Box 14, Item 1765: Correspondence between Richard Sylvan and John Martin, 2 letters, Jul 1983
Title
Box 14, Item 1765: Correspondence between Richard Sylvan and John Martin, 2 letters, Jul 1983
Subject
Letter 1: Typescript on a Australian National University letter head. Letter dated 22 July 1983 to John Martin, Warracknabeal, VIC 3393. From Richard Sylvan, The Research School of Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy, The Australian National University. Sylvan sends feedback to Martin about an article published in The Deep Ecologist (July 183). John Martin was the founding editor of the Australian based newsletter, The Deep Ecologist. One of three copies of letter held in collection, two copies with annotations: Deep ecology notes ; Fred, please return newsletter [?]. Thanks for your comments, [?] things. [Richard?]. Letter 2: Handwritten letter dated 30 Jul 1983 to Richard Sylvan. From John Martin, Warracknabeal, VIC 3393. Martin replies to Sylvan's letter and comments on an article published in The Deep Ecologist.
Description
Note, one of two papers digitised from item 1765. Letter from John Martin redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions.
Creator
Source
The University of Queensland's Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291, Box 14, Item 1765
Date
July 23, 1983
Contributor
This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, Dr. N.A.J. Taylor.
Rights
For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library.
Format
[7] leaves. 1.43 MB.
Type
Correspondences
Text
✓
f
/
/ Z
)
The Australian National University
■The Research School of Social Sciences
Department of Philosophy
reference
Post Office Box 4 Canberra ACT 2600
Telegrams & cables natuniv Canberra
Telex aa 62694 sopac
'telephone 062-49 $111
22 July 1983
John Martin
10 Alamein Avenue
WARRACKNABEAL
VIC
3393
Dear John,
Thank you for the July 83 copy of The Deep Ecologist.
I
certainly think that such a network newsletter is a fine idea (and
my sub. follows under separate cover).
I should confess, however, that I was alarmed by the extent
to which shallow ecology - which already has an excellent press had crept into the issue. In particular, the centerpiece article,
purportedly on wilderness (signed P. Conroy) contained themes
directly antithetical to deeper ecology, some of which I shall
note. I really hope the article was intended as some sort of
test or as a spoof; but I fear it wasn't.
1.
'The wonders of creation exist in the minds of humans'. The
three step argument to this, from the granted 'Nature is wondrous,
...' is quite fallacious. For one thing, it smuggles in the
assumption of a creation. Deep ecologists don't have to buy into
creation, or (what Conroy goes on to, in a version of the argument
from design I suppose) God(s). More important, the wonders of
nature are not confined to, and do not require, the minds of humans.
A core theme of deep ecology is that some natural things are
intrinsically valuable, worthwhile in themselves, independently of
any creatures, including humans. An alpine gentian does not owe
its value, its importance to humans.
For similar reasons the deep ecologist, who may embrace some
one of the more orthodox religions but need not, rejects both parts
of Conroy's supporting comparison:
'As light needs our eyes to give it reality, so [nature] around
us needs our constant assent', human affirmation. There was light,
as an element of nature, before humans evolved; there will be
light, and still some wonders of nature, when humans are gone, for
instance after nuclear annihilation.
It is the same on the genesis
account as it is on deep ecological assumptions: nature and light
were real, and also good, before man appeared on the scene (on the
seventh day).
2.
Admittedly some deeper ecological themes are picked up by
Conroy, for example 'the importance of relationships', especially
those of ecosystems. Unfortunately Conroy almost at once tries to
2/...
2.
undermine this theme (a theme that runs counter to a main thrust
of Western philosophy, concerning the eliminability or secondary
character of relations) and in a human chauvinist way:
'Let us not
delude ourselves as to the basis for this'.
Relations too are
alleged to answer back to humans, and owe their importance to them:
again shallow, and surely mistaken, anthrocentricism. But Conroy
wants us to proceed to a strong form of this‘shallow doctrine:
'To
recognise the importance of our environment is to recognise the
importance of ourselves'. No; and certainly not on deeper thinking.
Environments free of humans, such as pure wilderness, can be
important; worlds devoid of humans beautiful, or ugly.
3.
'Humans do hold dominion over the earth';
'recognise your
kingship of the earth'. The dominion position, with which Conroy
gets quite carried away, is only one of various positions that the
shallow ecologist can adopt; others (delineated by Passmore) are
the stewardship and the perfectionist positions. It is however the
position most antithetical to the concerns of deep ecology.
4.
Conroy repudiates the theme of biological (or biospheric)
egalitarianism, often taken to be an ingredient of deep ecology, in
a decidedly arrogant way:
'To pretend we can treat ourselves as
equals with other organisms in our cohabitation of this planet is to
show an ignorance of the inevitable forces that continue to shape
human destinies everywhere' (it reminds me of the worst reaches of
German Ubermensch philosophy, Nietzsche to Hitler). An egalitarian
theme was tendered by Naess in his introduction of deep ecology, and
has certainly been built into the West Coast understanding of the
notion. And as Singer's work on "equality of consideration", and
other nonutilitarian work on respect has made plain, the theme can
be given relatively palatable construals. It remains however something
of an open question whether the theme is an essential ingredient of
deep ecology. My view is also that it is not; but I should not want
to have anything much to do with Conroy's human chauvinist (and
sometimes human fascist) case for ditching the theme.
Regrettably Naess's more recent account of deep ecology, in
terms of asking 'deeper and deeper questions', has further muddied
what started out by being d valuable and sufficiently clear notion.
Now a nuclear engineer who asks deeper questions, or any shallow
ecologist who 'probes the deepness of the human psyche', stands a
fair chance of passing perself off as a deep ecologist. I hope
however that Ths Deep Ecologist can maintain a deep relationship
with deep ecology.
Best wishes,
Richard
The following has been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions.
Letter, John Martin to Richard Sylvan, 30 July 1983 re Martin replies to Sylvan's letter and
comments on an article published in The Deep Ecologist. (1 leaf)
f
/
/ Z
)
The Australian National University
■The Research School of Social Sciences
Department of Philosophy
reference
Post Office Box 4 Canberra ACT 2600
Telegrams & cables natuniv Canberra
Telex aa 62694 sopac
'telephone 062-49 $111
22 July 1983
John Martin
10 Alamein Avenue
WARRACKNABEAL
VIC
3393
Dear John,
Thank you for the July 83 copy of The Deep Ecologist.
I
certainly think that such a network newsletter is a fine idea (and
my sub. follows under separate cover).
I should confess, however, that I was alarmed by the extent
to which shallow ecology - which already has an excellent press had crept into the issue. In particular, the centerpiece article,
purportedly on wilderness (signed P. Conroy) contained themes
directly antithetical to deeper ecology, some of which I shall
note. I really hope the article was intended as some sort of
test or as a spoof; but I fear it wasn't.
1.
'The wonders of creation exist in the minds of humans'. The
three step argument to this, from the granted 'Nature is wondrous,
...' is quite fallacious. For one thing, it smuggles in the
assumption of a creation. Deep ecologists don't have to buy into
creation, or (what Conroy goes on to, in a version of the argument
from design I suppose) God(s). More important, the wonders of
nature are not confined to, and do not require, the minds of humans.
A core theme of deep ecology is that some natural things are
intrinsically valuable, worthwhile in themselves, independently of
any creatures, including humans. An alpine gentian does not owe
its value, its importance to humans.
For similar reasons the deep ecologist, who may embrace some
one of the more orthodox religions but need not, rejects both parts
of Conroy's supporting comparison:
'As light needs our eyes to give it reality, so [nature] around
us needs our constant assent', human affirmation. There was light,
as an element of nature, before humans evolved; there will be
light, and still some wonders of nature, when humans are gone, for
instance after nuclear annihilation.
It is the same on the genesis
account as it is on deep ecological assumptions: nature and light
were real, and also good, before man appeared on the scene (on the
seventh day).
2.
Admittedly some deeper ecological themes are picked up by
Conroy, for example 'the importance of relationships', especially
those of ecosystems. Unfortunately Conroy almost at once tries to
2/...
2.
undermine this theme (a theme that runs counter to a main thrust
of Western philosophy, concerning the eliminability or secondary
character of relations) and in a human chauvinist way:
'Let us not
delude ourselves as to the basis for this'.
Relations too are
alleged to answer back to humans, and owe their importance to them:
again shallow, and surely mistaken, anthrocentricism. But Conroy
wants us to proceed to a strong form of this‘shallow doctrine:
'To
recognise the importance of our environment is to recognise the
importance of ourselves'. No; and certainly not on deeper thinking.
Environments free of humans, such as pure wilderness, can be
important; worlds devoid of humans beautiful, or ugly.
3.
'Humans do hold dominion over the earth';
'recognise your
kingship of the earth'. The dominion position, with which Conroy
gets quite carried away, is only one of various positions that the
shallow ecologist can adopt; others (delineated by Passmore) are
the stewardship and the perfectionist positions. It is however the
position most antithetical to the concerns of deep ecology.
4.
Conroy repudiates the theme of biological (or biospheric)
egalitarianism, often taken to be an ingredient of deep ecology, in
a decidedly arrogant way:
'To pretend we can treat ourselves as
equals with other organisms in our cohabitation of this planet is to
show an ignorance of the inevitable forces that continue to shape
human destinies everywhere' (it reminds me of the worst reaches of
German Ubermensch philosophy, Nietzsche to Hitler). An egalitarian
theme was tendered by Naess in his introduction of deep ecology, and
has certainly been built into the West Coast understanding of the
notion. And as Singer's work on "equality of consideration", and
other nonutilitarian work on respect has made plain, the theme can
be given relatively palatable construals. It remains however something
of an open question whether the theme is an essential ingredient of
deep ecology. My view is also that it is not; but I should not want
to have anything much to do with Conroy's human chauvinist (and
sometimes human fascist) case for ditching the theme.
Regrettably Naess's more recent account of deep ecology, in
terms of asking 'deeper and deeper questions', has further muddied
what started out by being d valuable and sufficiently clear notion.
Now a nuclear engineer who asks deeper questions, or any shallow
ecologist who 'probes the deepness of the human psyche', stands a
fair chance of passing perself off as a deep ecologist. I hope
however that Ths Deep Ecologist can maintain a deep relationship
with deep ecology.
Best wishes,
Richard
The following has been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions.
Letter, John Martin to Richard Sylvan, 30 July 1983 re Martin replies to Sylvan's letter and
comments on an article published in The Deep Ecologist. (1 leaf)
Collection
Citation
Richard Sylvan, “Box 14, Item 1765: Correspondence between Richard Sylvan and John Martin, 2 letters, Jul 1983,” Antipodean Antinuclearism, accessed April 16, 2024, https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/show/143.