Deep Ecology

[Grigoris]

The whole point is that the technology we use shapes how we perceive the world.

The chicken-egg analogy applies here too.

Class is nothing more nor less than divisions of society based upon who has the privilege of extracting and consuming more resources.

I think you will find it is a little more than that. Yes, this is a major part of what class is but...

Therefore, thinking that we need to resolve class issues in order to resolved ecological issues...

I think you will find that nobody said this. I, for example, said that the issue of class has to be addressed TOO, or else an ecological society will never become a reality. That class is also a contributing factor, especially the political dynamics of class.

Socialism never created a means of production on its own, and therefore it relies on the principles of extractive economics equally as much as Capitalism.

You won't see me disagreeing.

Nope, the only way to resolve the ecological crisis is to abandon a human centered approach to civilization, and adopt a biocentric approach.

Sure, but your emotional appeal to change is based on the assumption that we will destroy the planet and that we will not have somewhere to live. That is hardly biocentric.

Not to mention the fact that a "movement", which is basically an extraordinarily small bunch of privileged white males, now feel that they are not only speaking on behalf of humans, but the whole freakin' planet.

Sigh...

[Malcolm]

Sure, but your emotional appeal to change is based on the assumption that we will destroy the planet and that we will not have somewhere to live. That is hardly biocentric.

Considering that there is no biosphere we know of but this one, the issue of human beings destroying the planet and all other life along with it is very much a biocentric concern

Not to mention the fact that a "movement", which is basically an extraordinarily small bunch of privileged white males, now feel that they are not only speaking on behalf of humans, but the whole freakin' planet.

It is not merely a small bunch of white males. There is an upwelling of indigenous people's voices proclaiming a biocentric viewpoint and protesting extractive practices from such viewpoint all over the planet .

[Grigoris]

It is not merely a small bunch of white males. There is an upwelling of indigenous people's voices proclaiming a biocentric viewpoint and protesting extractive practices from such viewpoint all over the planet .

I think you will find that these voices existed well before white people discovered Deep Ecology and were appropriated by the "movement". Nothing new there either...

I think you will also find that extractive economies existed well before capitalism and socialism.

[Grigoris]

And one more thing to ponder: Do you really believe that if the proletarian class actually controlled the means of production they would choose continue to poison and destroy themselves making useless things designed to break down as quickly as possible?

Having worked on production lines, I am pretty sure that this will not be the case.

[Grigoris]

Considering that there is no biosphere we know of but this one, the issue of human beings destroying the planet and all other life along with it is very much a biocentric concern.

No. A biocentric view would not give a flying f*ck about what happens to human beings during the transition to an ecology centered existence. Like the title of one of my favorite Deep Ecology groups says: Earth First! Human concerns don't get factored into the equation.

[Malcolm]

And one more thing to ponder: Do you really believe that if the proletarian class actually controlled the means of production they would choose continue to poison and destroy themselves making useless things designed to break down as quickly as possible?

Yup. Because the problem is the means of production itself.

[Malcolm]

Considering that there is no biosphere we know of but this one, the issue of human beings destroying the planet and all other life along with it is very much a biocentric concern.

No. A biocentric view would not give a flying f*ck about what happens to human beings during the transition to an ecology centered existence. Like the title of one of my favorite Deep Ecology groups says: Earth First! Human concerns don't get factored into the equation.

However inconvenient it may be to some, humans are also part of the biosphere. Deep ecology does not exclude human beings:

• The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
  
  Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
  
  Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
  
  The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.
  
  Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  
  Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  
  The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.
  
  Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library ... ep-ecology

[boda]

The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.

Problem is ideological change doesn't change inherent core values. It doesn't change our nature, to put it simply.

For example, we may believe that consuming too much fat and sugar are unhealthy, and we may even be successful in personally consuming a health amount for our bodies, but the underlying impulses (which are currently out of balance with the supply) will always be there. Eventually human biology could adapt to the current supply, but that could take a very long time.

Of course we can override our impulses, but on a global scale? How much time do we have left?

[Vasana]

I agree with all of those deep ecology pointers above but I think the carrying capacity of the earth is greater than even the present global population.

Granted, growth can't be endless but a decrease would only be nessecary if no transition to sustainability occurs on any scale.

If humans live according to their scale I think the earth can handle a few extra billion heads. But that won't be the case,if at all, for like 20-50 years. In which case the population would have already grown significantly.

We're in for a hell of a ride.

[Malcolm]

I agree with all of those deep ecology pointers above but I think the carrying capacity of the earth is greater than even the present global population.

I think this is a very mistaken point of view.

[Vasana]

I agree with all of those deep ecology pointers above but I think the carrying capacity of the earth is greater than even the present global population.

I think this is a very mistaken point of view.

I'm open to that possiblitty. To clarify, i only belive the carrying capacity is greater than we believe in the hypotethical scenario of a planet that has already transitioned to a global society that advocates degrowth of industry, including caps on all forms of extractive practices and excessive transportation, agriculture etc

If we lived within the margins of nessecity rather than excess. If food and essential resources were decentralized as horizontal, localized, p2p, open-source coopertatives rather than vertical heirachies of capital and power, we'd be living more proportionally to our scale. Its only in that scenario that I believe we could handle a bigger population. At the current rate of things we're evidently unable to support the existing population.

[Vasana]

Logistically, a systems view of the biosphere as a diagnostical tool is what we need in order to assess the complexity of the inter-related symptoms the natural and man-made world are facing.

Even if people have qualms with deep ecology , I can't imagine there being much protest towards the core methodology required, that is, a systems-theory approach.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

[Grigoris]

Yup. Because the problem is the means of production itself.

You obviously have never worked in factories, coz if you had you would know that the vast majority of factory worker hate their job and do it merely to make ends meet. They would jump at the opportunity to do something useful and creative with the means at hand.

[Malcolm]

Even if people have qualms with deep ecology , I can't imagine there being much protest towards the core methodology required, that is, a systems-theory approach.

• Statements from some of the Earth First!ers would give you the impression that the whole species is screwed up, but again, I think this is a minority dimension. Warwick Fox, a deep ecology theorist in Australia, says we have to distinguish between being misanthropic – hating humanity – and being anti-anthropocentric. There’s a difference between saying we want to get rid of all human beings, and saying that humans aren’t the most important species on the planet.

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic22/zimmrman/

Earth First! is not in fact a true representative of deep ecology. They may have popularized the term, but for example, but Naess did not approve or sanction David Foreman's misanthropy at all:

About another misunderstanding: what is your feeling about those who have used ecology to defend social Darwinism or Malthusianism? For example, David Foreman of Earth First! has been quoted as saying with regard to the Ethiopian famine, “The best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve.”

Dave Foreman sometimes seems to speak without much carefulness and sometimes he’s then quoted even less carefully making these statements. The only thing I can find there which can be said to be a supportable view is the opinion of many doctors who are treating Ethiopian starving children, when they say – not publicly – but when they say that the best thing for may of these children would be to die. But of course we cannot let them die. We have to, as physicians, try to heal them. Also because of the parents, we cannot let children die. Dave Foreman may have the opinion that it would be best for starving people to die, but ecological humanitarian norms among humans are such that we are extremely concerned about starvation. We have more responsibility toward humans than we do toward animals. If someone had to choose between saving a starving child and the possibility of killing the last rhinoceros, if there were no other means of saving the child, he should kill the rhinoceros and we would all think that correct. But it would be a scandal, especially among rich nations, not to help the poorer nations let living beings continue to live. In short, we are not social Darwinists.

And this is an important clarification by Naess:

Would deep ecology preclude concern for the issues of social justice, which have become part of the agenda of left Greens?

No, I think that in this century we have three great grassroots movements: that of social justice, that of peace and that of the deep ecology movement. Those three have to cooperate intimately. It’s quite clear that the ecological crisis cannot be solved in isolation from social justice – for instance, to try to conserve rainforests without at the same time taking up the tremendous problem of what to do with relations between North and South. We have to take those problems – all of them – at once, and not say that one is more important than the others. So it’s extremely important that the social justice movement is always taken into consideration. The peace movement is too obvious to talk about at all. The military – 900 billion dollars used every year for militarism – is one of the greatest polluters in the present day. Also any kind of warlike situation immediately tends to negate every kind of concern not only for civilians but for all living beings whatsoever. So those three movements must cooperate. What distinguishes the deep ecology movements is that it is practically 100% a grassroots movement, whereas the other two have some support among the governments.

And:

What do you think are our realistic prospects for the future – for humankind?

There will be no ultimate catastrophe involving all humanity or involving all higher organisms on the earth. But there may be a deterioration in the quality of life both in and outside cities. And there will be hundreds of catastrophes on the order of Chernobyl. I look forward to this trend changing in the 22nd century, at the earliest.

The 22nd century?

The next century – the 21st – I’m afraid won’t see any great social and ecological progress.

http://www.kyotojournal.org/the-journal ... -in-kyoto/

[Malcolm]

Yup. Because the problem is the means of production itself.

You obviously have never worked in factories, coz if you had you would know that the vast majority of factory worker hate their job and do it merely to make ends meet. They would jump at the opportunity to do something useful and creative with the means at hand.

You obviously have no clue about me or my life, nor what I have done to make a living.

[Vasana]

Even if people have qualms with deep ecology , I can't imagine there being much protest towards the core methodology required, that is, a systems-theory approach.

[...]

And this is an important clarification by Naess:

Would deep ecology preclude concern for the issues of social justice, which have become part of the agenda of left Greens?

No, I think that in this century we have three great grassroots movements: that of social justice, that of peace and that of the deep ecology movement. Those three have to cooperate intimately. It’s quite clear that the ecological crisis cannot be solved in isolation from social justice – for instance, to try to conserve rainforests without at the same time taking up the tremendous problem of what to do with relations between North and South. We have to take those problems – all of them – at once, and not say that one is more important than the others. So it’s extremely important that the social justice movement is always taken into consideration. The peace movement is too obvious to talk about at all. The military – 900 billion dollars used every year for militarism – is one of the greatest polluters in the present day. Also any kind of warlike situation immediately tends to negate every kind of concern not only for civilians but for all living beings whatsoever. So those three movements must cooperate. What distinguishes the deep ecology movements is that it is practically 100% a grassroots movement, whereas the other two have some support among the governments.

/

Yeah i have no problem with that. I'm in agreement with Naess in that all three movements need to occur side by side. That of social justice, that of peace and that of the 'deep ecology movement.'

My "issue' is simply the insistence on the self-proclaimed name of 'deep-ecology' as the definitive title of that third movement. The name and ethos evolved from the enviriomental movement in general and not the other way around. If you asked your average person if they simply knew of the existence of the enviromental movement, most would say yes. If you asked your average person if they knew of the existence of the deep ecology movement, most would say no. Deep ecology is a species of the enviriomental movement and not the other way around. Enviriomental movements might have different ideologies but some will still remain consistent with the praxis of D.E and you can still effectively advocate for meaningful ecological progress without the need to lump things under a single title.

It would just be a case of 'a rose by any other name smelling just as sweet' if the deep ecology movement was synonymous with all forms of environmentalism but that doesn't seem to be so. Equally, there are thousands of enviriomental initiatives that are in alignment with the D.E view but have no association with them.

People are less concerned with the titles of movements and of the various 'isms' and more concerned with whether they actually function.

[Malcolm]

Yeah i have no problem with that. I'm in agreement with Naess in that all three movements need to occur side by side. That of social justice, that of peace and that of the 'deep ecology movement.'

My "issue' is simply the insistence on the self-proclaimed name of 'deep-ecology' as the definitive title of that third movement. The name and ethos evolved from the enviriomental movement in general and not the other way around. If you asked your average person if they simply knew of the existence of the enviromental movement, most would say yes. If you asked your average person if they knew of the existence of the deep ecology movement, most would say no. Deep ecology is a species of the enviriomental movement and not the other way around. Enviriomental movements might have different ideologies but some will still remain consistent with the praxis of D.E and you can still effectively advocate for meaningful ecological progress without the need to lump things under a single title.

It would just be a case of 'a rose by any other name smelling just as sweet' if the deep ecology movement was synonymous with all forms of environmentalism but that doesn't seem to be so. Equally, there are thousands of enviriomental initiatives that are in alignment with the D.E view but have no association with them.

People are less concerned with the titles of movements and of the various 'isms' and nore conceened with whether they actually function.

It is a matter of perspective, mainly:

You’ve been credited with having coined the expression “deep ecology.” How exactly did the idea originate?

Well, I did not coin the term “deep ecology.” I coined two terms. One is “supporter of the deep ecology movement” – a fairly long expressions. And the other is “ecosophy.” But this term “supporter of the deep ecology movement” was very soon abbreviated to “deep ecology” and supporters were called “deep ecologists.”

How does “deep” ecology differ from “shallow” ecology?

Movements are always changing and one should be cautious in saying what strictly separates two movements, like the deep and the shallow. One marked difference is that the total argumentations of those who support the shallow movement are anthropocentric in the sense that everything done to protect and restore nature sis seen as having benefit for future human generations. In deep ecology, future generations means future generations of all living beings, including rivers for example.

[Vasana]

It is a matter of perspective, mainly:

You’ve been credited with having coined the expression “deep ecology.” How exactly did the idea originate?

Well, I did not coin the term “deep ecology.” I coined two terms. One is “supporter of the deep ecology movement” – a fairly long expressions. And the other is “ecosophy.” But this term “supporter of the deep ecology movement” was very soon abbreviated to “deep ecology” and supporters were called “deep ecologists.”

How does “deep” ecology differ from “shallow” ecology?

Movements are always changing and one should be cautious in saying what strictly separates two movements, like the deep and the shallow. One marked difference is that the total argumentations of those who support the shallow movement are anthropocentric in the sense that everything done to protect and restore nature sis seen as having benefit for future human generations. In deep ecology, future generations means future generations of all living beings, including rivers for example.

Yeah it's a matter of perspective for sure. Unfortunately people's perspectives can be swayed either way by the name alone. In this day and age, the brand name makes or breaks the movement in many respects. Think Occupy, blackLivesmatter. Inevitable in many respects, but the catchiness of the names and taglines no doubt helped.

I prefer eco-sophy to deep ecology since the association with a philosophy of the ecology is more evident. But again, earth-based philosophy is nothing new. Various indigenous cultures have always had similar understandings of the web-of-life and us being strands within it rather than the weaver.

On that note I think you would be interested in the work of Polly Higgins and co. She's working at establishing a 5th international crime against peace- that of ecocide.

Often referred to as Climate Crime, Ecocide is also a law that puts in place a criminal wrong. Existing laws, such as international declarations, treaties and protocols do not have the legal teeth to impute State responsibility and the necessary legal duty of care – owed by States on behalf of the public. Ecocide law is public law in the widest sense; giving protection to those at risk of being displaced, upholding the rights and duties of humanity as a whole as well as the rights of future generations, nature and indigenous rights.

A fully proposed draft of the law of Ecocide was submitted into the United Nations by Polly Higgins in April 2010. The intent behind the drafting is to ensure that people and planet are put first and to create a legal duty of care to a) prohibit the causes of mass damage and destruction, b) prevent future significant harm from taking place and c) pre-empt both human caused and natural Ecocides that put nations at risk of being unable to self-govern.

A law of Ecocide addresses the core issue of today: ensuring the welfare of both people and planet. The failure by States to assist in times of climate crisis (e.g. when sea levels rise and lead to displacement), and failure by States and corporations to take responsibility for dangerous industrial activity (e.g. fossil fuel extraction) can both be addressed under Ecocide law. Assertion of civil rights are not in themselves enough – it is the naming of the criminal wrongs that give the enforceability to the duties and protection required by those territories that are most vulnerable and at risk of being displaced.

http://eradicatingecocide.com/

[Grigoris]

Earth First! is not in fact a true representative of deep ecology. They may have popularized the term, but for example, but Naess did not approve or sanction David Foreman's misanthropy at all:...

While it is true that David Foreman lacked Naess's gift of the gab (being white, but not well-educated, or middle class enough), it is false to say that they were not representative of Deep Ecology.

Earth First! (not just the original American chapter, but the global network of small activist cells) was the closest thing Deep Ecology had to a movement. But being based on late 19th and early 20th century notions of the propaganda of the deed (rather than mass movement models) and because their activities were largely illegal (destroying private property) it made it easy for the police to target them, find them and (literally, in the case of Judi Bari) destroy them.

[treehuggingoctopus]

I see Socialism as an economic system whose only real complaint with Capitalism is who owns the means of production.

Well that is a very narrow definition. I see the difference between the two systems, and so have lots and lots of other socialists, as one that boils down to values. Both before and after Marx that was what the quarrel was essentially about.

Democratic Socialism is just an attempt at reconciliation of this contradiction (between Socialism and Capitalism). But it is till capitalist in essence and so it does not address the real issues facing the planet.

You mean social democracy, right? Democratic socialism wants to replace capitalism and socialism via democratic means.

As for the rest of it, I think we need to leave 19th century philosophers and their alternate socialisms behind.

You Yankees will never understand the European concern for tradition