surroundLngs Ls a vLtal concern. The rLchness of that LLfe Ls so vast,
and the Means are so sLMple, that they have dLffLculty understandLng why others
seeM to need Means on a level of coMplLcatLon and sophLstLcatLon that Ls unLque
Ln the hLstory of [huMan]kLnd. They cannot but fLght agaLnst the acceleratLng
destructLon of nature due to the MaLntaLnLng and expandLng the productLon of
such Means. They do not thLnk people who serLousLy reflect upon the reLatLon
between Means and ultLMate LntrLnsLc values can justLfy the present polLcLes.
As an LllustratLon of dLfferent Means/end ratLos, coMpare the dLrect and
LndLrect technologLcal requLreMent of a faMLly wLth MeMbers froM 8 to 80 years
old lLvLng Ln a natural surroundLng and goLng cross-country skLLng together,
wLth that of a faMLly doLng slaloM at a bLg fashLonable skL
resort.
(PhLlosophLcal. Aspects, pp.35-6)
0

RLch Ln ends, sLMple Ln Means!.' HuMan Lnterference Ln the ecosphere can
only be reduced to tolerable levels Lf people, and especLally the average (or
econoMLcally above average) people of the LndustrLal states adopt lLfe styles
requLrLng sLMple MaterLal Means. ThLs Ls coMpatLble wLth or even favourable
towards rLchness of goals.
'Increase the sensLtLvLty to and apprecLatLon of what there Ls suffLcLent
of for all!' The educatLonal slogan fLghts agaLnst the confusLon of value wLth
Market value and prLce. A way to MaxLMLze our abLlLty to derLve deep
satLsfactLon froM the goods of whLch there stLll, Ls, or coul.d be, enough. The
present lLfe style of average people Ln LndustrLal socLetLes cannot be a global
lLfe style wLthout LrreversLble, colossal destructLon of condLtLons of LLfe on
Earth. (Hotes on PolLtLcs, p.2)
It ' s a shLft froM beLng doMLnated by Means, LnstruMents, gadgets, all the
Many thLngs we thLnk wLLl gLve us pleasure or Make us happy or perfect. The
shLft coMes about when we serLously ask ourselves, In what sLtuatLons do I
experLence the MaxLMUM satLsfactLon of MY whole beLng? and fLnd that we need
practLcally nothLng of what we are supposed to need for a rLght and fuLfLlLLng
LLfe. And Lf we Make that shLft toward a LLfe sLMple Ln Means but rLch Ln goals,
we are not threatened by the plans elaborated by envLronMentalL sts. For
Lnstance, we can see that, Lnstead of an ene~gy cr~s~s, we have a crLsLs of
consuMptLon - we have More than enough energy. There Ls no reason to contLnue
LncreasLng our consuMptLon of energy or of any of the other MaterLaL aspects of
lLfe. In countrLes lLke the UnLted States the crLsLs Ls rather one of LLfestyle,
of our tradLtLons of thoughtlessness and confusLon, or our LnabLLLty to questLon
what Ls and Ls not worthwhLLe Ln l,Lfe. ULthLn fLfty years, eLther we wLl,l, need a
dLctatorshLp to save what Ls Left of the dLversLty of LLfe forMs, or we wLLl
have a shLft of values, a shLft of our total vLew such that no dLctatorshLp wLLL

-23-

be . needed. It Ls thoroughly natural to stop doMLnatLng and expLoLtLng and
destroyLng the planet. A "sMooth" ~ay, LnvoLvLng harMonLous LLvLng wLth nature,
or a "rough" way, LnvoLvLng dLctatorshLp and coercion - those are the optLdns.
I tell people that, Lf they Make clear theLr fundaMentaL assuMptLons about
what Ls needed for a LLfe sLMpLe Ln Means and rLch Ln ends, they wLLL
necessarLLy coMe to the conctusLon that Lt Ls not tack of energy consuMptLon
that Makes theM unhappy. They can then oppose nuclear power wLthout havLng read
thLck books and wLthout knowLng the MyrLad facts that are used Ln newspapers and
perLodLcaLs. And they Must also fLnd others who feel the saMe and forM cLrcLes
of frLends who gLve one another confidence and support Ln lLvLng Ln a way that
the MajorLty fLnds rLdLcuLous, naLve, stupLd, and sLMpt~stLc. But Ln order to do
that, one Must already have enough seLf-confLdenc e to follow one's LntuLtLon - a
quaLLty very Much LackLng Ln broad sectLons of the populace. Most people follow
the trends and advertLseMents and becoMe phLLosophLcaL and ethLcaL crLpples.
I thLnk that, Ln the long run, Ln order to joyfully and wholeheartedly
partLcLpate Ln the deep ecology MoveMent you have to take your own LLfe very
seriously. People who successfully MaLntaLn a Low MaterLaL standard of lLvLng
and successfully cultLvate a deep, Lntense Lnner lLfe are Much better able to
consLstentLy MaLntaLn a deep ecoLogLcat vLew and to act on behalf of Lt. As 1·
sLt down and breathe deeply and just feel where I aM, I can ask Myself where and
when I really enjoy MY LLfe and what would be the MLnLMuM Means necessary to
MaLntaLn those enjoyable feelLngs and sLtuatLons. For exaMpLe, I Myself have
too eager to go cLLMbLng Ln the HLMaLayas, whereas the pecutLar
been
satLsfactLon I have as a MountaLneer could be had Ln Norway . If you concentrate
on what gLves you satLsfactLon, you wLLL fLnd that Lt can be obtaLned Much More
easLly and sLMply than we are educated to belLeve Ln our socLety, where bL99er,
More elaborate and More expensLve are always consLdered better.
The deveLopMent of sensLtLvLty toward the good thLngs whLch we already have
Ln suffLcLent quantLty Ls the true goal of educatLon. Not that we need to LLMLt
our desLres. I'M not for the sLMple lLfe, except Ln the sense of a tLfe sLMpLe
Ln Means but rLch Ln goals and values. I have treMendous aMbLtLon. Only the best
Ls good enough for Me. I LLke rLchness, and I feel rLcher than the rLchest
person when I'M Ln MY cottage Ln the country wLth water I've carrLed froM a
certaLn well and wood I've gathered froM the forest. Uhen you take a heLLcopter
to the SUMMLt of a MountaLn,° the vLew Looks LLke a postcard, and, Lf there ' s a
restaurant on the top, you wLll coMplaLn that the food Ls not properly Made.
~hereas Lf you struggle up froM the bottoM, you have thLs deep feeLLng of
satLsfactLon, and even sandwLches MLxed wLth skL wax and sand taste fantastLc.
(SLMple Ln Means, pp . 11-12)
(1) Use of s LMple Means, avoidance of unnecessary coMplLcated LnstruMents and
other sorts of Means.
(2) ChoLce of actLvLtLes Most dLrectLy servLng values Ln theMselves and havLng
LntrLnsLc value. AvoLdance of actLvLtLes whLch are Merely auxLlLary, havLng no
LntrLnsLc value , or beLng Many stages away froM fundaMentaL goals.
(3) AntL-consuMerLs M . ThLs negatLve attLtude follows froM (1) and (2).
(~) Endeavour to MaLntaLn and Lncrease the sensLtLvLty and apprecLatLon of goods
of whLch there Ls enough for all to enjoy. '
(5) Absence or low degree of novophLLL - the love of what Ls new Merely because
Lt Ls new.
(6) Effort to dwell Ln sLtuatLons of LntrLnsLc value and to act rather than
beLng busy .
(7) ApprecLatLon of ethnLc and cultural differences aMon9 people, not feelLn9
theM as threats .
(8) Concern about the sLtuatLon of the thLrd and fourth world and atteMpt to

-24-

avoLd a standard of LLvLng too Much dLfferent froM and hLgher than the needy.
(Global soLLdarLt y of LLfe style).
(9) ApprecLat Lon of LLfe styles whLch are unLversaL LzabLe, whLch are not
blatantly LMpossLbLe to sustaLn wLthout LnjustLce toward fellow huMans or other
specLes.
(10) To go for depth and rLchness of experLenc e rather than LntensLty .
(11) To apprecLat e and choose, when possLbLe, MeanLngfuL work rather than just
MakLng a LLvLng.
(12) To Lead a coMpLex, not a coMpLLca ted LLfe, tryLn9 to reaLLze as Many
aspects of posLtLve experLenc es as possLbLe wLthLn each tLMe-Lnte rvaL.
(13) CuLtLvatL ng LLfe Ln coMMunLty (GeMeLns chaft) rather than Ln socLety
(OeseLLs chaft}.
sMaLL scale
Ln prLMary productLo n
(14) ApprecLat Lon of or partLcLpa tLon
agrLcuLtu re, forestry, fLshLng.
(15) Effort to satLsfy vLtaL needs rather than desLres. (Paradox, pp.57-8)
In soMe Eastern tradLtLon s, the student Ls presented wLth a koan, a sLMpLe
story or stateMent whLch May sound paradoxLc aL or nonsensLc aL on the surface but
as the student turns and turns Lt Ln hLs or her MLnd, authentLc understan dLng
eMerges. ThLs dLrect actLon · of turnLng and turnLn9, seeLn9 froM dLfferent
perspectL ves and froM dLfferent depths, Ls requLred for the cuLtLvatL on of
conscLou sness. The koan-LLke phrase for deep ecology, suggested by proMLnen t
NorwegLan phLLosoph er Arne Naess Ls: ·sLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends.· (Deep
Ecology, p.10)
The LdeoLogLcaL change Ls MaLnLy that of apprecLat Lng LLfe quaLLty
Ln sLtuatLon s of Lnherent value) rather than adherLng to an
(dweLLLng
LncreasLn gLy hLgher standard of LLvLng. There wLLL be a profound awareness of
the dLfferenc e between bLg and great.
SoMe econoMLs ts crLtLcLze the terM "quaLLty of LLfe" because Lt Ls supposed
to be vague. But on closer LnspectLo n, what they consLder to be vague Ls
actuaLLy the non-quan tLtatLve nature of the terM. One cannot quantLfy adequatel y
what Ls LMportant for the quaLLty of LLfe as dLscussed here, and there Ls no
need to do so.
There Ls aMple rooM for dLfferent op~n~ons about prLorLtLe s: what should be
done fLrst, what next? What Cs Most urgent? What Ls necessary as opposed to what
Ls hL9hLy desLrabLe ? But the dLfferenc es do not exclude vLgorous cooperatL on.
~hat Ls gaLned froM tentatLve Ly forMuLatL ng basLc vLews shared today by
Most or all supporter s of the deep ecology MoveMent? Hopefully Lt Makes Lt a
LLttLe easLer to LocaLLze the MoveMent aMong the Many 'aLternat Lve' MoveMents.
Hopefully thLs does not Lead to LsoLatLon but rather to even better cooperatL on
wLth Many other aLternatL ve MoveMents. It MLght also Make soMe of us More clear
about where we stand, and More clear about whLch dLsagreeM ents MLght profLtabL y
be reduced and whLch ones MLght profLtabL y be sharpened . After aLL dLversLt y!'
Ls a hLgh Level norM! (BasLc, p.6,9)
0

A set of platforM forMulatL on should be vague and aMbLguous enough to be
capable or rather dLfferen t phLLosoph LcalLy relevant Lnterpret atLons. The
prLncLpLe s of Lnterpret atLon of pLatforMs of MoveMents reseMbLe those of
Lnterpret atLon of Laws. Vagueness Ls here essentLaL prLMarLLy because those
appLyLng the Laws Must have soMe freedoM Ln adaptLng theM to ever changLng
cLrcuMst ances, but also because the forMuLatL on Must slur over, or abstract froM
MLnor dLfferenc es of relevant opLnLon aMon9 those who have supported the Lssue
of the Law. On the other hand, the Lnterpret atLon of the text of a phLLosop her
reseMbLes that of a testaMent ( 'wLLL' ). Exactly what the testator Lntends Ls the

-25-

sole crLterLon of correctness of the LnterpretatLon . Uhether hLs or her
terMLnology Ls abhorent or crazy Ls Lrrelevant. (Hates on Sylvan, pp.10-11)

7:

ON BIOREGIOHALISM

The central eleMent of bLoregLon Ls the LMportance gLven to natural systeMs
"both as the source of physLcal nutrLtLon and as the body of Metaphors froM
whLch our spLrLts draw sustenance. To understand natural systeMs Ls to begLn an
understandLng of the self."
A second eleMent of bLoregLon Ls setf-regulatLo n: •anarchy doesn't Mean out
Lt Means out of theLr control.• Local coMMunLtLes LnspLred by a
control;
of
shared concern for the bLoregLon, for "tettLng be• the plants and natLve anLMals
of that place, ~an Make decLsLons concernLng LndLvLduat and coMMunat actLons
whLc respect the LntegrLty of natural processes Ln that place. CarLng for a
place Means avoLdLng exptoLtatLon.
thLrd eleMent coMposLng the bLoregLonal notLon Ls spLrLt. • There Ls no
sLngle relLgLous practLce for thLs sense of bLoregLonat spLrLt. It can be
ChrLstLan, BuddhLst, NatLve AMerLcan or others; based on deep ecologLcal
LnsLghts, Lt can be expressed Ln nuMerous ways. (Deep Ecology, pp.21-22)

·A

UhLte the bLoregLonal, MLnorLty tradLtLon seeMs approprLate to us for
cuttLvatLng ecotogLcal conscLousness, atlowLng for bLologLcat dLversLty wLth
sLMplLcLty of Means, there are tough, practLcat decLsLons to Make. ConsLstent
wLth our uttLMate norMs, Lt seeMs that one prLncLple Ls protectLon of endangered
specLes of plants and anLMals as part of the general norM of unLty Ln dLversLty.
Another norM Ls bLoregLonal responsLbLlLty . The local coMMunLty Ls the place for
decLsLons. However, what happens when a local COMMunLty's needs conflLct wLth
the norM of protectLng specLes dLversLty?
Such a sLtuatLon occurred on the north slope of Alaska where natLve EskLMos
were huntLng bowhead whales Ln the 1970s. The InternatLonat UhatLng Co~MLssLon
ruled that thLs was an endangered specLes of whale and consLdered a total ban on
the kLttLng of bowhead. However, the natLve EskLMos pleaded that Lt was part of
theLr tradLtLon to kLtt whales. TheLr Myths and tLfestyle were dependent on Lt.
It they dLdn't kLll whales they would be More dependent on canned Meat froM the
"tower forty-eLght": gLven theM by welfare departMents. ThLs soMewhat sptLt the
envLronMentalL sts . Many groups supported a total ban on the kLllLng of bowheads
untLl ecologLsts deterMLned that theLr poputatLon had "suffLcLently Lncreased, •
but FrLends of the Earth took the posLtLon that EskLMos be allowed to take a
regulated nuMber of bowheads usLng theLr tradLtLonal Methods (no advanced
technology for kLtlLng theM was allowed).
Arne Haess provLdes an exaMple froM the bLoregLon ·of northern Horway where
farMers and herders, through expansLon of farMs and nuMber of sheep , were
rapLdty encroachLng on habLtat of wolves and bears. SoMe suggested kLllLng all
bears sLnce a few bears seeMed to be eatLng soMe sheep. But others suggested
LdentLfyLng the probleM More carefully. Uas a specLfLc bear becoMLng More and
More Lnterested Ln sheep? Could that bear be entLced to refraLn froM eatLng
sheep? Could Lt be reMoved to another tocat(on? Could the farMers agree to keep
theLr sheep out of areas where bears were known to have dens or graze? Only as a
last resort would the coMMunLty consLder the optLon of kLllLng that bear.
ThLs approach Ls Ln great contrast wLth that favoured by soMe ranchers and
such as wolves,
farMers Ln the AMerLcan Uest . Uhen a •predator" Ls defLned
to elLMLnate Lt,
undertaken
are
efforts
systeMLc
then
etc.
coyotes, eagles,
poLson •1oso",
of
spreadLng
LncludLng aerLal huntLng of wolves (Ln Alaska),

-26-

shootLn g eagles wLth hLgh-po wered rLfles and destroyL ng habLtat (dennLng areas,
rLparLan habLtat of rats, etc.). (Deep Ecology , pp.148- 9)
DasMann wrLtes about "bLoregL onalLsM " and •ecodeve lopMent " for the peoples
of
of AfrLca and the South PacLfLc , and refers approvL ngly to the concept
Ln
are
("~e
House
Lynn
and
e
6orslLn
"future prLMLtL ve• develop ed by Jerry
another
to
ve
prLMLtL
transLtL on froM one condLtL on of syMbLot Lc balance - the
a
whLch we wLll call future prLMLtLve ... a condLtL on havLng the attrLbu tes of
Mature ecosyste M: stable, dLverse , Ln syMbLot Lc balance agaLn") . OasMann
dLstLng uLshes between what he calls ecosyste M people and bLosphe re people:
"Ecosyst eM people lLve wLthLn a sLngle ecosyste M, or at Most two or three
M
adjacen t and closely related ecosyste Ms. They are depende nt upon that ecosyste
BLosphe re people draw theLr support , not froM the
for theLr survLva l
resource s of any one ecosyste M, but froM the entLre bLosphe re. BLosphe re people
can exert LncredL ble pressure upon an ecosyste M they wLsh to exploLt , and create
great devastat Lon - soMethL ng that would be LMpossLble or unthLnk able for people
who were depende nt upon that partLcu lar ecosyste M ... BLosphe re people create
a
natLona l parks. Ecosyste M people have always lLved Ln the equLval ent of
at
natLona l park ... I propose that the future belongs to those who can regaLn,
a hLgher level, the old sense of balance and belon9Ln 9 between Man and nature
(ecosyst eM people) .· (SessLo ns, pp-~18- 19)
A bLoregL on Ls a part of earth's surface whose rough boundar Les are
deterML ned by natural rather than huMan dLctate s, dLstLng uLshable froM other
and
areas by attrLbu tes of flora, fauna, water, clLMate , soLls, and land-for Ms,
The
to.
rLse
the huMan settleM ents and culture s those attrLbu tes have gLven
borders between such areas are usually not rLgLd - Nature works wLth More
flexLbL lLty and fluLdLty than that - but the general contour s of the regLons
theMselv es are not hard to LdentLfy , and Lndeed wLll probabl y be felt,
and
understo od, sensed, or Ln soMe way known to Many of the LnhabLt ants,
,
partLcu larly those rooted Ln the land, farMers , rancher s, hunters and fLshers
n,
AMerlca
of
face
the
across
foreste rs and botanLs ts, and Most especLa lly,
the
trlbal Indlans, those stLll Ln touch wLth a culture that for centurl es knew
earth as sacred and Lts well-beL ng as LMperat Lve.
The wLdest regLon, takLng Lts charact er froM the broades t Measure s of
natLve vegetatL on and soLl contour s, May be called the ecore9Lo n and wLll
general ly cover several hundred thousand s of square Mlles. But wlthln these
ecoregL ons Lt Ls easy to dLstLngu Lsh other coheren t terrLtor Les that defLne
a
theMselv es prLMarL ly by theLr surface feature s - a watersh ed, or rLver basLn,
the
valley, a desert, a plateau , a MountaLn range - and whLch we May all call
stLll
locate
often
can
one
turn,
Ln
9eore9L on. And wLthLn these 9eore9L ons,
sMaller areas, of perhaps several thousand square MLles dLscret e and Ldentof
LfLable wLth theLr own topograp hLes and LnhabLt ants, theLr own varLatLo ns
huMan culture and agrLcul ture, to whLch we May gLve the · naMe vLtaregL on. Uhether
we speak of ecoregL on or 9eore9Lo n or vLtaregL on, after all, we speak of bLoregLons , and Lt Ls that essentL al archetyp e that Ls Most LMporta nt to coMprehend. For once that Ls done on any sLgnLfL cant scale then the Matter of MakLng
to
dLstLnc tLons and creatLn g huMan LnstLtut Lons to Match theM can be safely left
best.
theM
the LnhabLt ants, the dweller s on the land, who wLll always know
The econoMy that coMes lnto belng wlthln a
charact er froM the condLtL ons, the laws of Nature.
what we can be sald to know wLth soMe surety
llvlng on the soLl has been cogently SUMMarLsed as
be dLstLng uLshed, froM the laws of TherMod ynaMLcs .
The

flrst

law

ls

that

conserv atlon,

bloreglo n also derlves lts
Our Lgnoranc e Ls LMMense, but
after these Many centurL es of
the laws of EcodynaMLcs - to

preserv atlon,

-27-

sustena nce, ls the

central goat of the natural world, hence Lts fundaMentat resLstance to largescale structural change; the second law Ls that, far froM beLng entropLc Nature
Ls Lnherently stable, workLng Ln all tLMes and places toward that ecology calls
a ctLMax, that Ls, a balanced, harMonLous, LntegratLve state of MaturLty whLch,
once reached, Ls MaLntaLned for prolonged perLods. FroM thLs Lt follows that a
bLoregLonal econoMy would seek to MaLntaLn rather than exploLt the natural
world, accoMModate to the envLronMent, rather than resLst Lt; Lt would atteMpt
to create condLtLons for a clLMax, a balance, for what soMe econoMLsts have
recently taken to callLng a "steady state," rather than for perpetual change and
contLnuat growth, Ln servLce to "progress", a false and delusory goddess Lf ever
there was one. It would, Ln practLcat terMs, MLnLMLse resource use, eMphasLse
conservatLon and recyclLng, avoLd poltutLon and waste. It would adopt Lts
systeMs to the gLven bLoregLonal resources - energy based on wLnd, for exaMple,
where Nature catted for that, or wood where that was approprLate, and food based
on what the regLon Ltself - partLcularly Ln Lts natLve, pre-agrLcutturat state could grow.
And thus Lt would be based, above all, on the Most eleMentat and Most
elegant prLncLpte of the natural world, that of setf-suffLcLency. Just as Nature
does not depend on trade, does not create elaborate networks of contLnentat
for the
dependency, so the bLoregLon would fLnd all Lts needed resources
Lts own
wLthLn
luxury
Manufacture,
craft,
energy, food, shelter, clothLng,
thus
beLng
envLronMent. And far froM Lt beLng deprLved, far froM Lt
LMpoverLshed, Lt would gaLn Ln every Measure of econoMLc health. It would be
More stable, free froM booM-and-bust cycles and dLstant potLtLcat crLses; Lt
would be able to plan, to allocate at the safest pace, Ln the Most ecotogLcal
Manner_ It would not be at the Mercy of dLstant and uncontrollable natLonal
bureaucracLes and transnatLonal governMents, and thus More self regardLng, More
cohesLve, developLng a sense of place, of COMMunLty of coMradeshLp, and the
prLde that coMes froM stabLlLty, control, coMpetence, and Lndependence.
In one of hLs More prescLent perceptLons FrLtz SchuMacher reatLsed that the
Market econoMy of twentLeth century capLtatLsM erred fundaMentatty, because Lt
erred repeatedly, agaLnst Nature. "It Ls Lnherent Ln the Methodology of
econoMLcs to Lgnore Man's dependence on the natural world," he wrote. "The
Market represents only the surface of socLety and Lts sLgnLfLcance relates to
the MOMentary sLtuatLon as Lt exLsts there and then. There Ls no probLng Lnto
the depths of thLngs, Lnlo the natural or socLat facts that lLe behLnd theM. •
And thLs Ls why, as he poLnts out, conventLonal econoMLcs Makes no dLstLnctLons
at all between prLMary goods, "whLch Man has to wLn froM nature," and secondary
goods Manufactured froM theM, or between renewable or nonrenewable resources, or
the envLronMental and socLal costs of developLng one agaLnst the other. A bLothese
regLonal econoMy, Ln sharpest contrast, Makes - Ln fact Ls grounded Ln
vLtal dLstLnctLons.
PolLtLcal prLncLples on a bLoregLonal scale are also grounded Ln the
dLctates presented by Nature, Ln whLch what Ls forever valued are not the
LMperatLves of gLgantLsM, centralLzatLon, hLerarchy, and MonolLthLcLty, but
rather, Ln starkest contraposLtLon, those of scale, decentralLsatLon, dLvLsLon,
and dLversLty.
The lessons are obvLous, and suggest LMMedLately the desLgn for a bLoregLon as for a contLnent of bLoregLons. Each unLt, of the sL2e that the natural
settLngs proMote, May be unLfLed and cohesLve - startLng froM the base up wLth a
neLghbourhood, a coMMUnLty, a sMatl town, att tLvLng sLde-by-sLde wLth others Ln
settled and Mutual pattern, together wLth coMprLsLng a vLtare9Lon; and that
a
vLtaregLon May have Lts own unLfLcatLon and cohesLveness, Lts own Method of
governance, and yet lLve sLde-by-sLde wLth other regLons, organLsed as they May

-28-

see fLt; and so on, outward, Ln selfsuffLcLent collaboratLon, unLt upon unLt,
for so long as the natural boundarLes May perMLt and the natural affLnLtLes be
kept Lntact.
SLMLlar lessons May be derLved froM the patterns of huHan nature. Thus
throughout all huMan hLstory people have tended to lLve Ln separate and
Lndependent groups, a "fragMentatLon of huMan socLety· that Harold Isaccs has
descrLbed as soMethLng akLn to •a pervasLve force Ln huMan affaLrs and always
has been.• Even when natLons and eMpLres have arLsen, he notes, they have no
stayLng power agaLnst the Lnnate huMan drLve to fragMentatLon.
In a bLoregLonal socLety, the dLvLsLon between urban and rural, LndustrLal
and agrLcuttural, populatLon and resources, would be replaced by an equLLLbrLuM,
a syMbLosLs. On the one hand, the cLty would be necessary as a producer of
certaLn kLnds of goods, as a centre of artLstLc culture, as a source of the
asseMbled cLvLc vLrtues, though the cLty need not be of LMMense sLze - Lndeed,
no larger than 50,000 or 100,000 people - and Ln fact Ldeally would replLcate
rather than grow so that Lnstead of a sLngle MetropolLs there would be a
MultLplLcLty of cLtLes of Modest sLzes scattered throughout the bLoregLon. On
the other hand, the country would be necessary as the prLMe source of food and
water and the HaterLals of shelter and clothLng and artLsanshLp and trade, and
especLatty as the eMbodLHent of the bLoregLonal spLrLt of Gaea, whose presence
should be felt daLly by the LnhabLtants of every settleMent, of whatever sLze.
BLoregLonalLsM Ls no More than the Modern versLon of a very old perceptLon of
the world held not Merely by the Greeks but by vLrtually every prelLterate
socLety of whLch we have knowledge. (Sate, 167-72)
8:

TECHNOLOGY

The qualLty of huMan exLstence and huMan welfare should not be Measured
of products. Technology Ls returned to Lts ancLent place as an
quantLty
by
only
approprLate tool for huMan welfare, not an end Ln Ltself. There should be a
rapLd MoveMent toward "soft• energy paths and "approprLate technology~ and toward lLfestytes whLch wLll result Ln drastLc decrease Ln per capLta energy consuMptLon Ln advanced LnductrLal socLetLes whLcl LncreasLng approprLate energy Ln
decentralLzed vLllages Ln so-called "thLrd world" natLons. Deep ecologLst5 are
coMMLtted to rapLd MOVeMent to a •steady-state• or •conservor socLety· both froH
ethLcal prLncLples of har~onLous LntegratLon of huMans wLth nature and froM apprecLatLon of ecologLcal realLtLes. IntegratLon of sophLstLcated, elegant, unobtrusLve, ecologLcalty sound, approprLate technology wLth greatly scaled down,
dLversLfLed, organLc, labor-LntensLve agrLculture, huntLng, and gatherLng Ls
another goal. (Deep Ecology pp.311-12)
QuestLonLng technology Ls a process of dLrect actLon that anyone can develop. It Ls one of the Host serLous act Lons that can ·be taken Ln a technocratLc
socLety where the assuMptLon that •technology wLll solve all probleMs• Ls so
deeply held.
as a systeM or as a specLfLc devLce such as a
To questLon technology
coMputer - can often arouse hostLlLty, defena
certaLn type of vehLcle or
sLveness, LrrLtatLon, and resentMent Ln lLsteners. Anyone who questLons technology can be branded a "LuddLte" or antLModernLst. A person who says ·no to
any technologLcal devLce Ls often charged as beLng antLprogressLve. Yet Ls
crucLat to questLon technology, Ln spLte of these crLtLcLsMs.
~e need technology whLch Ls coMpatLble wLth the growth of autonoMous, selfdeterMLnLng LndLvLduats Ln nonhLerarchLcal coMHunLtLes. ~e need prLncLples that
wLll help us escape the trap of technocratLc socLety, where technology Ls the

-29-

central LnstLtutLon.
Technology can be crLtLcLzed and evaluated based on general prLncLples,
scale or structure. The followLng questLons can be asked of any technologLcal
devLce or systeM:
I. Does thLs technologLcal devLce serve vLtal needs?
2. ls thLs devLce or systeM of the sort that can be LMMedLately understood by
nonexperts?
3. Does Lt have a hLgh degree of flexLbLlLty and MutabLlLty or does Lt LMpose a
perManent, rLgLd, LrreversLble LMprLnt on the lLves of cLtLzens?
local
~- Does thLs technologLcal devLce or systeM foster greater autonoMy of
coMMunLtLes or greater dependency on soMe centralLzed "authorLty"?
5. ls thLs devLce or systeM ecologLcally destructLve or conducLve to a deep
ecology way of lLfe?
6. Does thLs devLce or systeM enhance the LndLvLdualLty of persons or does Lt
lead to bureaucratLc hLerarchLes?
7. Does thLs devLce or systeM encourage people to behave and thLnk lLke
MachLnes?
A fully LnforMed, approprLate technology Ls a MeetLng ground of ethLcs ,
polLtLcs, MechanLcal understandLng and deep ecologLcal conscLousness. As Langdon
WLnner concludes Ln AutonoMous Technology, "If one lacks a clear and knowledgeable sense of what Means are approprLate lo the cLrcuMstances at hand, one's
These Means do not
choLce of Means can easLly lead to excesses and danger.
Lnvolve just narrow utLlLty or effLcLency of productLon or profLt Ln soMe
short-terM calculatLon. Indeed, the narrow eMphasLs upon effLcLency of Means
drLves us away froM the larger Lssues of envLronMental ethLcs asnd LndLvLdual
responsLbLlLty for the consequences of our actLons. (Deep Ecology, pp.35-6)
Shallow approach: AcceptLng LndustrLalLzatLon of the kLnd ManLfested Ln the
West as the natural goal for developLng countrLes. Low estLNatLon of deep
cultural dLfferences wLth sLgnLfLcant devLatLons froM Western standards. Deep
approach: SocLal and cultural dLversLty of dLfferent specLes Ls an essentLal
IntensLfLed Measures to
part of general rLchness and varLatLon of lLfe forMs.
exLstLng non-LndustrLal
stLll
lLMLt the LMpact of Western technology upon
cultures . Defence of the fourth world agaLnst cultural foreLgn doMLnatLon.
PolLtLcal and econoMLc polLcLes Ln favour of subcultures and MLnorLtLes Ln
LndustrLalLzed socLetLes. Support of local and soft technologLes as a Means to
MaLntaLn baste cultural assessMent of technLcal LnnovatLon. Due regard to anLMal
socLetLes and cultures. SurvLval of populatLons does not ensure survLval of
socLal LnstLtutLons . QuestLonLng whether so-called advanced, Modern technologLes
are approprLate relatLve to levels of pollutLon, resources, populatLon and as
subordLnate part of general culture. (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, pp.12-13)
Technology Ls More helpless than ever because the technology beLng produced
doesn ' t fulfLll baste huNan needs, such as MeanLngful work Ln a MeanLngful
envLronMent . TechnLcal progress Ls shaM progress because the terM technLcal
progress Ls a cultural, not a technLcal, terM . Our culture Ls the only one Ln
the hLstory of MankLnd Ln whLch the culture has adjusted Ltself to the
technology, rather than vLce versa. (SLMple ' Ln Means, p.11)
Once the scLentLfLc probleMs have been solved, once Lt Ls understood how a
partLcular forM of pollutLon arLses and Ln what Lts danger consLsts, the next
probleM Ls technologLcal : to dLscover a Method of reducLng thLs LncLdence. That
Lnvolves decLdLng, Ln the fLrst place, whLch of the causatLve factors Lt wLll be
easLest to control . KnowLng, for exaMple, that the Los Angeles sMog Ls a joLnt
product of the sLtLng of Los Angeles, Lts hours of sunlLght and the exhaust
-30-

fuMes froM the LnternaL coMbustLon engLne, Lt Ls at once apparent that onLy the
thLrd of these Lf controLLabLe at a toLerabLe cost. So what has to be Lnvented
Ls a devLce whLch wLLL reduce the output of hydrocarbons Ln exhaust fuMes. ThLs
constLtutes a technoLogLcaL probLeM, the soLutLon to whLch LLes Ln the LnventLon
of a devLce whLch wouLd satLsfy partLcuLar technLcaL specLfLcatLons . (The word
devLce' Ls h~re beLng used Ln a very broad sense; an LnsectLcLde Ls a devLce
and so Ls the sterLLLsLng of Lnsects as a Means of bLoLogLcaL control.)
0

The Ldea of a 'technoLogLcaL soLutLon' Ls, however, a good deaL Less
straLghtforward than Lt at fLrst appears to be, as the phrase I used above 'at a
toLerabLe cost' aLready hLnts. It Ls very easy to thLnk up technLcaL soLutLons
of ecoLogLcaL probLeMs Lf we consLder theM Ln LsoLatLon~ and Lf we defLne a
technLcaL soLutLon, wLthout any reference to costs, as one whLch descrLbes a way
of freeLng ourselves froM the ecoLogLcaL condLtLon whLch concerns us. Such a
soLutLon Ls soMetLMes saLd to be 'practLcaL' but not 'operatLonal'. So Los
AngeLes sMog could be reduced Ln LntensLty by roofLng over the entLre cLty, or
by MakLng everybody use pubLLc transport, or by substLtutLng fuel-ceLls, Ln
theLr present state of developMent, for Lnternal coHbustLon engLnes. But few
wouLd serLousLy advance these proposals as 'solutLons', as satLsfactory ways of
deaLLng wLth the sMog probleM. ~hy not? SLMply because the costs, or so Lt Ls
w~deLy beLLeved, wouLd be too great, costs of varLous sorts, socLal, ecologLcal,
econoMLc and poLLtLcaL.
In so far as ecologLcaL probleMs can be solved only wLth the help of
scLentLfLc dLscovery and technoLogLcaL LnventLon, they can be soLved only wLthLn
the ~estern ratLonal tradLtLons. That Much Ls obvLous. MystLcaL conteMplatLon
wLlL not reveal to the cheMLst the orLgLns of the Los Angeles sMog or enabLe the
engLneer to desLgn an effectLve devLce for reducLng Lts LntensLty. But Lt Ls a
enthusLasM
proper crLtLcLsM of ~estern socLety that, Ln Lts - often chLldLsh
for technoLogLcaL 'advance', Lt has faLled adequateLy to consLder the costs of
LntroducLng new devLces and has defLned 'costs' far too narrowly.
ThLs objectLon can be dLrected, even, agaLnst antL-pollutLon devLces. The
Manufacture of such devLces wLLL norMaLLy create · More polLutLon. It May, by
ModLfyLng the character of the poLlutant, Lntroduce new dangers - reducLng the
percentage of carbon MonoxLde Ln exhaust fuMes whLle LncreasLng the percentage
of the no Less dangerous nLtrogen dLoxLde. Or Lt May shLft the LncLdence of the
poLLutLon froM a weaLthLer to a poorer coMMunLty - ManufacturLng sMokeless fueLs
Ln an LndustrLaL town to Make the London aLr cLeaner - wLthout reducLng Lts
total voLuMe. Any technoLogLcal LnnovatLon, furtherMore, LnvoLves an eleMent of
ecoLoe LcaL rLsk; Lt Ls LMpossLbLe to calculate all Lts consequences Ln every
possLbLe cLrcuMstance. The best the technologLst can do Ls to exclude effects
whLch are already known to be dangerous and to LnvestLgate further effects whLch
are suspect . That Ls why, as I saLd earLLer, caLlLng upon the technologLst to
save us Ls so often equated wLth caLLLng Ln the devLL as an exorcLst.
But Lt wouLd be quLte wrong to conclude that for the reasons just advanced
the technologLcaL Method of overcoMLng ecoLogLcaL probleMs would be abandoned,
that what ~estern socLetLes should do Ls to shut down factorLes, Let us say,
rather than LnsLst on theLr reducLng, by technoLogLcal Means, theLr eMLssLon of
pollutants. For econoMLc and socLaL rLsks ~ and, Ln the end, greater ecoLogLcal
rLsks Lf the socLaL resentMent engendered by the closure Ls dLrected agaLnst the
whoLe systeM of ecoLogLcaL controls. It, too, May do no More than shLft the
LncLdence of poLLutLon froM rLcher to poorer regLons, as the factory-owner takes
hLs capLtal elsewhere. To gLve up takLng any rLsks would be to gLve up actLng .
Every actLon costs soMethLng, rLsks soMethLng. Uhat can properLy be deManded Ls
not that Men should cease to act Ln ways whLch LnvoLve ecologLcal rLsks - there
are no such ways, as Matters now stand, whatever the sLtuatLon Ln the Garden of

-31-

Eden - but rather that they shouLd take More account of the ecoLogLcaL costs and
benefLts of theLr actLon. And thLs Means, once agaLn, that they wLLL hav~ to
Make fuLLer use of ratLonaL Western-type Methods, cost benefLt anaLyses or
decLsLon-procedures. (PassMore, pp.~8-50)
EcoLogLcaL resLsters do not accept that there are onLy narrow technLcaL
soLutLons to narrowLy defLned socLal probLeMs (such as aLr poLLutLon). These
probLeMs are seen onLy as syMptoMs of the Larger Lssues.
There are three MaLn dangers to technocratLc soLutLons. FLrst Ls the danger
Ln beLLevLng there Ls a coMpLete or acceptabLe soLutLon usLng Modern doMLnant
LdeoLogLes and technoLogy. The second danger Ls the presentatLon of an
LMpressLon that soMethLng Ls beLng done when Ln fact the reaL probLeM contLnues.
reaL work". FLnaLLy, there Ls the danger of
TLnkerLng dLstracts froM the
assuMLng there wLLL be new experts - such as professLonaL ecoLogLsts - who wLLL
provLde the soLutLon but who May Ln fact be constraLned to be pubLLc reLatLons
spokespersons for the agenda of profLt or power of soMe corporatLon or agency.
EcoLogLcaL resLstance Ls actLon froM centraL prLncLpLes of doLng what Ls
necessary, of wLtnessLng nonvLoLentLy. It arLses froM a shLft Ln conscLouness.
EcoLogLcaL resLstLng Ls deeper, soMe wouLd say More radLcaL,. than just
reforMLsM. SoMe of the reforMLst actLons to MLtLgate soMe of the worse forMs of
aLr and water poLLutLon (due to auto exhaust, for exaMpLe) are MotLvated by
concern onLy for huMan heaLth and safety and not by the LntrLnsLc vaLues of the
bLosphere. But th LLMLts of reforMLSM are by now weLL known. (Deep EcoLog~,
pp.195-6)
In tryLng to exaMLne technoLogy and productLon, we encounter a curLous
paradox. ~e are deepLy rLven by a great sense of proMLse about technLcaL
LnnovatLon, on the one hand, and by a thorough sense of dLsenchantMent wLth Lts
resuLts, on the other. ThLs duaL attLtude not onLy refLects a confLLct Ln the
popuLar LdeologLes concernLng technoLogy but aLso expresses strong doubts about
the nature of the Modern technologLcaL LMagLnatLon LtseLf. We are puzzLed that
the very LnstruMents our MLnds have conceLved and our hands have created can be
so easLly turned agaLnst us, wLth dLsastrous resuLts for our weLL-beLng
Lndeed, for our very survLval as a specLes.
Techne, Moreover, covered a wLder scope of experLence than the Modern word
technLcs. The goaL of techne Ls not restrLcted to MereLy "LLvLng weLL. or lLvLng
wLthLn the lLMLt. Techne LncLudes LLvLng an ethLcaL LLfe accordLng to an
orLgLnatLve and orderLng prLncLple conceLved as "potency". VLewed even Ln an
LnstruMental sense, techne thus encoMpasses not MereLy raw MaterLaLs, tooLs,
MachLnes, and products but aLso the producer - Ln short, a hLghly sophLstLcated
subject froM whLch aLL eLse orLgLnates. To ArLstotle, the "Master-craftsMan" Ls
dLstLnguLshed subjectLveLy froM hLs apprentLces or assLstants by vLrtue of
honor, a sense of "why" products are created, and generaLLy a wLsdoM of thLngs
ArLstotLe
subject,
and phenoMena. By startLng wLth the ratLonaLLty of
productLon
the
to
estabLLshes a poLnt of departure for brLngLng ratLonaLLzatLon
of the object.
Modern LndustrLaL productLon functLons Ln precLseLy the opposLte way. Not
only Ls the Modern LMage of techne LLMLted to Mere technLcs Ln the LnstruMentaL
sense of the terM, but aLso Lts goaLs are LnextrLcabLy tLed to unLLMLted
Ls conceLved as LLMLtLess consuMptLon wLthLn the
productLon. "LLvLng weLL
fraMework of a totaLLy unethLcaL, prLvatLzed LeveL of seLf-Lnterest. TechnLcs,
not the producer and hLs or her ethLcaL standards
LncLudes
Moreover,
(proLetarLans, after aLL, servLce the Modern LndustrLal apparatus Ln totaL
anonyMLty) but the product and Lts constLtuLnts. The technLcaL focus shLfts froM

-32-

the subject to the object, froM the producer to the product, froM the creator to
the created. Honor, a sense of •why," and any generaL wLsdoM of thLngs and
phenoMena have no pLace Ln the worLd requLred by Modern Lndustry. ~hat reaLLy
counts Ln technLcs Ls effLcLency, quantLty, and an LntensLfLcatLon of the Labor
process. The specLous ratLonaLLty LnvoLved Ln producLng the object Ls foLsted on
the ratLonaLLzatLon of the subject to a poLnt where producer's subjectLvLty Ls
totally atrophLed and reduced to an object aMong objects. (BookchLn, pp.219-22)
9:

ON ECOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Deep ecoLogy Ls eMergLng as a way of developLng a new balance and harMony
between LndLvLduaLs, coMMunLtLes and aLl of Nature. It can potentLaLLy satsLfy
our deepest yearnLngs: faLth and trust Ln our Most basLc LntuLtLons; courage to
take dLrect actLon; joyous confLdence to dance wLth the sensuous harMonLes
dLscovered through spontaneous, playfuL Lntercourse wLth the rhythMs of our
bodLes, the rhythMs of fLowLng water, changes Ln the weather and seasons, and
the overaLL processes of LLfe on Earth.
The deep ecology MoveMent Lnvolves workLng on ourselves, what poetphLLosopher Gary Snyder caLls "the reaL work,• the work of reaLLy LookLng at
ourselves, of becoMLng More real. ThLs Ls the work we call cultLvatLng
ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. ThLs process LnvoLves becoMLng More aware of the
actuaLLty of rocks, wolves, trees, and rLvers - the cultLvatLon of the LnsLght
that everythLng Ls connected. CultLvatLng ecologLcal conscLousness Ls a process
of learnLng apprecLate sLLence and solLtude and redLscoverLng how to lLsten. It
Ls learnLng how to be More receptLve, trustLng, holLstLc Ln perceptLon, and Ls
grounded Ln a vLsLon of nonexploLtLve scLence and technology.
ThLs process Lnvolves beLng honest wLth ourselves and seekLng clarLty Ln
our LntuLtLons, then actLng froM cLear prLncLpLes, practLcLng seLf-dLscLpLLne
and workLng honestLy wLthLn our coMMunLty. It Ls sLMpLe but not easy work. Henry
DavLd Thoreau, nLneteenth-century naturalLst and wrLter, adMonLshes us, ·Let
your lLfe be a frLctLon agaLnst the MachLne. •
CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcal conscLousness Ls correlated wLth the cultLvatLon of
conscLence. CuLtural hLstorLan Theordore Roszak suggests Ln Person/PLanet
conscLousness, how LnstructLve the overLappLng
and
"conscLence
(1978),
sLMLLarLty of those two words Ls. FroM the new conscLousness we are gaLnLng of
ourseLves as persons perhaps we wLLL yet create a new conscLence, one whose
ethLcaL sensLtLvLty Ls at Least tuned to a sLgnLfLcant good, a sLgnLfLcant
evLL.
We beLLeve that huMans have a vLtaL need to cuLtLvate ecologLcaL conscLousness and that thLs need Ls related to the needs of the planet. At the saMe tLMe,
huMans need dLrect contact wLth untraMMeLed wLLderness, places undoMestLcated
for narrow huMan purposes.
Many people sense the needs of the pLanet and the need for wLLderness
preservatLon. But we need not be technLcal experts Ln order to cultLvate
ecotogLcal conscLousness, as Thoreau saLd, cuLtLvatLng ecotogLcaL conscLousness
requLres that "we front up to the facts and deterMLne to lLve our lLves
delLberately, or not at all." We belLeve that people can clarLfy theLr own
LntuLtLons, and act froM deep prLncLpLes.
Deep ecology Ls a process of even-deeper questLonLng of ourselves, the
assuMptLons of the doMLnant worLdvLew Ln our culture, and the MeanLng and truth
Ln our realLty. We cannot change conscLousness by only lLstenLng to others, we
Must Lnvolve ourselves. We Mu~t take dLrect actLon.

-33-

One hopeful poLLtLcaL MoveMent wLth deep ecology as a base Ls the Uest
GerMan Green poLLtLcaL party. They have as theLr slogan, "ue are neLther Left
nor rLght, we are Ln front.· Green poLLtLcs Ln Uest GerMany, and to soMe extent
Ln Great BrLtaLn, BeLgLuM and AustraLLa Ln the 1980s, goes beyond the
conventLonaL, tLberaL defLnLtLon of a party, coMbLnLng personal work (that Ls,
work on cLarLfyLng one's own character) and polLtLcal actLvLsM.
The Greens present a proMLsLng poLLtLcaL strategy because they encourage
the cultLvatLon of personal ecoLogLcaL conscLousness as well as address Lssues
of pubLLc polLcy. If the Greens propogate the bLocentrLc perspectLve - the
Lnherent worth of other specLes besLdes huMans - then they can help change the
current vLew whLch says we should use Nature only to serve narrow huMan
Lnterests.
CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Ln conteMporary socLetLes, however, Ls
a two-edged sword. Ue Must not be MLsLed by our zeaL for change so that we are
concerned only wLth the narrow self or ego. If we seek only personal redeMptLon
we could becoMe soLLtary ecologLcal saLnts aMong the Masses of those we MLght
cLassLfy as "sLnners" who contLnue to pollute. Change Ln persons requLres a
change Ln culture and vLce versa. We cannot Lgnore the personal arena nor the
socLaL, for our project Ls to enhance harMony wLth each other, the planet and
ourselves. (Deep Ecology, pp.7-1~)
~e began by suggestLng a varLety of specLfLc actLons whLch people can take
dLrected at reforMLng publLc polLcy, developLng bLoregLonal coMMunLtLes, and
cuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. Ue return to the theMe of dLrect actLon.
~e have deMonstrated that deep ecology Ls not just a gaMe of ~bstract
theorLzLng. As a perspectLve Lt Ls lLved, danced, celebrated. It has resonance.
Ln part, cuLtLvatLng what
CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Means,
Ls engaged Ln the
LnteLLect
RhapsodLc
Theodore Roszak caLLs rhapsodLc LntelLect.
process of LntegratLng LntelLect, body, and joyous eMotLon.
Based on the LnsLghts, uLtLMate norMs, prLncLples and theorLes of deep
ecology, the central practLcaL questLon Ls how do we becoMe More Mature persons,
gLven the constraLnts of th~s culture?
Ue suggest there Ls an LnterpLay between outward dLrect actLon and Lnward
dLrect actLon, between actLng on one's self and actLng Ln the world, wLth the
result of further and deeper MaturLty Ln the deep ecologLcaL sense of
LdentLfLcatLon wLth alL LLfe. There Ls no sharp break between Lnward and
outward. People take dLrectLon actLon froM dLrect ecoLogLcal prLncLpLes and they
becoMe More Mature through dLrect actLon. The Label we use for the type of
dLrect actLon Ln Lts outward forM Ls ecoLogLcaL resLstLng. (Deep Ecology, p.19~)
'Deep ecology', an envLronMental scLence broadsheet tells us, Ls Naess's
expressLon for an ecologLcaL awareness or conscLousness' . SpeLLLng deep ecology
out then becoMes a Matter of settLng down the types of conscLousness and
awareness and recognLtLon LnvoLved, SOMethLns that Ls done Ln a thoroughly
anthropocentrL c way, begLnnLng as foLLows: 'a conscLousness of the LMplLcatLons
of ecology for huMan beLng'. It Ls all Ln fact done Ln terMs of huMan responses,
fundaMentaLLy
Ls
approach
the
AccordLn9Ly
capacLtLes and psychology.
MLsconceLved. For deep ecology Ls not so anthropocentrL c, and Ls no More a
Matter of envLronMentaL psychology than Ls the value theory or MetaphysLcs whLch
are part of Lt. The psychoL09LcaL conversLon Ls LLke cLaLMLng that 'MarxLsM' Ls
an expressLon for socLaLLst conscLousness, or 'MusLc' for MusLco-LogLcal
awareness.

-34-

The conversLon of deep ecology Lnto awareness psychology, Lnto a certaLn
sort of exercLse Ln self-realLsatLon or 'lLberatLng ecologLcal conscLousness, or
conscLousness raLsLng', Ls open to sLMLlar objectLons. Ecology, deep or shallow
or systeMatLc, Ls not ego-trLppLng or a personal thLng. Granted those who do
have and share certaLn attLtudes and feelLngs to natural envLronMents are "uch
More lLkely to becoMe actLve supporters or followers of deep ecology or to adopt
a deeper ecologLcal stance. Even so such states as self-realLsatLon or
ecologLcal conscLousness are neLther necessary nor suffLcLent for thLs.
Such subjectLve states are not necessary because soMeone can beco"e a
supporter of deep ecology wLthout havLng attaLned, or Made any effort to attaLn,
these states. Thus consLder soMeone, a dedLcated naturalLst for Lnstance, who
has no deep Lnterest Ln or understandLng of huMan psychology or socLology so far
as these bear on the envLronMent. Such a person Ls a deep ecologLst, but lacks
ecologLcal conscLousness as Lt Ls explaLned. The case of Peter SLnger Ln the
anLMal lLberatLon "oveMent Ls LnstructLve; for SLnger goes out of hLs way to
explaLn hLs dLsLnterest, hLs coMparatLve lack of zoologLcal conscLousness, that
he does not LdentLfy wLth anLMals and so on, yet hLs LMpact for anLMal
lLberatLon has been Most sLgnLfLcant. Analogously, a Deeper SLnger need not be
Ln love wLth the Earth but feel rather Lsolated froM Lt and feel rLghtly that
Most of Lts LnhabLtants dLslLke hLM or are frLghtened by hLM. He May have lLttle
Ldea what Lt Ls lLke to be one of theM or a MountaLn, ... ; but he "ay have the
rLght values, adhere to the rLght phLlosophy and undertake the rLght sorts of
actLon and lLfestyle.
GenuLnely and specLfLcally deep ecologLcal conscLousness has not been well
descrLbed and Ls not partLcularly well defLned. And soMe of the requLreMents
LMposed upon Lt, whatever Lt aMounts to, render Lt LMpossLble. Thus Fox, echoLng
others, claLMs that 'to the extent that we perceLve boundarLes, we fall short of
a deep ecologLcal conscLousness'. Then we all fall short, sLnce we are regularly
confronted by, and perceLve, terrLtorLal boundarLes and a wLde range of other
deMarcatLon lLnes and contrasts. Indeed fallLng short Ls LnevLtable; for
hence
and
perceptLon necessarLly Lnvolves selectLon and dLscrLMLnatLon,
separatLon and boundarLes. Deep conscLousness Ls also rendered LMpossLble by
soMe of the LdentLfLcatLon requLreMents, drawn froM nature MystLcLsM, whLch are
LMposed upon Lt. It Ls one thLng to be Ln tune wLth the unLverse (a Metaphor
that can be spelled out), quLte another, and LMpossLble, feat to be LdentLcal
wLth Lt, sLnce then a proper part would be LdentLcal wLth a whole contaLnLng Lt.
SoMe explLcatLon of LdentLfLcatLon (trans-specLes and other) Ls LMportant for
the elaboratLon of deep ecology, but the relatLon Lnvolved (though Lt concerns
shared features, such as perhaps experLences) Ls not one of LdentLty or MakLng
LdentLcal, as sLMplLstLc etyMology May suggest. Other requLreMents coMMonly
placed on deep conscLousness, whLle they do not exclude Lt, render Lt unduly
anthropocentrLc. (CrLtLque, pp.30-2)
Deep ecologLsts agree wLth BLrch and Cobb's LnsLght that "huMan beLngs are
More deeply Moved by the way they experLence theLr ~orld than by the claLMs
ethLcs Makes on theM." Thus, where conteMporary envLronMental phLlosophy Ls
doMLna~ed by the questLon "How do we construct an adequate envLron"ental
ethLc? , deep ecology asks the questLon "How do we cultLvate a deep ecologLcal
conscLousness?" The forMer questLon looks to conceptual answers, the latter to
experLentLal answers. In seekLng to change the way Ln whLch we experLence the
world, deep ecologLsts place theLr prLMary eMphasLs upon changLng our ·underlyLng perceptLon of the way thLngs are" (L.e. changLng our ontology) rather than
upon what we MLght terM the "conceptual fLx• approach of "bL99er and better"
ethLcs. ThLs atteMpt to shLft the prLMary focus of envLronMental phLlosophLcal
concern froM ethLcs to ontology clearly constLtutes a fundaMental or revolutLon-

-35-

ary chaLLenge to norMaL envLronMentaL phLLosophy. It Ls (and should be) deep
ecology's guLdLng star. (GuLdLng Stars, p.204)
10:

ON HOLISM

AccordLng to deep ecology: A new cosMLc/ecoLogLcaL MetaphysLcs whLch stresses the LdentLty (I/thou) of huMans wLth non-huMan nature Ls a necessary condLLons for a vLabLe approach to buLLdLng an eco-phLLosophy. In deep ecology, the
wholeness and LntegrLty of a person/planet together wLth the prLncLpLe of what
Arne Naess caLLs "bLoLogLcaL egaLLtarLanLsM" are the Most LMportant Ldeas. Man
Ls an LntegraL part of nature, not over or apart froM nature. Man Ls a "pLaLn
cLtLzen· of the bLosphere, not Lts conqueror or Manager .. There should be a
"deMocracy of aLL God's creatures" accordLng to St. FrancLs; or as SpLnoza saLd,
Man Ls a "teMporary and dependent Mode of the whole of God/Nature.· Man flows
wLth the systeM of nature rather than atteMptLng to control aLL of the rest of
nature. The hand of Man LLes LLghtLy on the Land. Man does not perfect nature,
nor Ls Man's prLMary duty to Make nature More effLcLent.
A new psychology Ls needed to Lntegrate the MetaphysLcs Ln the MLnd fLeLd
of post-LndurtrLaL socLety. A Major paradLgM shLft results froM psychoLogLcaL
changes of perceptLon. The new paradLgM requLres rejectLon of subject/object,
Man/nature duaLLsMs and wLLL requLre a pervasLve awareness of total LnterMLngLLng of the planet earth. Psychotherapy seen as adjustMent to eco-orLented
socLety Ls replaced by a new LdeaL of psychotherapy as spLrLtuaL deveLopMent.
The new MetaphysLcs and psychology Leads LogLcaLLy to a posture of bLospherLc
egaLLtarLanLsM and LLberatLon Ln the sense of autonoMy, physoLogLcaL/eMotLona L
freedoM of the LndLvLduaL, spLrLtuaL deveLopMent of HoMo sapLens, and the rLght
of other specLes to pursue theLr own evoLutLonary destLnLes. (Deep Ecology
MoveMent, pp.310-11)
RejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln favour of the reLatLonaL,
totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs as knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of
LntrLnsLc reLatLons. As LntrLnsLc reLatLon between two thLngs ~ and B Ls such
that the reLatLon belongs to the defLnLtLons or basLc constLtutLons of A and ~•
so that wLthout a reLatLon, ~and~ are no Longer the saMe thLngs. The totaLfLeLd Model dLssoLves not only the Man-Ln-envLronMent concept, but every coMpact
thLng-Ln-MLLLeu concept - except when taLkLng at a superfLcLaL or preLLMLnary
Level of coMMunLcatLon. (Shallow and Deep, p.95)
Shallow envLronMentaLLsM atteMpts to curb soMe of the Most gLarLng envLronMentaL abuse such as poLLutLon and resource depLetLon whLLe caLLLng for no basLc
change Ln the anthropocentrLc urban-LndustrLaL socLaL paradLgM. Naess descrLbes
Lts central objectLve as "the health and affluence of people Ln the developed
countrLes." The Deep Ecology MoveMent, on the other hand, gathers LnspLratLon
froM the fLeLd ecoLogLst and Ls a rejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln
favor of the reLatLonaL, totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs are knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of LntrLnsLc reLatLons. w (SessLons, p . 398)
0

Because they cannot conceLve Man apart' they experLence no dLffLcuLty Ln
attrLbutLng LntrLnsLc value to nature. In so far as they conceLve theMseLves as
havLng such value, the LnabLLLty to separate theLr selves froM nature, LnescapabLy Leads to thLnkLng of "Man" and ·envLronMent' as a whole. (Gestalt thLnkLng.) In thLs century the reactLon agaLnst conceLvLng the LndLvLduaL self as
soMethLng separable froM the socLaL settLng has been Largely successful, but not
the paraLLeL reactLon agaLnst the separabLLLty froM the natural settLng.
(PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, p.35)
By subtractLng your own self-centred and

seLf-servLng

-36-

thoughts

froM

the

world you coMe to reaLLze that "the other Ls none other than yourself: that the
fundaMentaL deLusLon of huManlty ls to suppose I aM here and you are out there_·
ThLs understandLng perMeates the MystLcaL tradLtLons and Ls exeMpLLfLed Ln the
TaoLst advLce to "LdentLfy yourself wLth non-dLstLnctLon_ •
It ls now becoMlng coMMonpLace to polnt to the fundaMentaLLy slMlLar
cosMoLogLes eMobdLed Ln the MystLcaL tradLtLons on the one hand and the 'new
physlcs' on the other_ What Ls structurally sLMllar about these cosMoLogLes Ls
that they reveal a 'seaMLess web' vLew of the unLverse_
Both the MystLcaL tradLtLons and the new physLcs' serve to generate Lnter
aLLa, what we MLght now caLL 'ecoLoglcaL awareness', .that Ls, awareness of the
fundaMentaL LnterreLatedne~s of aLL thLngs or, More accurately, aLL events_ The
theoretlcaL physLclst Frltjof Capra has been quLte expLlcLt about thls: "1 thLnk
what physLcs can do Ls help to generate ecoLogLcaL awareness_ You see, Ln MY
vLew now Ln the Western versLon of MystLcaL awareness, our versLon of BuddhLsM
or TaoLsM, wLLl be ecologLcal awareness_" Where the physLcLst, the Mystlc, and
the deep ecologLst (as phLlosopher) dLffer Ls Ln theLr Means of arrLvLng at
'ecologLcal awareness ' ___ _
The deep ecologLst's conceptLon of unLty Ln process' need not LMpLy that,
at any gLven MOMent, all 'knots' (L_e_ organLsMs) Ln the 'bLospherLcal net' are
constLtuted of equally coMpLex reLatLons_ To the extent that value Lnheres Ln
coMplexLty of relatLons, and to the extent that coMplexLty of reLatLons Ls
evLdenced Ln the degree of an organLsM's central organLzatLon (and therefore
capacLty for rLchness of experLence), then organLsMs are entLtLed to Moral
consLderatLon coMMensurate wLth theLr degree of central organLzatLon (or
capaclty for rlchness of experlence) for the duratlon of thelr exlstence - as
transLent as that May be Ln terMs of evolutLonary tLMe_
In pursulng theLr central LntuLtLon of 'unLty' (L_e_ of no boundarLes Ln
the bLospherLcal fLeLd), deep ecoLogLsts have possLbly Lost sLght of the sLgnLfaspect of theLr 'unLty Ln process' MetaphysLcs_
Lcance of the 'Ln process
AttentLon to thLs Latter aspect suggests that any process contLnuousLy produces
LMperManent, uneven dLstrLbutLons (L_e_, dLfferent values) of varLous attrLbutes
(and Ln the process of the world these attrLbutes May be Money, LnforMatLon,
coMplexLty of relatLons, and so on)_ If thLs were not so then we would have no
process but a perfectly unLforM, hoMogenous and, therefore, LLfeless fLeld_ The
only unLverse where value Ls spread evenly across the fLeLd Ls a dead unLverse _
RecognLsLng thLs, we should be clear that the central LntuLtLon of deep ecology
does not entaLl the vLew that LntrLnsLc value Ls spread evenly across the
MeMbershLp of the bLotLc coMMunLty_ Moreover, Ln sLtuatLons of genuLne value
conflLct, justLce Ls better served by not subscrLbLng to the vLew of ecoLogLcal
-egaLLtarLanLsM_ (Fox, pp-196-200)
An arctLc Landscape May superfLcLaLly Look rather dead Ln wLnter. In sprLng
Lt May Look overwheLMLngLy aLLve_ It would take a Long traLnLng to force
perceptLon to dLstLnguLsh organLsM froM non-organLsMs Ln such a LLve Landscape_
Even Ln wLnter the Lover of the Landscape sees abundance of LndLvLduaL LLfe
forMs and also hLgher order gestaLts_
Why Ls the gestalt ontology not MentLoned Ln the platforN forMulatLon_ A
Landscape wLth organLsMs - and aLL Landscapes have organLsMs Ln MLcro-organLsMs
are counted - Ls a hLgh order, natural gestalt_ The separatLon of organLsMs and
non-organLsMs Ls very unnatural Ln gestalt thLnkLng and apperceptLon. But the
concepts of 9estaLt-thlnkln9 are too specLaL for pLatforM forMuLatLons- Only a
MLnorLty of supporters of deed ecology are acadeMLcs_ (Notes on Sylvan, p-7)

-37-

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources used
0

S. BodLan, S LMple Ln Means, rLch Ln ends: A conversatLon wLth Arne Naess', Ten
DLrectLons, SuMMer/Fall, 1982, 7,10-12; referred to as SLMple Ln Means.

M. BookchLn, The Ecology of FreedoM, CheshLre, Londong,

1982;

referred

to

as

F. Capra and C. Spretnak, Green PolLtLcs, HutchLnson, London, 198~; referred
as Green PolLtLcs.

to

Bookch i,n.

B. Devall,
'The Deep Ecology MoveMent', Natural Resources Journal 20, 1980,
299-322; referred to as Deep Ecology MoveMent.
B. Devall, 'stone/Sky: ReflectLons on the 'Real ~ork' of Deep Ecology', paper
delLvered at EnvLronMent, EthLcs and Ecology Conference, Canberra, August
1983, 20ff.; referred to as Stone/Sky .
8. Devall and G. SessLons, Deep Ecology, PeregrLne SMLth, Layton, Utah, 1985;
referred to as Deep Ecology.
U. Fox,
Deep Ecology: A new phLlosophy
194-200; referred to as Fox.

of

our tLMe', EcologLst 1~, 1984,

U. Fox, 'on guLdLng stars to Deep Ecology', EcologLst 14, 1984, 203-4;
to as GuLdLng Stars.
A. Naess, 'The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology MoveMent.
InquLry 18, 1973, 95-100; referred to as Shallow and Deep.
A. Naess, 'PhLlosophLcal Aspects of Deep Ecology ' , unpublLshed
1983, 35ff.; referred to as PhLlosophLcal Aspects.
A. N.3 ess, • IntuLtLon, LntrLnsLc value and Deep
201-3; referred to as IntuLtLon.

Ecology',

referred

A SUMMary.

paper,

EcologLst

14,

Oslo,

1984,

A. Naess, Notes on the PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology MoveMent ' , unpublLshed
paper, Canberra, 1984, 17ff.; referred to as PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology
MoveMent.
A. Naess, 'What Ls basLc to Deep Ecology?', unpublLshed paper,
12ff . ; referred to as BasLc.
A. Naess, A defence of the Deep Ecology
1984, 265-70; referred to as Defence.

MoveMent',

Canberra,

1984,

EnvLronMental EthLcs

A. Naess, 'The paradox of envLronMentalLsM' SyMposLuM ProceedLngs,
(ed.), York UnLversLty, 1984, 57-60; referred to as Paradox.

N.

S,

Everden

A. Naess,
'IdentLfLcatLon as a source of Deep EcologLcal attLtudes', Deep
Ecology, M. TobLas (ed.), Avant Books, San DLego, 1985, s256-70; referred
to as ldentLfLcatLon.
A. Naess,
Notes on Professor Sylvan's crLtLque of the Deep Ecology MoveMent,
unpublLshed paper, Olso, 1985, 19ff.; referred to as Notes on Sylvan.
J. PassMore,

Man's ResponsLb~lLty For Nature, 2nd ed., Duckworth, London, 1980;

-38-

referred to as PassMore.
A new way to treat the Land', EcoLogLst 14, 1984,
BLoregLonaLLsM
K. Sale,
167-73; referred to as Sale.
the ph~Losoph~cal
and Deep Ecology: A rev~ew of
'shallow
G. Sess~ons,
EcoLogLcaL
(eds.),
Hughes
J.D.
and
Ln R.C. Schultz
unfortune',
UnLvers~ty Press of AMer~ca, ~ash~ngton, D.C., 1981,
Consc~ousness,
391- 4 62; referred to as Sess~ons.
R. Sylvan, A Cr~t~que of Deep Ecology, Research School of SocLaL
AustraLLan Hat~onaL Un~vers~ty, 1985; referred to as Cr~t~que.

ScLences,

Further Read~ngs

R.F. OasMann, Env~ronMentaL Conservat~on, 5th ed., ~LLey, New York, 1984.
A. Leopold, A Sand Country ALManac, CheshLre, New York, 1966.
E. PapadukLs, The Green MoveMent Ln ~est GerMany, Croon HeLM, London, 1984.

-39-

DEEP ECOLOGY AHO GREEN POLITICS
Deep Ecology Ls an envLronMe~tal theory or platforM wLth polLtLcal
sLgnLfLcant
wLth
pLatforM
i..MplLcatLons. Breen PoLLtLcs Ls a poLi..tLcaL
envLronMentaL LMpLLcatLons. Both arose Ln Large part Ln reactLon to prevaLLLng
envi..ronMentaL practLces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theoretLcal
reflectLon, Green PolLtLcs on practLcaL actLon . Deep
and
LnvestLgatLon
questLoni..ng of the underlyLng doMi,nant attLtudes, seen as the Major source of
ecoL09Lcal and other probLeMs, Led to artLcuLatLon of the Deep EcoLogy pLatforM,
partLy outLi..ned Ln ·slogan" forM Ln the foLLowi..ng tabLe.
).

TABLE 1.

DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED WITH DOMINANT ATT ITIJOES

DOMINANT ATTITUDES [OOMIHAHT PARADIGM]

DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EHVIRONMEHTAL PARADIGM]

OoMi..nati..on over Nature
Nature a Resource; IntrLnsLc
VaLue confi..ned to HuMans

NaturaL EnvLronMent VaLued for
Itself; Bi..ocentri..c EgaLi..tari..ani..sM

AMp Le Reso1J rces/Subs t i.. tu tes

Earth SuppLLes Li..MLted

MaterLaL EconoMLc Growth
a predoMLnant goaL

Non-MaterLaL GoaLs, especLaLLy
SeLf-ReaLi..zati..on

ConsuMer i,sM

DoLng wLth Enough/RecycLLng

CoMpetLti..ve Li..festyLe

Cooperati..ve Li..feway

CentraLLzed/ Urban Centred/
Hati..onaL focus

Decentral.i..zed/ Bi..oregi..onaL/
Nei..ghbourhood focus

Power structure Hi..erarchLcaL

Non-h i,erarch Lea L/ Grass roots
DeMocrac!::I

HLgh TechnoL09y

Appropri..ate Technology

Whi..Le Deep Ecol.og!::j grew froM the work of one envLronMentaL phi..Losopher
(Naess Ln 1872), Green PolLtLcs arose (Ln West GerMany sLnce 1876) froM the
synthesLs of several. MoveMents - ecol.09!::j, cLtLzens, aLternatLve, peace and other
MoveMents. The pLatforM of Green PoLLtLcs, whLch Ls buLLt around four pLLLars
socLaL responsLbLLLty, grassroots deMocracy , and non-vLoLence
ecology,
refLects these orLgLns.
The fLrst of these pLLLars, ecoLog!::j, Ls based on the sLMpLe theMe that
LLMLted ecoLogi..caL systeMs cannot sustai..n unLi..MLted econoMi..c growth, or such
questi..onabLe types of growth as nucLear power, wi..thout serLous rLsk of daMage
and degeneratLon. The Green aLM Ls to Move to S!::jsteMs of producti..on and
consuMptLon whLch MaLntai..n and restore natural processes and C!::fCLes rather than
doMLnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wLth nature. The second pi..LLar
of Green PoLLtLcs, socLaL responsLbLLLt!::j, LMpLLes opposi..tLon to the LnequaLLti..es
i..n power and doMLnati..on reLati..onshi..ps of present soci..ety, and reMovaL of
di..scri..Mi..nati..on, econoMLc hardshi..p and exploi..tati..on, both regi..onally and as
regards the ThLrd ~orLd. The Green aLM - to be achi..eved pri..Mari..Ly froM below,
Ls to bui..ld stable and just soci..al
through those adversely affected
arrangeMents, wLth coMprehensLve deMocrati..c rLghts and freedoMs (both i..n 6erMan~
-1-

and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd WorLd). These changes are to be
brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased
reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and
coordLnatLon of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (Local, COMMunLty and dLstrLct) whi..ch
are gLven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of :
referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and
fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpli..es the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve
practLces, not Merely by More powerful people, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups
and states, and also, More posLtLveLy, acti..ve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of
socLal protest, resLstance and defence . The coMpatLbLlLty of Means wLth ends
serves here as an LMportant underlyLng prLncLple: that a just, non-vLolent,
huMane end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vi..oLent, LnhuMane
Means . • l
Gr een PolLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLal change, whLch
LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecologLcalLy focussed Deep Ecology platforM as a
quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of
The
strand.
LMportant
MoveMents of whLch Deep Ecology represents one
Lnter-relatLons are shown pLctorLaLly at the second level of the foLlowLng
12
dLagraM:
DIAGRAM 1.

DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IM PLACE

p

B

\ '\

I

2C ]

~
Oer Lva ti..on
Di,recti,on

2+

ExpLanatLon
Oi,recti..on
2. Deep Ecology pLatforM
2C. ReforMLst envLronMentaL

2

p1Jsi.. t i.,Qn
2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of
Green pLatforM

-/
//'
;/

e.g. Buddhi..st (B), ChrLstLan
(C) and (Eco)-PhLLosophLc
(P) ultLMate bases

j

/

-\,r -

[

1. Deep Ecology fundaMentaLs;

C

\

\
\

3.

s

\

General norMs and theMes ,
substanti,ally derLved
froM pl,atforM
PartLcuLar norMs and
concrete decLsLons ,
appLyLng to reLevant
practLcal sLtuatLons.

The ecologLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not go very deep; Lt May
on l y be based upon reforM envLronMentalLsM (or shallow ecology as i,t used to be
I

Starred notes LndLcate poi..nts at wh i..ch readLngs wi..th the correspondLng nuMbers
May be Lnserted or undertaken .

-2-

caLLed), whLch aLM3 to reforM 30Me of the wor3t abuse3 and exces3e3 of the
doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross poLLutLon, extensLve despoLLatLon of Land and
Lakes and oceans, LLttLe thought for the future, MLstreatMent of anLMals, etc_

On shaLlow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltself, but as a resource,
that Ls LnstruMentalLy, for what Lt can be used for by huMans_ By contrast, Deep
Ecology argues (e_g_ froM preMLsses of Level I) that the envLronMent Ls
LntrLnsLcaLLy valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that,
furtherMore,
LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted_ ThLs projectLon of
egsLLtarLan or LMpartLalLty prLncLpLes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the
whole of lLfe Ln the natural worLd, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtle, BLocentrLc
EgalLtarLanLsM_ The prLncLple, not part of Green PoLLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most
controversLal of the central prLncLpLes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe
substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value
beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to expLaLn how value Ls
dLstrLbuted_ Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLon through what Ls
.
.
presented as a core deMocracy ~n the bLosphere . _•3
Deep Ecology grew out of a phLlosophLcal deepenLng of the new features of
the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run
of reductLonLst scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes;
systeMs whLch are More than the suM of theLr atoMLstLc parts; eMergent eleMents,
lLke lLfe, organLsatLon, etc_ )_ Deep Ecology quLckLy aLLLed Ltself wLth the
subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcuLar, the eMphasLs on the
lLMLts, and ultLMate faLlure of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and
phLlosophy_ WLth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surprLsLng that there Ls lLttle
dLrectLy about such MaLn pLllars of Green PolLtLcs as socLaL responsLbLLLty and
non-vLoLence Ln the pLatforM of Deep Ecology- However Deep Ecology Ls coMpatLbLe
wLth these Green pLlLar prLncLpLes, and Lndeed perMLts theLr derLvatLon_ ~hat Ls
supposed to resuLt are generaL norMs, LLke No exploLtatLon, No subjectLon, No
vLoLence, at leveL 3_ (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLoLence prLncLpLe froM tne
Deep Ecology prLncLpLe of MaxLMLzLng Self-reaLLsatLon Ls atteMpted by Naess Ln
the fraMework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLLosophy)_•l
A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan reLatLons wLth the
natural envLronMent, away froM doMLnant expLoLtatLve practLces_ The naturaL
envLronMent coMprLses LteMs of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng huMans (who are not
above or separate froM Lt), and accordLn9ly Ls to be treated wLth the care and
respect valuable LteMs warrant, and not LrresponsLbLy_ Thus Lt would be contrary
to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued LteMs vLolently
whLch
however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do (consLder such
wLdespread phenoMena as "rape of the envLronMent", "of the Land", "of the
forestsu)_ SLnce huMans are not apart froM or superLor to nature, Lt follows
froM the Deep Ecology pLatforM that natural and proper relatLons also exclude
vLoLence towards other huMans or classes of huMans_
Because Lt covers a pluraLLty of posLt~ons, LncludLng shaLLow ecoLogLcaL
posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More aMelLoratLve and reforMLst Ln character
than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further reMoved froM doMLnant attLtudes, More
hardLLne, and More radLcaL_ ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMentaLs, and
focusses on Ldeals and theory, Green PolLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal
polLtLcal probleMs of an envLronMental or socLal kLnd, such as acLd raLn or
rLver pollutLon or MLssLle deplo8Ment, and (lLke the Peace MoveMent Ln
AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLpLes or
wor~Lng out an env~ronMentaL (or peace) ph~Losophy_ Because of Lts envLronMentaL
depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural
envLronMent Lssues, such as wLlderness, rare specLes, and
the
radLcal
-3-

transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL
MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach.
Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous
Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMa9Ln9 LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLolence
and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of
the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcal actLon,
LncLudLn9 typLcal protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLolence also
LMplLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary pra~tLces, socLal defence.
WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLolent Methods and socLal
defence, other Lesser factLons hold that force Ls necessary to brLn9 about
varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes.
The Deep EcoLogy platforM Lncludes severaL prLncLpLes that would be
recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLples
(whLch however, unlLke BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM, would not be wLdeLy opposed by
reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of
MaxLMLzLng SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of self-realLsatLon of varLous relLgLous
posLtLons, of the full unfoldLng and developMent of the person, Ls vastly
expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to Lnclude brLngLng to fuLl fruLtLon not MereLy one's
own person, but all that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded Self, whLch
Ls taken to be not Merely one's faMLLy or feLlows or fellow natLonals, nor
Merely ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whole huMan race, but the whole naturaL
1
systeM.
The SeLf-realLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened
personal self-Lnterest prLncLple, has an excellent phLlosophLcaL pedLgree (at
Least as applLed to huMans or neL9hbourLn9 classes of huMans). Thus rather than
beLng argued for, a dLffLcult Matter Ln the case of ultLMate prLncLples, SeLfrealLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLlosophLcal or reLLgLous posLtLons at
Level 1 of the double pyraMLd, froM those that help sustaLn Deep Ecology.
However the expansLon Lnvolved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow self to
coMprehensLve Self, severs the usual justLfLcatory lLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy
one's self-Lnterests wLth those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed
LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder
reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan
Self, Nature personLfLed
prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc.
Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcal and
spLrLtual ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the
16 AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the slogan
slogan, USLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln endsn.
are those concernLng what kLnd of technology one uses and where one lLves
(the Matter of dwellLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent value and the lLke), what and
how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around
of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have
MaxLMLzatLon
eMphasLsed both MaterLal goals and MaterLal Means, partLcuLarly personal
consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for
envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyles are approprLate? Deep Ecology,
LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLal and spLrLtuaL ends and
eMphasLzes the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLlabLe. The result, of course,
Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, do~ng wLth enough, and,
More 9enerall8, practLces whLch lLe lLght on the Land and the naturaL world. In
way of d0Ln9 thLngs, these wLLL be Lnte9rated (Ln
~ properly ecoLogLcaL
syMbLotLc and other naturaL styles) wLth the natural systeMs LnvoLved, workLng
wLth rather than agaLnst the natural fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL
approprLate to regLonaL
wLLl accordLngly be ecoregLonaL
arrangeMents,
17
to be caLLed.
coMe
have
they
as
bLore9LonaL,
ecoL09LcaL 9roupLn9s - or

-4-

ApproprLate Means LncLude, Ln turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce
and theory of Deep Ecology- HLgh technoL09Les such as nuclear power are not
approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLaL socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of
the envLronMentaL and socLaL costs and rLsks such technoLogLcaL forMs LMpose_ On
both deep and green percept i,ons, wh-3 t Ls requ Lred a re re LLab Le c-:1 ref u L
technoLogLes whLch are not ecoLogLcaLLy daMa9Ln9 or socLaLLy rLsky or otherwLse
undesLrabLe; but the technoLogi,es adl"li,tted wLLl dLffer accordLng to the
prLncLpLes of the posLtLons they answer back to (e_g_ farMLng technLques wLLL
need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLLLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such
prLncLpLes as bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM )_ In each case the practLcaL use of
approprLate technoLogy faLLs at the bottoM, actLon Level, of the doubLe
pyral"I ,,"d _•8
WhLLe Deep Ecology suppLLes an appeaLLng bLueprLnt for dLfferent socLaL and
LLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed Land reached? A MaLn part
of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLaL feature of Deep
Ecology: EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of
other oLder LdeoLogLes (e_g_ of reLL9Lous, or of revoLutLonary, conscLousness)_
What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtuaL or LdeoLogLcaL conversLon Ls agaLn broadened
froM the personaL and socLaL to coMprehend the fuLL envLronMentaL predLcaMent_
In thLs expLanatLon, of how peopLe get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and
Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper
explanatory prLncLpLes_ A thorough conversLon process LnvoLves eLevatLon to the
top LiveL, spLrLtuaL transcendence of the daLLy econoMLc and poLLtLcaL actLon
LeveL. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology
wLLL be put Ln place, LLke Green PoLLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures_
LLke the fundaMentaL sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes
practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at
EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness_ SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and
conteMpLatLon, are derLved frol"I the fundaMentaL sources_ But other Methods whLch
extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecoLogLcaL experLence, LncLude value
seeLng thLngs dLfferentLy, and
reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon
of other thLngs - Connected wLth
weLL-beLng
and
worth
the
coMLng to apprecLate
goes a hoLLstLc shLft Ln
theM,
these wLdened experLentLaL bases, and LnforMLng
vaLues and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon , affordLng dLrect LLnkage
wLth parts and whoLes of the natural worLd_•IO By these Methods, a person May
coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the reaL world, a convert to Deep
Ecology, a feLLow and advocate of Lts Messages and LLfe-ways.
ESSAY QUESTIONS
}_ To what extent do Green PoLLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and
address the sal"le probLel"ls? CrLtLcaLLy coMpare and contrast theLr proposals,
especLaLLy as regards the naturaL and the buLLt envLronMent_
2_ Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four Levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to

expLaLn carefuLLy the LnterreLatLons aMong
PoLLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probLeMatLc scheMe?

these

Levels.

Where

does

Green

Ln prLncLpLe" appears as a key theMe of Deep
Eco~ogy. Cri.tLcaLLy assess Lts adequacy_ Shouldn't Green PoLLtLcs LncLude such a
pri.nci.pLe?
3_ ·sLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM -

Non-vLo~ence an unstated pr~nc~p~e of Deep Ecoiog~? Expia~n why Deep
Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLoLence to the degree i.t Ls? In your answers take
account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLcti.ons between the use of

I+-

1:5

-5-

vLolence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vLolence Ln
nature; LLL. the need for coercLve Methods to preserve the natural envLronMent.
5. What justLfLes expandLng self-realLsatLo n to Self-realLsatLo n? ExpLaLn the
MeanLng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLLsatL on for Deep EcoLogy and dLscuss Lts
adequacy. Why does Lt not feature Ln Green PolLtLcs?
6. ExplaLn the MeanLng of the delLberateLy vague slogan °SLMple Ln Means, rLch
Ln ends", or of soMe other hLgh-LMpact sLogan of Deep EcoLogy. IndLcate how the
vagueness MLght work for and a9aLnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be
alternatLve LnterpretatLon s, and LndLcate soMe of the
suggest
applLed,
aLternatLves.
these
of
raMLfLcatLons
7. OutLLne bLoregLonalLsM , LndLcatLng what practLcaL envLronMentaL probLeMs bLoregLonalLsM Lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bLoregLonalLsM derLved froM Deep EcoLogy?
ConsLder to what extent bLoregLonalLsM fLts wLth the sLogan, ·rhLnk globally,
act locally·.
8. Is More hLgh technology an unprobLeMatLc solutLon to deeper, or to any,
envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vLews of Deep Ecology and Green
PoLLtLcs on the role of varLous types of technoLogy.
9. What Ls Ecolo9Lcal ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for
Deep Ec0Lo9y? If Lt Ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green
PoLLtLcs?

A reLatLonaL, total-fLeLd LMa9e of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been
quLetLy oMLtted froM the orLgLnaL pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt
pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated?
10.

-6-