Deep Eco File

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1
Scholars Deep Ecology

1NC Shell 1/3..................................................................................................................................................................4
***Links***...................................................................................................................................................................7
Link - Standing Reserve/Enframing...............................................................................................................................8
Link Reg!lati"ns/#n$entives........................................................................................................................................%
Link &lternative Energ'.............................................................................................................................................1(
Link Env. )"li$'making.............................................................................................................................................11
Link &lternative Energ'.............................................................................................................................................1*
Link Climate Change +e$hn"l"gi$al ,i-................................................................................................................14
Link Rene.a/les........................................................................................................................................................10
Link - Car/"n +a-.........................................................................................................................................................11
Link Cars....................................................................................................................................................................17
Link - S"lar Energ'.......................................................................................................................................................18
Link - 2ind Energ'......................................................................................................................................................1%
Link - 3ikes...................................................................................................................................................................*1
Link - 4e"thermal Energ'............................................................................................................................................**
Link - 5'dr"6".er.......................................................................................................................................................*3
Link - 3i"mass..............................................................................................................................................................*4
Link - 3ra7ilian Ethan"l................................................................................................................................................*0
Link - 4reen the 8ilitar'..............................................................................................................................................*1
Link Centrali7ed Ele$tri$it'.......................................................................................................................................*7
Link - )"ll!ti"n C"ntr"l................................................................................................................................................*8
Link - S6a$e C"l"ni7ati"n............................................................................................................................................*%
Link Res"!r$e 8anagement......................................................................................................................................3(
Link ,ree 8arket Res"!r$e 8anagement..................................................................................................................31
Link - E-6erts...............................................................................................................................................................3*
Link #nd!strial +e$hn"l"g'........................................................................................................................................33
Link Env 9!sti$e/Env. Ra$ism...................................................................................................................................34
Link L".er$ase :Earth;............................................................................................................................................30
Link &ssigning 8"netar' <al!e t" Envir"nment......................................................................................................31
Link - +e$hn"l"g'.........................................................................................................................................................38
Link =tilitarian Cal$!l!s............................................................................................................................................4(
Link - >e"nt"l"g'.........................................................................................................................................................4*
Link - =tilitarianism/ >e"nt"l"g'................................................................................................................................43
Link - C"ns!m6ti"n......................................................................................................................................................44
Link - >ams..................................................................................................................................................................40
Link E$"n"mi$ 4r".th..............................................................................................................................................41
Link - E$"n"m'............................................................................................................................................................47
&+? Link "f @missi"n...................................................................................................................................................4%
***#m6a$ts***..............................................................................................................................................................0(
#m6a$t - State "f E$"-Emergen$' Link/3i"6".er........................................................................................................01
#m6a$t - E$"l"gi$al 5"l"$a!st......................................................................................................................................03
#m6a$t R""t Ca!se.....................................................................................................................................................04
#m6a$t - #m6a$t #nev ./" &lternative...........................................................................................................................00
#m6a$t - 5!man >estr!$ti"n.........................................................................................................................................01
#m6a$t N" S"lven$'...................................................................................................................................................07
#m6a$t - &nthr"6"$entrism 3ad....................................................................................................................................08
#m6a$t Ethi$s.............................................................................................................................................................0%
&+? Ethi$al ,raming 3ad..............................................................................................................................................1(
&+? Ethi$al ,raming 3ad..............................................................................................................................................11
***&lternatives***.......................................................................................................................................................1*
&lt. S"lven$'AB&gam/en->ee6 E$" C"m/" 4""dC...................................................................................................13
&lternative - D!esti"ning..............................................................................................................................................14
&lternative E$"l"gi$al Self........................................................................................................................................10
&lternative Re$"gni7e #nter$"nne$tedness................................................................................................................11
&lt S"lves Envir"nmental >estr!$ti"n......................................................................................................................17
&lt. S"lves - Envir"nment.............................................................................................................................................18
&lt S"lves Climate Change........................................................................................................................................1%
&lt S"lves - 3i"diversit'...............................................................................................................................................7(
&lt - 3i"regi"nalism.....................................................................................................................................................71
&lternative- )rimitivism...............................................................................................................................................7*
Alt - Primitive culture..................................................................................................................................................71
&+? :E"! 8ake =s Cavemen;......................................................................................................................................77
&+? &lt Links t" the F...................................................................................................................................................78
&+? &lt ,ails 5!mans $anGt /e n"n anthr"6"$entri$..................................................................................................7%
&+? &lt H >" N"thing....................................................................................................................................................8(
&+? &lt E$"t"6ia is #m6"ssi/le.....................................................................................................................................81
***&+? )erm!tati"ns***...............................................................................................................................................8*
&+? )erm - 8!t!all' E-$l!sive....................................................................................................................................83
&+? )erm - C""6ti"n.....................................................................................................................................................84
&+? 6erm - +e$hn"l"g'.................................................................................................................................................80
&+? 6erm - 2eak &nthr"6"$entrism.............................................................................................................................81
&+? )erm - Shall"........................................................................................................................................................87
***&+? ,rame."rk***.................................................................................................................................................88
&+? ,rame."rk - R"rt'.................................................................................................................................................8%
&+? ,rame."rk.............................................................................................................................................................%(
***&+? *a$ &rgs***......................................................................................................................................................%1
&+? Case S"lven$'/S$ientifi$ Claims...........................................................................................................................%*
&+? +e$h S"lves Env. 5arms.........................................................................................................................................%4
&+? )refer s6e$ifi$it' "f &ff eviden$e..........................................................................................................................%0
&*? +ime ,rame............................................................................................................................................................%1
&+? @il/Climate &dv.....................................................................................................................................................%7
&+? N!$lear 2ar &dv....................................................................................................................................................%8
&+? 2ar &dv..................................................................................................................................................................%%
***&+? >ee6 E$"l"g' 3ad***...................................................................................................................................1((
&+? E$"feminist Criti$ism "f >E................................................................................................................................1(1
&+? >ee6 E$" #gn"res Ra$e/Class..............................................................................................................................1(*
&+? >ee6 E$" #gn"res the S"$ial................................................................................................................................1(3
&+? E$"fas$ism...........................................................................................................................................................1(4
&+? >ee6 E$" is &nti - 5!man...................................................................................................................................1(1
&+? #tGs C"lle$tive 5!man S!i$ide.............................................................................................................................1(8
&+? >ee6 E$" sa's Fill )""r )e"6le..........................................................................................................................1(%
&+? :E"! S!66"rt &#>S/Starvati"n;..........................................................................................................................11(
&+? :if '"!Gre dee6 e$"l"gistsI kill !s B"r '"!rselfC;..................................................................................................111
&+? >ee6 E$" is a Religi"n.........................................................................................................................................11*
***&+? Shall". E$"l"g' 4""d &rgs***....................................................................................................................113
&*? 5!man Right t" Life............................................................................................................................................114
&*? 5!man Right t" Life............................................................................................................................................110
&+? 5!mans are S6e$ial..............................................................................................................................................111
&+? )r"6ert' Rts..........................................................................................................................................................117
&+? >ee6 E$" >estr"'s #ndivid!alism........................................................................................................................118
&+? :2ise Ste.ardshi6;.............................................................................................................................................11%
&+? #ntrinsi$ <al!e >"esnGt 2"rk...............................................................................................................................1*(
&+? E$"l"gi$al Realism...............................................................................................................................................1*1
Jimmerman/@nt"l"g'.................................................................................................................................................1**
Jimmerman/@nt"l"g'.................................................................................................................................................1*3
Jimmerman/@nt"l"g'.................................................................................................................................................1*4
Jimmerman/@nt"l"g'.................................................................................................................................................1*0
***&,, &NS2ERS***.............................................................................................................................................1*1
&+? Link- >ee6 E$" &66r"ves &lt Energ'.................................................................................................................1*7
&+? Link - :Fn".ing; N"t >eta$hed.........................................................................................................................1*8
&+? Link Ref"rms 4""d..........................................................................................................................................1*%
&+? Link N" 3rightline f"r :<ital Needs;...............................................................................................................13(
&nthr"6"$entrism 4""d 8"ralit'............................................................................................................................131
&nthr"6"$entrism 4""d - Envir"nment.....................................................................................................................13*
+e$hni$al S"l!ti"ns 4""d ........................................................................................................................................134
&+? #m6a$t - Envir"nment..........................................................................................................................................130
&+? #m6a$t Ste.ardshi6 s"lves................................................................................................................................131
&+? #m6a$t - Ethi$s.....................................................................................................................................................137
&+? &lternative N" S"lven$'...................................................................................................................................13%
&+? &lternative - E$"t"6ian........................................................................................................................................143
&+? &lternative E$"t"6ian H Na7i............................................................................................................................141
&+? &lternative E$"t"6ian - )erm............................................................................................................................147
&+? &lternative )rimitivism.....................................................................................................................................148
&+? &lternative - 3i"regi"nalism................................................................................................................................10(
&+? &lternative =t"6ian...........................................................................................................................................101
&+? &lternative - Links t" the F..................................................................................................................................103
&+? &lternative - 5'6"$ris'........................................................................................................................................107
&+? &lternative - )aral'7es &$ti"n..............................................................................................................................108
)erm!tati"n - #ntrinsi$/#nstr!mental N"t 8!t!all' E-$l!sive....................................................................................10%
)erm!tati"n N"t 8!t!all' E-$l!sive.......................................................................................................................11(
)erm!tati"n &lt al"ne $anGt s"lve............................................................................................................................111
)erm!tati"n &+? C""6ti"n.......................................................................................................................................11*
)erm )"li$'/4"vernment &$ti"n Fe'.....................................................................................................................113
)erm - )"liti$al Fe'....................................................................................................................................................114
)erm!tati"n Shall". E$"l"g'..................................................................................................................................110
)erm!tati"n - S"lven$'...............................................................................................................................................111
>ee6 E$"l"g' H E$" ,as$ism..................................................................................................................................118
E$"fas$ism H 4en"$ide..............................................................................................................................................11%
>ee6 E$"l"g' H Na7i..................................................................................................................................................17(
>ee6 E$"H @66ressive )"liti$s...................................................................................................................................171
>ee6 E$" H &nti 5!man.............................................................................................................................................17*
>ee6 E$"l"gists &dv"$ate 5!man E-terminati"n......................................................................................................173
>ee6 E$"l"gi$al Ethi$s ,ail........................................................................................................................................174
E$" ,eminist Criti$ism "f >ee6 E$"..........................................................................................................................170
+hird 2"rld CritiK!e @f >ee6 E$"l"g'......................................................................................................................171
Envir"nmental )ragmatism.........................................................................................................................................177
1NC Shell 1/3
A. The quest for alternative energy is locked in the mindset of shallow ecological
consumerism
Fitz 7 B>"nI edit"r "f S'nthesis/Regenerati"n? & 8aga7ine "f 4reen S"$ial +h"!ght
Lhtt6?//....$"mm"ndreams."rg/ar$hive/*((7/(4/*3/1%4/M C"ns!me Like +hereGs N" +"m"rr"./ &6ril *3I
*((7C
Technocrats tend to have faith in unlimited potential for EE. +he tr!th is that .e have 6r"/a/l' seen m"st
"f the largest effi$ien$' im6a$ts and f!t!re $hanges .ill mainl' /e refinements that "ffer less and less
im6r"vement. The most important difficulty for EE is the market economy, which corporate
environmentalists love so much and understand so little. orporations d" n"t $"m6ete t" make less
m"ne'. +he' compete to increase their profits. 8arket f"r$es $"m6el ea$h $"r6"rati"n t" e-6and
6r"d!$ti"n as ra6idl' as 6"ssi/le. !hen more efficient heating is availa"le, corporations selling it will
encourage customers to turn up their thermostats and run around in their underwear in the middle of
winter. #eople live commuting distances from work. The automo"ile has lengthened that distance. Fuel
efficient cars will do nothing to affect that distance or the e$panding miles of road, the l"ss "f ha/itat
that a$$"m6anies r"ad $"nstr!$ti"nI s6a$e f"r 6arking "r energ' !sed in man!fa$t!ring $ars. #t is n"t hard t"
vis!ali7e '!66ies feeling s" sm!g a/"!t their EE a6artment in Ne. E"rk that the' /!' an EE h"me in
)h"eni-I an EE $"nd" in Chi$ag"I a h'/rid $ar f"r ea$h $it'I and a heli$"6ter m"dified t" r!n "n /i"f!els f"r
sh!ttling /et.een $ities. Energy efficiency is not efficient when some individual items are more efficient,
"ut the overall quantity of items increases so much that the total mass of energy used goes up instead "f
d".n. Like it "r n"tI that is the irredeema/le $"m6!lsi"n "f market e$"n"mi$s. +his is n"t t" sa' that EE
6la's n" r"le in 6reventing the 6lanet fr"m fr'ing. #t is t" sa' that EE m!st /e a$$"m6anied .ith an intense
6r"gram "f $"nservati"nI e$"n"mi$ redesign and g"vernmental reg!lati"n. 2ith"!t theseI EE in a market
economy is not merely worthless, "ut will likely result in e$panded production and increased glo"al
warming.
1NC Shell 2/3
%. This unethical framing sign nature&s death warrant and must "e re'ected
(mith )**+ B8i$kI D!eenGs =niversit'I Fingst"nI @ntari"I :S!s6ended &nimati"n? Radi$al E$"l"g'I
S"vereign )".ersI and Saving the BNat!ralC 2"rld;I 9"!rnal f"r the St!d' "f Radi$alismI <"l. *I N". 1I *((8I 66. 13C
2hat is m"re, this ethical and political concern separates radical ecologists, th"se who would go to the
root of that which threatens the world, fr"m the 6!rve'"rs "f envir"nmental e-6edien$'I from the
,shallow- Bt" !se &rne NaessGs termC environmentalists who formulate all concerns for the natural
world within the glo"ally dominant language of resource economics and management. .t e$presses the
difference "etween those who regard the natural world as a ,realm of ends- Bt" ad"6t a Fantian idi"mC
and those who account it merely a ,storehouse of means- of value only "ecause of its potential
usefulness toward humanly determined ends. /n this latter view the world is worth saving only in the
sense that one might prudently save money for a rainy day I "nl' as nat!ral $a6ital that earns !s interestI
rather than as that .hi$h is deserving "f "!r interestI "!r $"n$erns. Radi$al e$"l"gistsI thenI arg!e that a distin$ti"n
/et.een ends and meansI in the sense "f ethi$s and instr!mentalit'I is n" less im6"rtant .ith regard t" the nat!ral than t" the s"$ial
."rld. Saving the nat!ral ."rld is an end in itself. 3!tI .hat kind "f an end $an it /eN #n .hat sense $an .e s6eak "f a nat!ral ."rld "f
endsI and h". might this /e related t" $"n$erns a/"!t an e$"l"gi$al $risisI that is t" sa'I the 6"tential ending "f the Bnat!ralC ."rldN #n
an' eventI d oesn&t the re'ection of ,resourcism- 'ust confirm that radical ecology is, as sceptics suppose, a
ridiculous form of fundamentalism naively refusing to engage in realpolitik0 There are, .&d suggest, no
simple answers to such questions, although 'ust admitting this already "egins to distinguish radical
ecology from any single1minded fundamentalism. As an initial step, though, we might "egin "y
distinguishing a realpolitik that provides a systematically applied e$cuse to compromise one&s ethics
from a ,politics for the real 2natural3 world,- understood as an applied art of seeking, where possi"le,
ethical compromises, that isI a ."rldl' 6hr"nesisI an ethi$all' ins6ired 6"liti$al .isd"m. /f course,
speaking the language of resource economics mayI "n "$$asi"nI persuade sovereign powers to grant this
or that aspect of the natural world a temporary stay of e$ecution. %utI as Neil Evernden1 arg!esI it also,
.ittingl' "r !n.ittingl'I accepts the original terms on which nature&s death warrant has already "een
signed. .t concedes everything to an understanding of the world as no more than .hat 5eidegger B1%%3C
refers t" as a :standing reserve- of lifelessI that isI de-animated and n"na!t"n"m"!sI ,matter-
systematically ordered according to a technological enframing B4estellC.* The forests and their myriad
inha"itants are thus conceptually reduced to so many "oard feet of tim"er, the once roaring rivers to so
many kilowatt hours of hydroelectricity. ,r"m m"re radi$al 6ers6e$tivesI and at the risk "f seeming
!ngratef!l f"r small mer$iesI we might regard even those patches of the world momentarily set aside
from more corrosive forms of technologically mediated commodification as "eings left in a state of
suspended animation, as hanging dearly onto "are life a"ove the gallows1drop of glo"al capitalism. +he
fate "f the ."rldGs .hales is "nl' "ne $ase in 6"intAth"!gh :fate; is n"t the right ."rd hereI sin$e their salvati"n "r e-tin$ti"n isI f"r
the m"ment at leastI in h!man hands and n"t an iss!e 6redetermined /' irresisti/le Bs!6erC nat!ral f"r$es. 2e sh"!ld /ear in mind then
thatI like real6"litikI fate t"" 6r"vides a r!/ri$ that falsel' nat!rali7es ."rldl' a6ath'. 3"th terms im6l' that ethi$"6"liti$al a$ti"n is
irretrieva/l' s!/servient t" s"vereign 6".ersI 6".ers envisaged as 6r"gress "r the invisi/le hand "f the marketI .hi$h .e m!st a$$e6t
sin$e the' $ann"t /e resisted. 3!t neither term has a 6la$e in a 6"liti$s f"r the real Bnat!ralC ."rld 6re$isel' /e$a!seI at least fr"m the
6ers6e$tive "f radi$al e$"l"g'I this nat!rali7ati"n is indeed false. 4ature is not the source of the short1term,
calculating, self1interested individualism that constitutes the 2a3social world envisaged "y
contemporary advocates of realpolitik, nor should it "e made su"'ect to it. 4or is nature a synonym for,
or ruled "y, fate&s decree5 it is not governed "y powers that impose a predetermined order on the
world&s unfolding. The radical ecologist doesn&t want to save whales from realpolitik only to make
them su"'ect to some other predetermined fate Bas th"se .h" reOe$t all interferen$e in nat!ral 6r"$esses might d"CI n"r d"
the' .ant t" 6reserve them in timeless as6i$ in a m!se!m "r a d"l6hinari!m. To save the whales is to free them from all
claims of human sovereignty, t" release them int" the fl".s "f ev"l!ti"nar' timeI "f nat!ral hist"r'I O!st as the' release
themselves int" the fl".s "f the ."rldGs "$eans. This saving is an ethico1political action. A politics for the real
2natural3 world must then recognize that the technological enframing of the world, its ordering as
standing reserve, its "eing conceived as merely an instrumental means to human ends is not fated
either. 5eidegger .arns against :the talk .e hear m"re freK!entl'I t" the effe$t that te$hn"l"g' is the fate "f "!r ageI .here PfateG
means the inevita/leness "f an !naltera/le $"!rse.;3 NeverthelessI although not irresisti"le, this enframing is, in fact,
the ,supreme danger- from which a politics of natural reality must strive to save us all6whales,
humans, indeed the whole world. For, at this ver' m"ment, when humanity ,postures as lord of the
earth,-7 it too risks "eing reduced to standing reserve, to a material resource open to manipulation
and transformation.
1NC Shell 3/3
. Alternative 8 /nly radical deep ethico1political challenge to environmental humanism
addresses underlying foundations
S"vereign )".ersI and Saving the BNat!ralC 2"rld;I 9"!rnal f"r the St!d' "f Radi$alismI <"l. *I N". 1I *((8I 66 8-11C
Radi$al E$"l"g'I Radi$al )"liti$s This, perhaps, "egins to e$plain why one might claim that radical
ecology "e regarded as potentially the most radical form of politicsI .h' it "ffers the m"st f!ndamental
$hallenge t" the esta/lished "rderAthe 6"liti$al $"nstit!ti"ns and ide"l"gies "f m"dernism. Almost all other
contemporary forms of politics retain at their heart an e$plicit or implicit notion of sovereignty that
remains fundamentally unchallenged, a residual ideology of B6!r6"rtedl'C 'ustifia"ly accumulated
powers where"y one socio1politically defined "ody takes upon itself the right to decide what for others
are matters of life and death. @ftenI even otherwise radical perspectives e$plicitly accept some form of
sovereignty as a political necessity, as something inevita"le Bd!e t" the m"vement "f hist"r'I the la.s "f
s"$ial s$ien$e and/"r nat!reC or at least as politically e$pedient. .ronically, they do this even as they claim
to initiate a critique of sovereignty&s ethico1political foundations and implications in the name of
freedom from necessit 'Q 8"re im6"rtantl'I in the 6resent $"nte-tI even the most egalitarian humanist
political theories still assume, indeed actually "ase their arguments on, a political myth of human
sovereignty over the natural world, a selfacquired ,right- to define a "oundary of political and ethical
concern that su"sequently treats all outside that "oundary as mere means to serve the ends of those
within it.08 ,"r e-am6leI even many varieties of anarchism that otherwise offer the most thoroughgoing
critiques of every hint of sovereign powers, have often accepted, indeed cele"rated, human domination
over the nonhuman world. Even Fr"6"tkinI .h" arg!es that :ethi$al; $"n$erns are n"t "nl' the 6reserve "f h!mansI still "ften
6raises the s!66ressi"n "f n"nh!man nat!re in terms "f the $learan$e "f f"restsI the drainage "f marshesI the high.a's and railr"ads that
6ier$e the m"!ntains. +hese h!man e-am6les "f s"vereign 6".er "ver nat!re seemingl' need n" f!rther ethi$"-6"liti$al O!stifi$ati"n
/e$a!se the idea and ide"l"g' that nat!re e-ists s"lel' t" serve h!man needs is all 6ervasive.0% This kind of inclusive
e$clusion, the relegating of some inha"itants of the world to a state of e$ception, isI as S$hmittGs ."rk
s!ggestsI the !ltimate Band !ltimatel' !nO!stifia/le in an'thing /!t its ".n termsC foundation of all claims to political
sovereignty and, "f $"!rseI of Agam"en&s anthropological machine. 3!t $laims t" s"vereignt' are n"t there/'I as
&gam/en s!ggestsI merel' antitheti$al t" eman$i6at"r' h!man 6r"Oe$tsR the' are n"t merel' arti$!lated as a /i"6"liti$s a66lied "nl' t"
the h!man realm. Rather the' areI as arg!ed a/"veI inse6ara/l' $"nne$ted t" that "ther /i"6"liti$s that has esta/lished a state "f aff airsI
a te$hn"l"gi$al 4estellI /ased "n e$"l"gi$al transf"rmati"ns and devastati"n "n an !n6re$edented s$ale. This is why radical
ecology develops an ethico1political critique of, and direct challenge to, the most fundamental humanist
and modernist political assumption, that of human sovereignty over nature. The fundamental nature of
this critique in no way entails a reactionary form of ecological fundamentalism, a reversion to a
supposedly prepolitical natural order ruled over "y nature&s own sovereign powers. /n the contrary, it
is radical precisely "ecause it is an1archic in its repudiation of all claims of sovereign power and
"ecause it e$plicitly recognizes that the solution to our anthropogenic ecological crisis lies within
politics. %ut this has to "e a politics differently conceived, not one of retaining or even e$tending
humanity&s sovereign power and mastery over the world, "ut of eliciting the social and ecological
possi"ilities inherent within political action and grounded in ethical concern for others 2human and
nonhuman3, that is to say in the saving power that also emerges 2like hope from #andora&s "o$3 last of
all from our prepolitical ecological suspension. (o we must recognize that what Agam"en so hopefully
descri"es as the ,oming ommunity- will never actually "ecome a worldly possi"ility unless and
until politics is reenvisaged ecologically. This is why radical ecology offers such a vital political
challenge, and why it is ultimately founded upon the possi"ility of an environmental ethics, that is, in
our a"ilities to e$press concerns for those nonhuman 2as well as human3 others whose e$istence ,takes
place- all a"out us. &nd again this cannot "e legislated for or guaranteed "y sovereign powersI even
2especially3 in terms of some a"stract interspecific egalitarianism, "ut will only emerge though a
transformative politics that recognizes the constitutive 2n"t $"nstit!ti"nalC world1forming powers of
different forms of life, their infinite e$"l"gi$al 6"tentials.1( 9owever naively, this requires that we
"ecome alive to the world&s possi"ilities through recognizing that it isI after allI alive1to1us.
:::;inks:::
Link - San!ing "eser#e/En$ra%ing
Framing of the <ac constructs human and non 8 human nature as standing reserve
(mith + B8i$kI D!eenGs =niversit'I Fingst"nI @ntari"I :S!s6ended &nimati"n? Radi$al E$"l"g'I
S"vereign )".ersI and Saving the BNat!ralC 2"rld;I 9"!rnal f"r the St!d' "f Radi$alismI <"l. *I N". 1I *((8I 66 4-
0C
+his feeling "neself 6art "f B.hi$h is n"t the same as feeling at "ne .ithC a living world is not 'ust the
ground of radical ecology, "ut is originally present and made manifest in the phenomenal ground and
flow of every human e$istence. .t is certainly a sign of the successful dominance of the technological
=estell that many ,sophisticated- adults claim to no longer feel thi s B"r that the' have managed t"
re6ress s!$h feelingsC and that an entire polity is ordered on the "asis that such feelings are
unimportant. B+he fa$t that this enframing has res!lted in the s!$$essf!l eradi$ati"n "f n"nh!man nat!ral
matter fr"m an in$reasing 6r"6"rti"n "f s" man' h!man lives d"!/tless f"sters this.C 3 ut this =estell should
"e seen for what it is6a "izarre historical a"erration, and one thatI radi$al e$"l"gists ."!ld arg!eI is
closely connected to our current ecological pro"lems. !hen the world is challenged to appear in this
technological =estell, when nature is set upon and set in order as a resource, then f"r 5eideggerI
humanity too ,stands within the essential realm of enframing.-0 &nd againI this is n"t at all t" sa'I as .e
might /e tem6ted t" d"I that the fate "f h!manit' and the ."rld are ine-tri$a/l' ent.inedI /e$a!se this is n"t
a matter "f fate. 5eideggerGs "nt"l"g' isI in an' $aseI m!$h m"re intimate and this-."rldl'I and m!$h less
determinateI than this. +he enframing "f the ."rld en$"m6asses h!man /eing B>aseinC /e$a!se "!r e-isten$e
is al.a'sI alread'I that "f a /eing-inthe- ."rld. + he world only appears as it does through our "eing1
there, our emplacement within it. .ts appearance as standing reserve is the e$pression of a particularly
limited kind of human involvement within the world. To say that nature is a resource is to e$press
something of that limited and limiting mode of e$istence. !hat it e$presses is that we have forgotten
the nature of our "eing and, .e might addI "!r /eing in nat!reI forgotten that we can inha"it a living
world of ends. !hat it now threatens is the end of the world as anything other than an ethical and
political1free trade zone, a profit1driven system of circulating resources. .f we regard the natural world
as nothing "ut a resource, then we are left , at "est, with nothing to "ecome other than the orderers of
that resource. &t ."rst our lives come to "e entirely dictated "y this pro'ection, "y our "eing caught up
in endless cycles of resource mo"ilization. B+his is $l"se t" the realit' "f m!$h "f $"ntem6"rar' e-isten$eI
.hereI t" !se 5eideggerGs e-am6leI the f"rester :is made s!/"rdinate t" the "rdera/ilit' "f $ell!l"se.;1C +"
view the world as standing reserveI as a res"!r$eI is then a dangerous self1fulfilling prophecy that is
ultimately self1negating5 that is, it denies the ethico1political autonomy of human "eing 2of the self&s
e$istence3. #arado$ically, the presentation of the world as merely a means to suit human ends risks
eroding the freedom to determine one&s own destiny, to have one&s own life unfold as an ethico1political
end in itself in the company of others. #erhaps, ironically, it is only the fact that humans are, "y their
very nature, alive1to1the1world that offers any possi"ility of salvation here from the spiralling self1
referentiality of economically driven realities. 9umanity&s posturing as sovereign lord of the earth
fosters an illusion that everything we ,encounter e$ists only insofar as it is >humanity&s? construct ; and
an a$$"m6an'ing del!si"n that .e :al.a's and ever'.here en$"!nter;7 "nl' "!rselves Ban ill!si"n/del!si"n
s"metimes all t"" 6resent in th"se .riting a/"!t the s"$ial $"nstr!$ti"n "f nat!reC. +he ."rld-$reating
a$tivities "f nat!re are $"vered "verI hidden fr"m !s as .e $"me t" $"nsider ever'thing "f ."rldl'
signifi$an$e a 6r"d!$t "f "!r ".n d"ing. !e come to regard humanity as a world apart, somehow
e$isting outside of the natural world,
returning to it only to satisfy our socially determined needs. %ut we are not a world apart. 9uman
e$istence is not, in any sense, ultimately separa"le from its e$istence in the world. !e are "eings that
can only e$ist insofar as we stand out 2ek1sist3 into this world so that, in fact, we ,can never,-+ as
9eidegger emphasizes, encounter only ourselves.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 &
Link ' "eg(laions/)nceni#es
Attempts to address ecology through government regulations@incentives simply reformism
that can never solve
;uke ) 2Timothy, #rofessor of #olitical (cience at Airginia Tech, ,Beep EcologyC ;iving As .f 4ature Dattered-, Organization and
Environment, Aol. <E, .ssue ), pg <7+, Fune3
Geform environmentalism and radical ecology "oth focus on the unintended social costs of economic
growth, comple$ity, scale, and productivity BL!keI 1%%7C. Het reform environmentalists treat them as
minor pro"lems that can "e dealt with /' the 6!/li$ and n"t-f"r-6r"fit se$t"r .ith essentially minor
technocratic modifications "y government regulation or market-driven incentives f"r the 6rivate se$t"r
B>evallI 1%7%I 66. 1*%-100C. 8an' radical ecologistsI "n the "ther handI see the modern stateIs approach
to these Junintended costsJ as forgotten costs that "usiness, society, and government have always
known a"out "ut purposely suppressed B3estI 1%%8C. (uch costs never can "e eradicated entirely
"ecause an industrial economy presumes their recurring charges as e$ternalities. Gegulating them only
postpones the final reckoning "y hiding some costs elsewhere. A foundational change in thinking is
needed to attack the most "asic pro"lems1untrammeled economic growth, instrumental rationality,
and the reification of nature1implicit in capitalist industrialism BL!keI 1%%%R SallehI 1%%3C. 5en$eI deep
ecologists turn to repressed, ignored, or forgotten visions of ecological living, which persist "eneath,
"ehind, or "eyond the e$isting structures of industrial society.
Eco Bharma enter + 2,Gadical Ecology-, Eco Bharma enter, Fune +, httpC@@www.ecodharma.com@our1influences1ideas@radical1ecology3
There is n". one dominant glo"al cultureI an ever e-6ansi"nist and 6redat"r' ind!strial $a6italismI
valuing profit a"ove life. .t is a system which reduces the entire natural world m"!ntainsI f"restsI
"$eansR 6lants and animal s6e$ies Bin$l!ding h!man /eingsC into resources to "e ordered and controlled,
used and e$ploited in the pursuit of material growth and economic development 8 this ever more
suffocating technocratic system, is destroying the ecology of life. Radi$al e$"l"g' 6"ints "!t that
solutions to a crisis of this scale involve far more than technological fi$es or market incentivesC 9ow
can there "e technological solutions while the Kdrive to mastery& at the core of technological
development remains unchallengedN 5". $an there /e market /ased "r $"ns!mer driven s"l!ti"ns !nless
.e realise that an e$"n"mi$ s'stem that regards the nat!ral ."rld as s" man' res"!r$es t" /e /"!ghtI s"ldI
and $"mm"dified is dee6l' irre$"n$ila/le .ith a tr!l' e$"l"gi$al sensi/ilit'N 9ow can we hope that
legislation and regulation will "e adequate while our political systems continue to support the
disempowerment of the ma'ority of humankind, and drift ine$ora"ly towards life"oat
authoritarianism0 Em/ra$ing /"th dee6 e$"l"g' and s"$ial e$"l"g'I radical ecology seeks to champion a
sustaina"le and socially 'ust world through the transformation of the conditioning factors which e$ist
"oth within our individual consciousness and which are inscri"ed in our social1economic, political1
'udicial and technological systems, in a way that highly determines our lives. +he term >ee6 E$"l"g' .as first
$"ined in 1%7* /' N"r.egian 6hil"s"6her &rne Naess. 5e !sed the term t" 6"int "!t a distin$ti"n /et.een a :shall".; anthr"6"$entri$
and te$hn"$rati$ envir"nmental m"vement $"n$erned 6rimaril' .ith 6"ll!ti"nI res"!r$e de6leti"nI and the :health and affl!en$e "f
6e"6le in the devel"6ed $"!ntries;I and a :>ee6I L"ng-Range E$"l"g' m"vement;.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1*
Link ' +lernai#e Energy
Alternative energy is 'ust a "and1aid fi$ to our environmental pro"lems1 only "y decreasing
our consumption can we solve
hris + BLhtt6?//....stati"nst"6s.$"m/*((8/(1/*1/the-real-s"l!ti"n-t"-the-energ'-6r"/lem-rati"ning/M +he Real
S"l!ti"n +" +he Energ' )r"/lem? Rati"ning/ 9!ne *1I *((8C
# have /een d"ing s"me resear$h int" alternative energ' s"l!ti"ns latel'I and # have $"me t" m' ".n
$"n$l!si"ns a/"!t how we really need to address the energy and glo"al warming crisis in the near term.
+he ans.er is neither unique nor se$y 8 its good ol conservation. Like a lot of people, # reall' would like
to have alternative energy sources like solar and wind power 'ust pick up the slack and allow us to
continue our energy1go""ling lifestyles guilt1free. %ut that&s not going to happenI n"t in m' lifetime. +he
fa$t is that s"lar and .ind 6".er sim6l' d" n"t have the 6ra$ti$al $"st and effi$ien$ies that /!rning f"ssil f!el
d"esI and thatGs realit'. # kn". a lot of people would like to "lame our government, oil companies, or
some secret ca"al from making solar power "e a drop1in replacement that takes us off the grid, "ut this
is conspiracy fantasy. 8an' "f the .ealthiest energ' and te$hn"l"g' $"m6anies and 7ai/ats!s in the ."rld
have 6!t /illi"ns int" s"lar energ' resear$h "ver the last 3( 'earsI and .eGre at .here .eGre at. The promise
of owning the technology of practical clean energy generation which competes with fossil fuels is a"out
as good as it gets as far as corporate incentive to innovate is concerned.
Attempts at energy efficiency will ultimately fail1 the only real solution to our
environmental pro"lems is a decrease in consumerism
*((7C
!hen is energy efficiency not efficient0 &lm"st as m!$h as s"lar and .ind 6".erI energy efficiency is
"ecoming the unquestioned mantra of solutions to glo"al warming. Refrigerat"rs that !se 70S less
energ' are a 6l!s. Even /etter ."!ld /e the 4erman-designed )assivha!sI .hi$h is s" .ell ins!lated that it
has 7er" heating and $""ling s'stems. EE is good. %ut pro'ections a"out what it can offer sometimes
"order on hallucinations. +his is the $ase .ith the &SES/Sierra $laim that EE $an "ffset gl"/al .arming /'
07S. +he first limitati"n "n EE is the "ld ma-im that the more parts there are to a system, the more parts
there are to "reak. +he &SES/Sierra re6"rt reads like an en$'$l"6edia "f te$hn"-fi- gadgets f"r /!ildingsI
$ars and h"les in the earth. Each item involves increased industrial interdependence. As resources come
to "e in short supply from e$haustion or wars or hoarding, the future is likely to see a decline in the
a"ility to patch up interconnected systems. %ecoming more dependent on them more "egs for
industrial "reakdown. Another factor that works against EE is the law of diminishing returns. 9"se6h
+ainter e-6lained that societies "egin to collapse when resources are drained to meet the needs of
increasing comple$ity. Similarl'I the "iggest impact of discoveries come when they are first introduced.
That&s when there is the greatest energy returned on energy invested. Additional refinements tend to
cost more and yield less. /il was cheap and easy to o"tain when it oozed to the surface. As time goes
on, oil "ecomes more e$pensive to pump, the availa"le quantity decreases, and the quality worsens.
The "iggest impact of drugs came with anti"iotics. N". .e are /"m/arded .ith ads f"r ne. dr!gs that
$"st m"re t" resear$h /!t have fe.er advantages "ver the 6revi"!s generati"n "f dr!gs.
Link ' En#, -olicy%aking
The motivation of the state is profit, turning environmental issues into political issues will
ultimately fail, distracting us from the moral and normative causes of the crisis
=eus ) B8ari!s de L)"liti$al S$ien$e >e6artment LeidenM +5E EN> @, EN<#R@N8EN+&L#S8N ? +5E
EN<#R@N8EN+ <ERS=S #N>#<#>=&L ,REE>@8 &N> C@N<EN#ENCE1/ 8ar$h *((*C
5".everI the more the environmental issues were integrated "y the 2estern states, the more they have
"ecome a standard part of democratic and strategic planning, transforming Kenvironmental issues
from intrinsically controversial, normative political issues into technical, policy issues&, as 8ar$el
2issen/!rg rightl' arg!es in his 6a6er f"r this $"nferen$e.* Ever sin$e environmental questions have
"ecome less open to pu"lic scrutiny and dee6-g"ing n"rmative de/ate. #n this .a' in man' 2estern
$"!ntries environmental issues have "ecome a part of everyday political struggles and .ere a/s"r/ed
.ithin the frame."rk "f s"$ietal de$isi"n-making. The consequence of these processes has "een that
nowadays less attention is drawn to the underlying normative and moral questions of the
environmental crisis. 2estern g"vernments have t" a large degree s!$$eeded in 6a$if'ing the e$"l"gi$al
$ritiK!e /' t!rning envir"nmental 6r"/lems int" "ne "f the man' Pda' t" da'G te$hni$al 6"li$' iss!es that $an
/e s"lved /' /!rea!$rati$ management a66r"a$hes.3 Se$"ndI in the last t." de$ades .estern li/eral
democracies have opted for a general environmental strategy which would yield a profit for all the
parties involvedC citizens, trade and industry, nature and environment. +he "asic assumption was that
environmental policy has to contri"ute to sustaina"le economic development in .hi$h e$"n"mi$ gr".thI
strengthening "f $"m6etitiveness and an in$rease "f em6l"'ment $an /e $"m/ined .ith a /etter $"nservati"n
"f nat!reI /i"diversit' and a de$rease "f 6ress!re "n the envir"nment. +he overall aim of environmental
policy has "een to relieve the tension "etween the economy and ecology in Kcreative and sophisticated
ways& that will lead to so called Kwin1winsituationsGI fr"m .hi$h /"th the e$"n"m' and the envir"nment
.ill /enefit B8inisterie van <R@8 1%%1? 1C.
Link ' +lernai#e Energy
.ncreasing energy efficiency is futile, we should "e trying to get rid of the root pro"lem of
consumption
*((7C
Anyone who has ever fought an incinerator, cement kiln or coal plant knows that you&ve lost the
struggle if you ever let industry suck you into an argument a"out which pollution control device should
"e tacked on after to$ins have "een created. The only genuine solution is the easy one 1 to prevent the
creation of the poisons in the first place. #f s"me"ne tries t" sell an in$inerat"r "r an EE s'stem thatGs t""
$"m6li$ated t" !nderstandI that $"!ld indi$ate itGs a /ad idea. 8aking things sim6le is t'6i$all' the r"!te "f
greatest effi$ien$'. A narrow focus on technology seeks to replace a gee1gaw with a doo1dad, and when
that doesn&t work, come up with a gizmo. +e$hn"-/a//le s6!tters f"rth fr"m the /elief that s"$ial 6r"/lems
$an /e s"lved in a K!est f"r the !ltimate gadget. /"livious to social reasons for glo"al warming, the
A(E(/Sierra report claims that whatever greenhouse gas pro"lems remain after EE can "e solved with
si$ renewa"le te$hn"l"gies? :$"n$entrating s"lar 6".erI 6h"t"v"ltai$sI .ind 6".erI /i"massI /i"f!els and
ge"thermal 6".er.; +he last three "f these are te$hn"-/a//le.
Link Alternative Energy
Environmental policies divert attention from actually reducing energy consumption, the
only sustaina"le solution to environmental pro"lems
*((7C
#erpetual motion machines, "iomass and "iofuels will not halt species e$tinction caused "y climate
change. &gainI effi$ien$' and s"lar and .ind 6".er are $riti$al $"m6"nents "f a s!staina/le s"$iet'. 3!t
focusing on them diverts attention from the real issues that need to "e addressed 1 how to dramatically
reduce energy production while improving the quality of life. This is the "asis for the hard questions
that corporate environmentalists avoid.
Environmental policies influence "y corporations who are the root cause of environmental
pro"lems
*((7C
The creation of artificial wants for new o"'ects is e$ploding like genetically engineered diseases in a
"io1defense la". 5". d" .e $"nvin$e /ig envir" that it is n"t :sa$rifi$e; "r :de6rivati"n; t" f"$!s "n
man!fa$t!ring items that 6e"6le a$t!all' need and .ill lastN !e all want to "elieve that our checks to
(ierra or the 4ature onservancy do some good in the long run and that they are 'ust a little slow to do
the right thing. The tough reality is that "ig enviro is doing "ad things that lead in the wrong direction.
The most "asic task for stopping glo"al warming is having a moral, ethical and spiritual revolution
"ased on the "elief that e$cessive crap is "ad. Red!$ti"n "f !nne$essar' 6r"d!$ti"n is the antithesis "f
.hat $"r6"rati"ns are all a/"!t. 9owever destructive it is for the planet, corporations must seek to
convince people to consume more and more. Enter "ig enviro telling people that e$cessive consumption
is not "ad at all "ecause it gives the consumer the a"ility to affect change with purchasing power. The
erudite techno1magician waves his wand, uttering ,Bon&t look at the mounds of discarded 'unk that go
into landfills. ;ook over here at the fa"ulous eco1gadgets of our corporate friends.; 3ig envir" ma' /e
d"ing m"re t" 6reserve the eth"s "f self-dev"!ring $"ns!merism than /ig $"r6"rati"ns $"!ld ever d". 2hat a
s!r6rise t" learn that the Sierra Cl!/ has a hist"r' "f "/taining f!nds fr"m Chemi$al 3ankI &RC@ and 3ritish
)etr"le!m. %ig enviro 'ust may deliver to "ig oil what it most needs 1 faith that a market economy can
protect the planet. Larl Dar$ once said something to the effect that if there were only two capitalists
left, they would compete to see which would sell the rope to hang the other one. A modern version
might "e that if the planet was so roasted that only two "ig enviro groups remained, they would
compete to see which could get a grant from "ig oil to show that what was left of the world could "e
saved "y consumer choices.
Link ' Cli%ae Change ' .echnological /i0
Attempts to address climate change through technical fi$es masks underlying consumptive
patterns of ur"an sprawl
=onzalez E B4e"rge &. 4I >e6artment "f )"liti$al S$ien$eI =niversit' "f 8iami C"ral 4a/lesI Environmental
PoliticsI <"l. 14I N". 3I 344 31*I 9!neC
Es6e$iall' since the (econd !orld !ar, sprawling ur"an communities have
"een an important source of growth in glo"al economic demand 8 pushing up
consumption of such commodities as land, gasoline, electricity, automo"iles
and h"!seh"ld a66lian$es B@lne' 1%%1R ,r!mkin *((4C. !hile increasing
effective glo"al demand, ur"an sprawl has had the unintended consequence of
significantly contri"uting to glo"al climate change. +his is "ecause ur"an
sprawl is predicated on large, ine$pensive inputs of energy drawn from fossil
fuels. 2ith"!t s!$h large and relativel' $hea6 in6!tsI !r/an s6ra.l t" the
e-tent that it has "$$!rred is seemingl' !nfeasi/le.
The methods of ur"an sprawl, la/elled here the =S m"del "f !r/an
devel"6mentI were perfected and politically championed "y M( real estate
interests /eginning in the late nineteenth $ent!r'. Today, additional economic
interests have taken a political lead in defending this form of ur"an
development Bf"r e-am6leI the =S "il se$t"rGs a$tive "66"siti"n t" the F'"t"
)r"t"$"lC. &ls"I the automo"ile industry is very aggressive in seeking to e$pand
automotive demand throughout the glo"e, es6e$iall' in the devel"6ing ."rld
BC"n'/eare *((4C. The result of this political activity has "een to keep ur"an
sprawl off the international political agenda as it relates to climate change.
2ith !r/an s6ra.l serving t" hel6 sta/ilise the internati"nal e$"n"m' and a
ke' s"!r$e "f f!t!re e$"n"mi$ gr".thI the leading international "usiness
organisations seeking to address climate change 8 the 23CS> and the #CC
have sought to do so through technology and have eschewed environmentally
sensitive land management. (uch an approach to land management would
directly and assuredly reduce climate change emissions, and "e consistent with
strong ecological modernisation. +he 23CS> and the #CC instead advocate
weak ecological modernisation via technology that could potentially a"ate
greenhouse gas emissions or capture them, or, ideally, offer a cheap and clean
su"stitute for fossil fuels. %ut such technologies could "e 'ust as environmentally
damaging as greenhouse gas emissions. 8"re"verI while one waits for
such technologies to develop and "e deployed, the environmental effects of
climate change emissions could "ecome irreversi"le.
Link ' "ene1a2les
Ever' Rene.a/le S"!r$e 5as & Negative #m6a$t @n +he Envir"nment
)arkins 1 2Leith, Environment and =lo"alization Author, htt6?//h"me.$lara.net/he!reka/gaia/energ'.htmC
4o renewa"le sources are without pro"lems. ;arge wind tur"ines, hydro1schemes, wave power are all
with associated pro"lems. There is no large1scale dam that has not caused ma'or environmental and
social pro"lems. 8an' have half-lives that are meas!red in tens "f 'earsI s"me have silted !6 /ef"re the
6".er generati"n has g"ne "n stream. !ave power a"sor"s energy from the waves, this loss of energy
impacts upon the shore, causing unpredicta"le changes.
Msing Krenewa"les& must "ring no harm to the environment
BiNerga < B4!sI University of California, Berkeley professor with the Institute of Governmental Studies , :>ee6 E$"l"g' and Li/eralism?
+he 4reener #m6li$ati"ns "f Ev"l!ti"nar' Li/eral +he"r'; 6. 7710-34 The Review of PoliticsC
3!t 8a$' g"es /e'"nd ev"l!ti"nar' li/eral th"!ght in $"ntending that Ta social system isO dysfunctional
within the larger systemic hierarchy when it cannot integrate its mem"ers to e$ist in harmony with
other societies or with the ecosphere.J7+ This multiple community insight across species "oundaries is
the core contri"ution that deep ecologists can make to the evolutionary li"eral paradigm. #t f"$!ses
attenti"n "n the K!esti"n "f /"rder 6r"/lems. +his is the envir"nmental eK!ivalent "f the $"n$ern that the
li/eral "rder de6ends !6"n $!st"ms and $"mm!nities .hi$h it $ann"t generate and ma' !ndermine. 9ow
should li"eral society relate decently with the nonhu man world0 &n insight "f 5a'ekUs hel6s t" "rient !s.
E-6edien$'I .hen !sed t" eval!ate a 6r"s6e$tive immediate gain against a 6r"s6e$tive f!t!re l"ss .ill /e
/iased in fav"r "f the 6r"mised 6resent gain. #n self-"rgani7ing systems it will frequently appear that
specific interventions which override their constitutive prin ciples will quickly lead to desired outcomes.
%ut these interventions disrupt the process of mutual ad'ustment which maintain the system as a
whole, disrupting its capacity to ad'ust to change and reducing its a"ility to serve the ma$imum
num"er of participants. +his is .h' 5a'ek arg!ed that in pu"lic policy principles should trump
e$pediency.7% 5a'ekUs 6"int holds equally with our interactions in the natural world. 3!t .hat
6rin$i6les sh"!ld the' /eN Clearl'I 6rin$i6les .hi$h ena/le the envir"nmental $"mm!nit' t" s!stain itself. &
maO"r s!staining 6rin$i6le is that using a renewa"le re source should "e in harmony with its indefinite
renewal. .n using an ecosystem for resource e$traction, actions such as polluting ground water,
destroying soil fertility, and eliminating ecosys tems s!$h as salm"n rivers and "ld gr".th f"rests would "e
inadmissi"le.
The o"ligation to o"serve strict renewa"ility without the creation of dangerous "y1
products, even where they limit modern development, is ethically equivalent to the inter1
human o"ligations not to kill, steal, or invade.
& third 6rin$i6le is that re$'$la/le and /i"degrada/le 6r"d!$ti"n sh"!ld /e en$"!raged. The wastes every
organism produces are useful to others, e$cept for some of those characterizing modern society. Thus,
there should "e a powerful presumption against creating products which do not "iodegrade, recycle, or
otherwise convert to another useful state. This presumption is at its strongest with regard to to$ic
wastes. Landfills are n"t s" m!$h a $risis as a s'm/"l "f a $!lt!re .hi$h seeks t" take and give n"thing /a$k.
Certainl' th"se 6r"d!$ts "f h!man life .hi$h $an /e ret!rned t" the envir"nment in a 6r"d!$tive .a'I s!$h as
se.age sl!dgeI sh"!ld /e. These principles are not su"versive to the well1"eing of the other "asic
communities to which we "elong, although they will limit certain activities some people currently take
for granted. They are, however, central to maintaining the environmental communityIs indefinite
sustaina"ility. Their rigorous o"servance is therefore as ethically 'ustified as are the "asic rules
for"idding violence, theft, and invasion within purely human communities
Link - Car2on .a0
ar"on Ta$ .s Anthropocentric
.rvine + 2Go"ert Dac&;ean, (enior #olicy Advisor /n ommittee of (alinity, 7@)**+,
httpC@@www.sydneyalternativemedia.com@id<7P.html3
#n the same .a' the nati"n states and $"r6"rati"ns have $reated and e-6l"ited s"vereign $hattel m"ne' t"
amass kn".ledgeI skill and 6".er the' B.eI the 6e"6leC $an make and !se s"vereign s"$ial and nat!re m"ne'
t" manifest the s"$ial and nat!ral .ealth $reati"n energies that h!manit' $"n$erted m!st m!ster t" st"6
f!rther h!man ind!$ed e$"s'stem degradati"n immediatel' and start ."rk rest"ring "!r l"st e$"s'stem
servi$es as fast as .e 6"ssi/l' $an. A sovereign car"on ta$ or emission cap is 'ust a form of sovereign
nature money, and it would not "e "eyond the governments that will soon apply them, to ensure that
those who "uild natural wealth "y strictly constraining car"on emissions and slowing the flu$ of
EarthIs car"on in geo and "io1sequestration, grow rich "y accumulating lots of nature money wealth.
9!st as all $hattel m"ne' is relative t" all $hattel .ealth Bthe !tilit' "f things ".nedCI s"$ial m"ne' is relative
t" $!lt!ral .ealth Bthe !tilit' "f "!r artI lang!ageI n!rt!ring and kn".ledgeC and nat!re m"ne' is relative t"
nat!ral .ealth Bthe !tilit' "f EarthUs e$"s'stem servi$esC.
Link ' Cars
!e need to interrogate the logic of transportation, not simply search for a more efficient
car
9ein"erg + 2Gichard, (enior Fellow At The #ost ar"on .nstitute, ,!hat ar Bo Hou Brive0-, T9E E/;/=.(T, Q@<P,
httpC@@www.theecologist.org@pages@archiveRdetail.asp0contentRidS<++E3
/ur transition away from fossil fuels will require a societal effort at a scale and speed never "efore
seen5 we can&t afford to waste investment capital and precious years pursuing false solutions such as
alternative fuels. Ele$tri$ $ars ma' /e a /etter ideaI /!t .hen $"m6aring a!t"-/ased trans6"rt s'stems .ith
rail-/ased "6ti"ns even ele$tri$ $ars l""k like res"!r$e gl!tt"ns. !e don&t need alternative cars5 we need
alternatives to cars, starting with ways to reduce our need for travel in the first place. )erha6s th"se "f
!s .h" have arrived at this $"n$l!si"n ma' /e f"rgiven a less-than-O"'"!s res6"nse t" the re$ent !nveiling "f
+ata 8"t"r C"m6an'Gs V1I*(( Nan"I an a!t" /eing marketed t" tens "f milli"ns "f 6revi"!sl' $ar-free &sians
.h" $an n". aff"rd a s$aled-d".n versi"n "f the "/Oe$t that half-a-/illi"n inha/itants "f .ealthier $"!ntries
take f"r granted. >"esnGt ever'"ne deserve the $"mf"rt and $"nvenien$e .e enO"'N #tGs an insidi"!s K!esti"n.
Like the title "f this essa'I it 6res!66"ses a great deal. /nly "y unpacking and picking apart our
assumptions a"out the future of transportation can we hope to overcome the sinister logic of universal
car ownershipI a logic that leads to universal destruction. &re /i"f!els a /ad idea in ever' instan$eN
)r"/a/l' n"t. Sh"!ld $ar ".ners /e dem"nisedN +hatGs neither 6"lite n"r hel6f!l. %ut until we collectively,
through co1ordinated policies, reverse course and stop "oth "uilding roads and looking to alternative
fuels for a solution, we&re all on a highway to hell.
Link - Solar Energy
S"lar )anels &re 3ad ,"r +he Envir"nment
5em/erger 4 2#eter, Founder of August Earth, /cto"er<7, )**7,
httpC@@www.crest.org@articles@static@<@PPE7QPP<TR).htmlUenvironment3
>!ring "6erati"nI )< and s"lar thermal te$hn"l"gies 6r"d!$e n" air 6"ll!ti"nI little "r n" n"iseI and reK!ire
n" trans6"rta/le f!els. /ne environmental worry with solar technologies is the lead1acid "atteries that
are used with some systems. This is a concern especially in developing countries where proper disposal
and recycling is not always availa"le. +he im6a$t "f these lead /atteries is lessening h".ever as /atteries
/e$"me m"re re$'$la/leI /atteries "f im6r"ved K!alit' are 6r"d!$ed and /etter K!alit' s"lar s'stems that
enhan$e /atter' lifetimes are $reated. L31M A second environmental concern with solar technologies is the
difficulty or recycling heavy metals such as cadmium, which are used in #A cells. Fust as there is a
large worry a"out the large amount of discarded personal computers that may pile up and leach
cadmium, mercury, and lead into the environment, there is a worry that the cadmium used in
discarded #A panels may also "e an environmental threat. >T)? (ince the use of cadmium sulfide in the
production of #A panels is on the rise 2replacing the more e$pensive silicon3this is an issue that should
"e considered. L33M Sin$e the envir"nmental im6a$t "f s"lar te$hn"l"gies is relativel' smallI it is 6erha6s
m"re /enefi$ial t" take a l""k at the en"rm"!s am"!nt "f 6"ll!ti"n that is 6revented d!e t" the !se "f s"lar
te$hn"l"gies.
S"lar )".er 5armf!l +" 2ildlife )r"te$ti"n
Mnion /f oncerned (cientists + 2,Environmental .mpacts /f Genewa"le Energy
Technologies-, Fune <P, )**+,
httpC@@www.ucsusa.org@cleanRenergy@renewa"leRenergyR"asics@environmental1impacts1of1
renewa"le1energy1technologies.html3
The large amount of land required for utility1scale solar power 6lants-a66r"-imatel' "ne sK!are
kil"meter f"r ever' *(-1( mega.atts B82C generated-poses an additional pro"lemI especially where
wildlife protection is a concern. 3!t this 6r"/lem is n"t !niK!e t" s"lar 6".er 6lants. 4enerating ele$tri$it'
fr"m $"al a$t!all' requires as much or more land per unit of energy delivered if the land used in strip
mining is taken into account. (olar1thermal plants Blike m"st $"nventi"nal 6".er 6lantsC also require
cooling water, which may "e costly or scarce in desert areas.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1&
Link - Wind Energy
2ind ,arms >isr!6t L"$al 2eather )atterns
S$ien$e >ail' 0 2,!ind Farms .mpacting !eather-, (cience Baily, /cto"er <, )**E,
httpC@@www.sciencedaily.com@videos@)**E@<*<)1windRfarmsRimpactingRweather.htm3
!ind farms may have an impact on local weather patterns. As environmental engineers have
discovered, wind farm propellers create a lot of tur"ulence in their wake, mi$ing air up and down with
effects that can "e detected for miles. 3!t m"re effi$ient r"t"rs ma' signifi$antl' red!$e this 6r"/lem.
>=R5&8I N.C.--E"!Uve seen the 6ri$es at the 6!m6 g" !6 and n". h"me heating $"sts are "n the rise. &nd
s$ientists are l""king t" the .ind f"r a m!$h needed alternative t" f!el. +he'Ure the things that f!el "!r livesI
/!t .hat f!els them is r!nning l".. S$ientists ma' have f"!nd an ans.er .ith .ind farms. S"mnath 3aid'a
R"'I fr"m the de6artment "f $ivil and envir"nmental engineering at >!ke =niversit' in >!rhamI N.C.I sa'sI
T#tUs ver' $lear t" ever'/"d' that .e have t" m"ve a.a' fr"m $"nventi"nal f"ssil f!els like $"al and "il and
l""k at alternatives.T !ith a new power source comes an impact to our environment. R"' sa'sI T;arge
wind farms can significantly affect local meteorology.J 5e st!died these massive ma$hines and /elieves
.ind farms $an a$t!all' im6a$t "!r .eather /e$a!se .ind t!rns the /lades "f the t!r/ine ar"!nd a r"t"rI
.hi$h hel6s generate ele$tri$it' the "lades create a lot of tur"ulence in the wake. R"' sa'sI T#tUs
s"mething like the .ake fr"m the 6r"6eller "f a /"at. 4ow this added tur"ulences mi$es air up and down
and creates a warming and drying effect near the ground.T 9e says the affects can "e felt for miles and
could have an impact on air conditioning costs and more money may have to "e spent on irrigation of
near"y crops. 5e /elieves the s"l!ti"n is sim6le -- $reate /etter r"t"rs. T2e f"!nd that l".-t!r/!len$e r"t"rs
are m"re e$"n"mi$all' effi$ientI the' tend t" generate m"re ele$tri$it' than $"nventi"nal r"t"rsIT he sa's.
!ind farms tend to impact the weather more at night, which is when the wind is usually stronger and
the most energy is generated.
2ind +!r/ines =nrelia/le
)arkins 1 2Leith, Environment and =lo"alization Author, )**Q,
htt6?//h"me.$lara.net/he!reka/gaia/energ'.htmC
Small wind tur"inesI a fe. kil".attsI are generally regarded as unrelia"le. +his is t" mis!nderstand
relia/le. #t is tr!e that the' $an n"t /e relied !6"n t" generate ele$tri$it' 1((S "f the time "r t" generate
s!ffi$ient all "f the time /!t that is t" miss the 6"int. !hilst they are generating, each kilowatt output is a
kilowatt not drawn from the grid, when in surplus power can "e returned to the grid. .t is also to focus
upon electricity. The tur"ines can "e used to generate rough electricity 2not suita"le for telecomms3 "ut
this can "e fed into a load for space heating or pre1heating of water.
!ind Energy .s Betrimental To !ildlife
4ew Hork Times Q 2,Be"ate /ver !ind #ower reates Environmental Gift-, Fune Q, )**Q,
httpC@@www.nytimes.com@)**Q@*Q@*Q@us@*Qwind.html0partnerSrssnytVemcSrss3
>an 3""ne has n" d"!/t that his $r!sade against wind energy is the right .a' t" 6r"te$t the &lleghen'
highlands he l"ves. Let "ther envir"nmentalists $all him del!ded at /estI trait"r"!s at ."rst. 5e remains
!ndeterred. ,"r f"!r 'ears "r m"reI 8r. 3""ne has traveled a$r"ss the mid-&tlanti$ t" make ever' arg!ment
he $an m!ster against l"$al .ind-6".er 6r"Oe$ts? the' kill "irds and "ats5 they are too noisy5 they are
inefficient, making no more than a sym"olic contri"ution to energy needs.
Link - Wind Energy
!ind #ower reates Environmental onflicts
#n "ther settingsI h".ever, wind power development can create serious land1use conflicts. .n forested
areas it may mean clearing trees and cutting roads, a prospect that is sure to generate controversy,
e$cept possi"ly in areas where heavy logging has already occurred. &nd near 6"6!lated areasI .ind
6r"Oe$ts "ften r!n int" stiff "66"siti"n fr"m 6e"6le .h" regard them as !nsightl' and n"is'I "r .h" fear their
6resen$e ma' red!$e 6r"6ert' val!es. #n Calif"rniaI "ird deaths from electrocution or collisions with
spinning rotors have emerged as a pro"lem at the Altamont #ass wind Jfarm,J where more than T*
threatened golden eagles and 7E other raptors such as red1tailed hawks died or were in'ured during a
three1year period. St!dies !nder .a' t" determine the $a!se "f these deaths and find 6reventive meas!res
ma' have an im6"rtant im6a$t "n the 6!/li$ image and rate "f gr".th "f the .ind ind!str'. #n a66r"6riate
areasI and .ith imaginati"nI $aref!l 6lanningI and earl' $"nta$ts /et.een the .ind ind!str'I envir"nmental
gr"!6sI and affe$ted $"mm!nitiesI siting and envir"nmental 6r"/lems sh"!ld n"t /e ins!rm"!nta/le.
Link - 3ikes
%ikes Are !orse For the Environment Than ars
Donga"ay Q 2,%icycle Giders !orse For the Environment Than ars-, Fuly )), )**Q,
httpC@@news.monga"ay.com@)**Q@*7))1"ikes.html3
& ne. 6a6er arg!es that "icycling may "e more damaging to the environment than driving a carI /!t n"t
f"r the reas"n '"! might think. Farl +. =lri$hI a 6r"fess"r at the 2hart"n S$h""l "f the 3!siness at the
=niversit' "f )enns'lvaniaI arg!es that there are environmental costs associated with increased longevity
of those who engage in physical activity. Mlrich reasons that "ecause cyclists live longer they will
produce more car"on emissions over the course of their e$tended life. T(u"stituting "icycling for
driving is frequently promoted as a means of reducing energy consumption and the associated
degradation of the environmentIT .rites =lri$h. 2hile /i$'$les have Tdramati$all' l".er energ'
reK!irementsT than $arsI Tthe environmental "enefits of human power are, however, strongly coupled to
the environmental costs of increased populationI d!e t" in$reased l"ngevit' "f th"se .h" engage in
6h'si$al a$tivit'... 5!man-6".ered trans6"rtati"n is theref"re less an envir"nmental iss!e and m"re an iss!e
"f 6!/li$ health. The interplay "etween longevity and environmental impact is a central feature of the
conflicting societal o"'ectives of improving human health and increasing environmental
sustaina"ility.J
Ele$tri$ 3ikes Emit Lead #nt" +he Envir"nment
Cherr' 7 2hristopher, #rofessor at Mniversity of Tennessee1Lno$ville, 4ovem"er P, )**7,
;.AE(.E4E, httpC@@www.livescience.com@environment@*7<<*P1"ts1electric1"ikes.html3
Electric "ikes use one car1sized lead acid "attery per year. Each "attery represents T*17* percent of its
lead content emitted to the environment in the production processes, resulting in a"out T kilograms of
lead emitted per "attery produced. 2hen s$aled !6 the 4( milli"n ele$tri$ /ikes $!rrentl' "n the r"adsI this
is an astonishing amount of lead emitted into the environment.
Link - 4eoher%al Energy
=eothermal Energy .s To$ic To The Environment
/pen1loop systemsI "n the "ther handI $an generate large amounts of solid wastes as well as no$ious
fumes. Detals, minerals, and gases leach out into the geothermal steam or hot water as it passes
through the rocks. The large amounts of chemicals released when geothermal fields are tapped for
commercial production can "e hazardous or o"'ectiona"le to people living and working near"y. &t +he
4e'sersI the largest ge"thermal devel"6mentI steam vented at the s!rfa$e $"ntains h'dr"gen s!lfide B5*SC-
a$$"!nting f"r the areaUs Tr"tten eggT smell-as .ell as amm"niaI methaneI and $ar/"n di"-ide. At
hydrothermal plants car"on dio$ide is e$pected to make up a"out <* percent of the gases trapped in
geopressured "rines. ,"r ea$h kil".att-h"!r "f ele$tri$it' generatedI h".everI the am"!nt "f $ar/"n di"-ide
emitted is still "nl' a/"!t 0 6er$ent "f the am"!nt emitted /' a $"al- "r "il-fired 6".er 6lant.
9ydrothermal Energy .s 9azardous To 4ational #arks
The development of hydrothermal energy faces a special pro"lem. Dany hydrothermal reservoirs are
located in or near wilderness areas of great natural "eauty s!$h as Eell".st"ne Nati"nal )ark and the
Cas$ade 8"!ntains. #roposed developments in such areas have aroused intense opposition. .f
hydrothermal1electric development is to e$pand much further in the Mnited (tates, reasona"le
compromises will have to "e reached "etween environmental groups and industry.
Link - 5y!ropo1er
9ydropower Guins Ecosystems %oth Mpstream and Bownstream
+hat envir"nmental $"n$erns ."!ld $"nstrain hydropower devel"6ment in the =nited States is 6erha6s
ir"ni$I sin$e these plants produce no air pollution or greenhouse gases. Het, as the salmon e$ample
makes clear, they affect the environment. +he im6a$t "f ver' large dams is s" great that there is alm"st n"
$han$e that an' m"re .ill /e /!ilt in the =nited StatesI alth"!gh large 6r"Oe$ts $"ntin!e t" /e 6!rs!ed in
Canada Bthe largest at 9ames 3a' in D!e/e$C and in man' devel"6ing $"!ntries. The reservoirs created "y
such pro'ects frequently inundate large areas of forest, farmland, wildlife ha"itats, scenic areas, and
even towns. .n addition, the dams can cause radical changes in river ecosystems "oth upstream and
downstream. (mall hydropower plants using reservoirs can cause similar types of damage, though
o"viously on a smaller scale. S"me "f the im6a$ts "n fish $an /e mitigated /' installing TladdersT "r "ther
devi$es t" all". fish t" migrate "ver damsI and /' maintaining minim!m river-fl". ratesR s$reens $an als" /e
installed t" kee6 fish a.a' fr"m t!r/ine /lades. #n "ne $aseI flashing !nder.ater lights 6la$ed in the
S!sK!ehanna River in )enns'lvania dire$t night-migrating &meri$an shad ar"!nd t!r/ines at a h'dr"ele$tri$
stati"n. &s envir"nmental reg!lati"ns have /e$"me m"re stringentI devel"6ing $"st-effe$tive mitigati"n
meas!res s!$h as these is essential.
Link - 3io%ass
%iomass destroys the intrinsic value of nature "ecause we view it as "eing for human
purposes
*((7C
,%iomass- is largely an effort to turn whatever wildlands remain on this planet to energy crop
monocultures. 4ot surprisingly, the word ,ecology- does not appear in the "iomass chapter. 2hat is
s!r6rising is the s!/se$ti"n "n :=r/an resid!es; .hi$h dis$!sses the !se "f m!ni$i6al s"lid .aste as
feedst"$k f"r heat $"nversi"n t" ele$tri$it'. +his is a 6"lite .a' "f sa'ing that envir"nmentalists sh"!ld
end"rse s6e.ing in$inerat"r 6"is"ns int" $it' air and a/and"n the n"ti"n "f n"t generating .aste.
%iomass .s The !orst Alternative Energy For The Environment
Mnion /f oncerned (cientists + 2,Environmental .mpacts /f Genewa"le Energy Technologies-, Fune <P,
httpC@@www.ucsusa.org@cleanRenergy@renewa"leRenergyR"asics@environmental1impacts1of1renewa"le1energy1technologies.html3
%iomass 6".erI derived fr"m the /!rning "f 6lant matter, raises more serious environmental issues than
any other renewa"le resource e-$e6t h'dr"6".er. om"ustion of "iomass and "iomass1derived fuels
produces air pollution5 "eyond this, there are concerns a"out the impacts of using land to grow energy
crops. 5". seri"!s these im6a$ts are .ill de6end "n h". $aref!ll' the res"!r$e is managed. The picture is
further complicated "ecause there is no single "iomass technology, "ut rather a wide variety of
production and conversion methods, each with different environmental impacts.
Forestry And Energy Farming .s %ad For the Environment
Mnion /f oncerned (cientists + 2,Environmental .mpacts /f Genewa"le Energy Technologies-, Fune <P,
httpC@@www.ucsusa.org@cleanRenergy@renewa"leRenergyR"asics@environmental1impacts1of1renewa"le1energy1technologies.html3
#f im6r"6erl' managedI h".everI energy farming could have harmful environmental impacts. &lth"!gh
energ' $r"6s $"!ld /e gr".n .ith less 6esti$ide and fertili7er than $"nventi"nal f""d $r"6sI large1scale
energy farming could nevertheless lead to increases in chemical use simply "ecause more land would
"e under cultivation. .t could also affect "iodiversity through the destruction of species ha"itats,
especially if forests are more intensively managed. .f agricultural or forestry wastes and residues were
used for fuel, then soils could "e depleted of organic content and nutrients unless care was taken to
leave enough wastes "ehind. +hese $"n$erns 6"int !6 the need f"r reg!lati"n and m"nit"ring "f energ' $r"6
devel"6ment and .aste !se.
Link - 3ra6ilian Ehanol
(ugarcane ethanol production destroys rainforests
Tra"ish +B5erman FI St!dent "f Energ' at >C Lhtt6?//..../l"gger.$"m/6r"file/((14118(118044703%7(M
S=4&R C&NE E+5&N@L #N 3R&J#L? P&N #RRE<ERS#3LE +REN>G/ 8a' *0I *((8C
%razil, h".everI continues to take pride in its ethanol industry and deny its negative consequences. A
political leader recently told 4#G the ethanol industry could not "e doing harm to the rainforests
"ecause sugar cane is not grown anywhere near the Amazon. This is a complete misrepresentation. .t
is clearly esta"lished and documented that agrofuel production B/e it $"rn in the =.S.I s!gar $ane in
3ra7il "r 6alm "il trees in #nd"nesia and 8ala'siaC drives the e$pansion of land clearing in rainforest and
savannah regions for other farming and ranching purposes.
(ugarcane ethanol increases /) emissions "ecause it displaces other crops
9orowitz + B9"hnI +he Ne. E"rk +imes Lhtt6?//....n'times.$"m/*((8/(0/(3/"6ini"n/l.e/(3$"hen.htmlN
WrH*X6artnerHrss!serlandXem$HrssX6age.antedHallX"refHsl"ginX"refHsl"ginM >"nGt R!sh t" )raise S!gar-Cane
3i"f!els/ &6ril *4I *((8C
%iofuels contri"ute to deforestation and glo"al warming regardless of which plant matter is used to
make the fuel. Even if ethanol is made from sugar cane and that sugar cane is grown miles away from
the Amazon rain forest, the resulting shifts in where other crops are grown will lead to deforestation.
,!rtherm"reI when previously uncultivated land, including tropical forests, is "rought into cultivation,
large amounts of car"on are released from the soil, worsening the car"on dio$ide "alance.
Link - 4reen he 7iliary
The M( military takes control over large stretches of the environment
Boster 7 B&damI #n +hese +imes Lhtt6?//....inthesetimes.$"m/arti$le/3341/M Chain St"resI )i$ket ,en$es and
+anks/ Se6tem/er 18I *((7C
4illemI .h" /elieves that :the use of space is an attri"ute of imperial power,- details how the military&s
inefficient land1use policies n"t "nl' harm the environment /!t als" intensif' the s"$ial and 6"liti$al $"st
"f =.S. im6erial as6irati"ns. ,"r "neI accumulating liva"le land is a zero1sum game in man' regi"ns =.S.
f"r$es 6atr"l. Accustomed to a country full of open spaces, Americans fail to comprehend how eating up
valua"le terrain without consent angers residents of the host nation. The immoderation that su"ur"an
living induces, such as unnecessary consumption patterns, e$cess noise and crime spillover, further
strains national relations.
Link Centralized Electricity
Electricity #roduction Emits ar"on
DcLi""en 7 B3illI Envir"nmental &$tivist and &!th"rI :Can L"$al Energ' Save =sN #deas ,r"m :>ee6
E$"n"m';;I *((7I htt6?//life.gaiam.$"m/gaiam/6/Can-L"$al-Energ'-Save-=s-#deas-,r"m->ee6-E$"n"m'.htmlC
,"r de$adesI our model for generating power has "een highly centralizedC !e produce electricity in a
few huge centralized power plants and then ship it around the country via a network of wires. As long
as you don&t worry a"out the side effects, such as car"on emissions, and as long as you have a"undant
fuel to run it on, then you can provide relatively cheap electricity, and the few people who own the
plants can make a great deal of money. &nd A 6artl' /e$a!se "f the l"//'ing 6".er "f these /ig 6la'ers
A m"st attem6ts t" :fi-; the energ' se$t"r t" deal .ith gl"/al .arming "r 6eak "il inv"lve marginall'
im6r"ving these giantI $entrali7ed 6lants? ,"r instan$eI s!/sidi7ing !tilities t" e-6l"re :$lean $"al; 6lants that
might s"meda' $a6t!re $ar/"n emissi"ns and 6!m6 them int" "ld mines f"r st"rage. +he federal g"vernment
als" !nder.rites l"ads "f resear$h "n n!$lear 6".erI /e$a!se rea$t"rsI des6ite their r!in"!s e-6enseI fit
neatl' int" the familiar $entrali7ed s$heme. !e may need some such technologies in the years ahead5 the
fight to slow car"on emissions is so desperate that it&s wrong to rule anything out, especially as a "ridge
toward some "etter future.
Link - -oll(ion Conrol
#ollution control is self1destructive
4aess PE B&rneI )r"fess"r emerit!s 6hil"s"6h'I =niversit' "f @sl" >ee6 E$"l"g' f"r the *1st Cent!r'. Ed. 4e"rge Sessi"nsI 6. 10*- 103C
Fight against pollution and resource depletion. .n this fight ecologists have found powerful supporters,
"ut sometimes to the detriment of their total stand. This happens when attention is focused on
pollution and resource depletion rather than on the other points, or when pro'ects are implemented
which reduce pollution "ut increase evils of other kinds. +h!sI if prices of life necessi ties increase
"ecause of the installation of anti1pollution devices, class differ ences increase too. &n ethi$s "f res6"nsi/ilit'
im6lies that e$"l"gists d" n"t serve the shall".I /!t the dee6 e$"l"gi$al m"vement. +hat isI n"t "nl' 6"int fiveI /!t all seven points
must "e considered together. E$"l"gists are irre6la$ea/le inf"rmants in an' s"$iet'I .hatever their 6"liti$al $"l"r. #f .ell
"rgani7edI the' have the 6".er t" reOe$t O"/s in .hi$h the' s!/mit themselves t" instit!ti"ns "r t" 6lanners .ith limited e$"l"gi$al
"/Oe$tives. As it is now, ecologists sometimes serve masters who deli"erately ignore the wider
perspectives.
Attempts To (olve #ollution Are (hallow Ecological (olutions
Naess %0 2Arne, #rofessor Emeritus #hilosophy, Beep Ecology for the )<
st
entury. Ed. =eorge (essions, pg. 7)3
(hallow ApproachC Technology seeks to purify the air and water and to spread pollution more evenly.
;aws limit permissi"le pollution. #olluting industries are prefera"ly e$ported to developing countries.
>ee6 &66r"a$h? )"ll!ti"n is eval!ated fr"m a /i"s6heri$ 6"int "f vie.I n"t f"$!sing e-$l!sivel' "n its effe$ts "n h!man healthI /!t
rather "n life as a .h"leI in$l!ding the life $"nditi"ns "f ever' s6e$ies and s'stem. +he shall". rea$ti"n t" a$id rainI f"r e-am6leI is t"
tend t" av"id a$ti"n /' demanding m"re resear$hI and the attem6t t" find s6e$ies "f trees .hi$h .ill t"lerate high a$idit'I et$. +he dee6
a66r"a$h $"n$entrates "n .hat is g"ing "n in the t"tal e$"s'stem and $alls f"r a high 6ri"rit' fight against the e$"n"mi$ $"nditi"ns and
the te$hn"l"g' res6"nsi/le f"r 6r"d!$ing the a$id rain. +he l"ng-range $"n$erns are "ne h!ndred 'earsI at least. The priority is to
fight the deep causes of pollution, not merely the superfi cial, short1range effects. The Third and Fourth
!orld countries cannot afford to pay the total costs of the war against pollution in their regions5
consequently they require the assistance of the First and (econd !orld countries. E$porting pollution
is not only a crime against humanity, it is a crime against life in general.
Link - Space Coloni6aion
The focus of human survival over nature and the environment feeds anthropocentrism
Fia 7 2Gu, <)@)E, httpC@@thetimelessway."logspot.com@)**7@<)@long1term1planning1space1
colonization.html3
9"hn +ierne' .r"teI T& S!rvival #m6erative f"r S6a$e C"l"ni7ati"nTI in the +!esda' 9!l' 17I *((7 iss!e "f
the Ne. E"rk +imes BS$ien$e Se$ti"nC. +ierne' raised t." ke' 6"intsI e-6laining the mathemati$al reas"ning
f"r these 6"ints. @ne 6"int .as that the there is a PEW pro"a"ility that the human race will last at least
E,<** more years, "ut no more than 7.+ million years. !e only have T,*** years of recorded history,
and we might "e e$tinct only E,<** years from now. +hat is s"mething t" think a/"!t. +hen +ierne'
6"st!lated that if the likelihood of human survival is heightened "y esta"lishing a human presence on
another planet, like Dars, then we have a pro"lem "ecause there is a fifty percent 2E*W3 pro"a"ility
that we will lose the a"ility to travel through outer space during the ne$t 7Q years. 4o one has walked
on the moon since Apollo <7 in <P7). !e have lost two satellites and two space shuttles due to
incompetent leadership. !e really could lose the a"ility to put people on other planets, 'ust like we can
no longer "uild "attleships.
Link ' "eso(rce 7anage%en
(hallow ecological attempts to manage natural resources relies on technological quick fi$es
4aess PE B&rneI )r"fess"r Emerit!s )hil"s"6h'I >ee6 E$"l"g' f"r the *1st Cent!r'. Ed. 4e"rge Sessi"nsI 6g. 74C
Shall". &66r"a$h? ;andscapes, ecosystems, rivers, and other whole entities of nature are conceptually
cut into fragments, thus disregarding larger units and comprehensive gestalts. These fragments are
regarded as the properties and resources of individuals, organizations or states. onservation is argued
in terms of Jmultiple useJ and Jcost@"enefit analysis.J The social $"sts and l"ng iii glo"al ecological
costs of resource e$traction and use are usually not considered. 2ildlife management is $"n$eived "f as
$"nserving nat!re f"r Tf!t!re generati"ns "f h!mans.J (oil erosion or the deterioration of ground water
quality, for e$ample, is noted as a human loss, "ut a strong "elief in future technological progress
makes deep changes seem unnecessary. >ee6 &66r"a$h? The earth does not "elong to humans. ,"r
e-am6leI the N"r.egian lands$a6esI riversI fl"ra and fa!naI and the neigh/"ring sea are n"t the 6r"6ert' "f
N"r.egians. Similarl'I the "il !nder the N"rth Sea "r an'.here else d"es n"t /el"ng t" an' state "r t"
h!manit'. &nd the Tfree nat!reT s!rr"!nding a l"$al $"mm!nit' d"es n"t /el"ng t" the l"$al $"mm!nit'.
9umans only inha"it the lands, using resources to satisfy vital needs. And if their non1vital needs come
in conflict with the vital needs of nonhumans, then humans should defer to the latter. The ecological
destruction now going on will not "e cured "y a technological fi$. urrent arrogant notions in indus 1
trial Band "therC societies must "e resisted.
The aff efforts to conserve and Kprotect& resources ignores nature&s own value and neglects
living "eings& intrinsic rights.
Am"rosius E 22end'I >e6t "f )hil"s"6h'I :>ee6 E$"l"g'? & >e/ate "n the R"le "f 5!mans in the Envir"nment;. =2-L 9"!rnal "f
=ndergrad!ate Resear$h <### htt6?//....!.la-.ed!/!r$/O!r-"nline/6df/*((0/am/r"si!s.6df.C
#t is first im6"rtant t" disting!ish /et.een shall". e$"l"g' and dee6 e$"l"g'. Shall". e$"l"g' is 6r"/a/l'
.hat 6e"6le are m"st familiar .ith in the western world. (hallow ecology is a much more
anthropocentric point of view, in that it holds values of nature entirely on the premise that nature&s
sole purpose is for human needs. Shall". e$"l"g' negle$ts man' "f the im6"rtant as6e$ts that dee6
e$"l"g' t"!$hes "nI the m"st im6"rtant /eing that it neglects every living "eings&I h!man and n"nh!manI
intrinsic right and value to live and flourish. Shall". e$"l"g' sees nat!re at the dis6"sal "f h!mansI
whereas deep ecology recognizes no right other than vital needs for humans to dispose of nature. +he
d'nami$ /et.een dee6 e$"l"g' and shall". e$"l"g' $an 6"ssi/l' /e /etter e-6lained in terms "f
$"nservati"n and 6reservati"n. onservation is compara"le to shallow ecology in that it is more of a
controlled usage and systematic protection of natural resources. +'6i$all'I the meth"d "f $"nservati"n is
!sed in terms "f h!mans $"nserving nat!re f"r their ".n f!t!re needs. 9umans conserve such resources as
.aterI f"restsI and "il so that they will "e there for following generations. #reservationI "n the "ther handI
is much more similar to deep ecology, in that it is more along the lines of kee6ing safeI as fr"m inO!r' "r
6erilI "r attempting to keep resources unchanged and intact. This is more in terms of humans
preserving nature from human use. #ts intent is m"re f"r kee6ing nat!re at its "riginal stateI free fr"m
h!man interferen$e and damageI .ith the idea that nature holds its own right.
Link ' /ree 7arke "eso(rce 7anage%en
Free market resource management is shallow ecological thinking
Naess %0 2Arne, #rofessor Emeritus #hilosophy, Beep Ecology for the )<
st
entury. Ed. =eorge (essions, pg. 7)3
(hallow ApproachC The emphasis is upon resources for humans, especially for the present generation
in affluent societies. .n this view, the resources of the earth "elong to those who have the technology to
e$ploit them. There is con fidence that resources will not "e depleted "ecause, as they get rarer, a high
market price will conserve them, and su"stitutes will "e found through tech nological progress. Further,
plants, animals, and natural o"'ects are valua"le only as resources for humans. .f no human use is
known, or seems likely ever to "e found, it does not matter if they are destroyed. Beep ApproachC +he
$"n$ern here is .ith res"!r$es and ha/itats f"r all life-f"rms f"r their ".n sake. 4o natural o"'ect is
conceived of solely as a resource. This leads, then, to a critical evaluation of human modes of
production and consumption. +he K!esti"n arises? t" .hat e-tent d"es an in$rease in 6r"d!$ti"n and
$"ns!m6ti"n f"ster !ltimate h!man val!esN +" .hat e-tent d"es it satisf' vital needsI l"$all' "r gl"/all'N
5". $an e$"n"mi$I legalI and ed!$ati"nal instit!ti"ns /e $hanged t" $"!ntera$t destr!$tive in$reasesN 5".
$an res"!r$e !se serve the K!alit' "f life rather than the e$"n"mi$ standard "f living as generall' 6r"m"ted
/' $"ns!merismN ,r"m a dee6 6ers6e$tiveI there is an em6hasis !6"n an e$"s'stem a66r"a$h rather than the
$"nsiderati"n merel' "f is"lated life-f"rms "r l"$al sit!ati"ns. +here is a l"ng-range ma-imal 6ers6e$tive "f
time and 6la$e.
Link - E0pers
Aff reliance on so 1 called e$perts entrenches a shallow ecological mindset
(hallow ApproachC The degradation of the environment and resource deple tion requires the training of
more and more Je$pertsJ who can provide advice concerning how to continue com"ining economic
growth with maintaining a healthy environment. !e are likely to need an increasingly more
dominating and manipulative technology to Jmanage the planetJ when glo"al economic growth makes
further environmental degradation inevita"le. +he s$ientifi$ enter6rise m!st $"ntin!e giving 6ri"rit' t"
the Thard s$ien$esT B6h'si$s and $hemistr'C. 5igh ed!$ati"nal standards .ith intense $"m6etiti"n in the rele-
vant Tt"!ghT areas "f learning .ill /e reK!ired. >ee6 &66r"a$h? .f sane ecological policies are adopted,
then education should concentrate on an increased sensitivity to non1consumptive goods, and on such
consuma"les where there is enough for all. Education should therefore counteract the e$cessive
emphasis upon things with a price tag. There should "e a shift in concentration from the JhardJ to the
JsoftJ sciences which stress the importance of the local and glo"al cultures. +he ed!$ati"nal "/Oe$tive "f
the 2"rld C"nservati"n Strateg' BT/!ilding s!66"rt f"r $"nservati"nTC sh"!ld /e given a high 6ri"rit'I /!t
.ithin the dee6er frame."rk "f res6e$t f"r the /i"s6here. .n the future, there will "e no shallow
environmental movement if deep policies are increasingly adopted "y governments, and thus no need
for a spe cial deep ecological social movement.
Link ' )n!(srial .echnology
Efforts At .ndustrialization %ypass /ur .nterconnectedness !ith The 4atural
(hallow ApproachC .ndustrialization of the !estern industrial type is held to "e the goal of developing
countries. The universal adoption of !estern technology is held to "e compati"le with cultural
diversity, together with the conservation of the positive elements 2from a !estern perspective3 of
present non1industrial societies. +here is a l". estimate "f dee6 $!lt!ral differen$es in n"n-ind!strial
s"$ieties .hi$h deviate signifi$antl' fr"m $"ntem6"rar' 2estern standards. >ee6 &66r"a$h? )r"te$ti"n "f
n"n-ind!strial $!lt!res fr"m invasi"n /' ind!strial s"$ieties. +he g"als "f the f"rmer sh"!ld n"t /e seen as
6r"m"ting lifest'les similar t" th"se in the ri$h $"!ntries. >ee6 $!lt!ral diversit' is an anal"g!e "n the
h!man level t" the /i"l"gi$al ri$hness and diversit' "f life-f"rms. & high 6ri"rit' sh"!ld /e given t" $!lt!ral
anthr"6"l"g' in general ed!$ati"n 6r"grams in ind!strial s"$ieties. There should "e limits on the impact of
!estern technology upon present e$isting non1industrial countries and the Fourth !orld should "e
defended against foreign domination. )"liti$al and e$"n"mi$ 6"li$ies sh"!ld fav"r s!/$!lt!res .ithin
ind!strial s"$ieties. ;ocal, soft technologies should allow for a "asic cultural assessment of any technical
innovations, together with freely e$pressed criticism of so1called advanced technology when this has
the poten tial to "e culturally destructive.
Link ' En# 8(sice/En#, "acis%
%owers PT BC.&. +ea$hes in S$h""l "f Ed!$ati"nI )"rtland State =niversit'I Ed!$ati"nI C!lt!ral 8'ths and the
E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 100-107C
@!r 6rimar' $"n$ern .ill /e t" identif' general 6rin$i6les that might serve as a m"re adeK!ate /asis f"r transf"rming f"rmal ed!$ati"n
in a .a' that $"ntri/!tes t" /etter envir"nmental $iti7enshi6I as "66"sed t" the $!rrent vie. "f $iti7enshi6 in a $"ns!mer-"riented
s"$iet'. %y making the ecological crisis our most important pri orityI 6arti$!larl' in ref"rming h". .e think a/"!t
f"rmal ed!$ati"nal 6r"$essesI it should "e kept in mind that social 'ustice issues relating t" ethni$it'I genderI 6"vert'I
and the .ides6read sense "f an"mie that n". f!els the dr!g $risis should "e understood in a new way. As we attempt to
resolve the sources of inequity within societyI in /asi$ 5!man rightsI in living 6ers"nall' and s"$iall' meaningf!l livesI
and in the !se "f "!r nati"nal .ealthI it will "e necessary to frame the solutions in terms of cultural values and
practices that will not contri"ute further to the "ver!se "f n"nrene.a/le res"!r$es and t" the pollution of the
environ ment. /ne can hope that the mainstream of American society will "egin to realign its priorities
and practices to more sustaina"le levels5 this may have implications for redefining he social goals to "e
achieved "y the reform efforts of marginalized groups. ,"r e-am6leI if the feminist m"vement s!$$eeds 6rimaril' in
a$hieving eK!alit' in the ."rk 6la$e and as $"ns!mersI /!t d"es n"t hel6 t" transf"rm /"th areas in .a's that are m"re e$"l"gi$all'
s!staina/leI it .ill /e a ref"rm that failed t" take the larger 6i$t!re int" a$$"!nt. ;ike other political reforms that "ring
more people into the 1modern, consumer1oriented society Bestimates n". are that he ."rld e$"n"m' .ill /e five t" ten
times larger in the $"ming $ent!r' than its 6resent si7eC the pro"lem of the diverging trends, where cultural demands
e$ceed the sus taining capacities of natural systems, will "e e$acer"ated. !e need to "egin to evolve, as
cultures, into new directions that do not involve the need of individuals endlessly to pur sue
conveniences and personal meaning through consumerism. This means that many of our guiding ideals
will need to undergo change, particularly as the e$tent and .mmediacy of our collective environmental
situation rises into conscious awareness. &s 6"inted "!t earlierI neither li"eral nor conservative
political@educational agendas can serve as a guide for achieving the fundamental reforms now needed
in 6!/li$ s$h""l and !niversit' ed!$ati"n. The different streams of educational li"eralism share the
assumption that progress is attained either "y ma$imizing the freedom of the individual Bthe
eman$i6ating and ne"-r"manti$ traditi"nCI "y increasing the a"ility to unite the process of participatory
decision mak ing with the scientific method of pro"lem solving Bthe >e.e'an traditi"nCI "r /' using the
techniques of scientific management and "ehavioral reinforcement to improve the individualIs
"ehavior Bthe te$hni$ist traditi"nC. %ut it is a view of progress that is "ased on the myth of an
anthropocentric universe. 9ow humans might live lightly within the we" of the "iotic community is
still not part of their vision.
Link ' Lo1ercase 9Earh:
The use of lowercase ,earth- signifies the mindset that 'ustifies destruction
Gowe T BStanI Retired e$"l"g' tea$herI 6r"fess"r emerit!s at the =niversit' "f Saskat$he.anI
htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./%0/%8C
!estern civilization continues on its self1destructive path, treating Earth as a dead stack of ,natural
resources- and ,raw materials.- Ecological ignorance is rampant, partly "ecause of the inertia of
language and of cultural dogmas. &s t" lang!age, note for e$ample the lowly status that the
uncapitalized word ,earth- communicates. All the other planets are capitalized6 Dercury, Aenus,
Dars, Fupiter, etc.6"ut rarely the one on whose supportive surface, under a warming "lanket of
atmosphere, humans are "orn, live, and die. Mncapitalized ,earthis also a synonym for ,dirt- and
,soil-6another sign of the low esteem in which this planet is held. ontrasted with heaven,
uncapitalized ,earthis a place of sin, suffering and woe. &gainI .hile granting that s$ien$e-fi$ti"n
h!man"ids fr"m 8ars ."!ld a6tl' /e named 8artiansI Earth-h!mans seld"m refer t" themselves as
Earthlings. S!$h e-am6les s!ggest that lang!age has /een designed t" $"n$eal the s"!r$e and s!66"rt "f
5"m" sa6iens sa6iens. &s earlier n"tedI lang!age f"ll".s sight-that-se6arates. Every noun potentially
su"verts ecological wisdom. .ngrained cultural dogmas further separate people from their life1giving
conte$t. The old idea that man1made ,culture- has lifted humans to a plane higher than ,4ature-
makes of Earth a lower "rutish adversary. .n reality, culture and 4ature are ine$trica"ly merged in
human society. ulture is social learning founded on and evolved from survival in Earth&s ecosystems.
ultures that persist over long time periods are those that incorporate in their "elief systems and
rituals an ecological knowledge of and sensitivity to their particular land@water1organism
environments. Disunderstanding of this point is ecological ignorance6 especially dangerous when
wedded, as today, with tremendous technologic power that can "e used to destroy or reconstruct land
and water ecosystems.
Link ' +ssigning 7oneary ;al(e o En#iron%en
Turns ase1 The aff analysis of nature in economic terms "linds us to its intrinsic value,
ultimately destroying the earth they are trying to protect
The e$perience of natural "eauty is its own reward. .t does not need to point to something "eyond
itself. @f $"!rse .e 6er$eive this /ea!t'I /!t it e$ists as qualities which would "e there whether or not we
were there to see them. #t makes 6erfe$t sense t" sa' that there .ere 6r"/a/l' man' /ea!tif!l s!nsets d!ring
the 9!rassi$ 6eri"d. #t makes little sense t" den' this statement /e$a!se there .ere n" h!man /eings 6resent
t" see them. @!r 6er$e6ti"n "f nat!ral /ea!t' gr".s "!t "f "!r relati"nshi6 .ith the e-6erien$e. Attempting
to price non1instrumental values automatically assaults their integrity. +" arg!e that l"ve "r nat!ral
/ea!t' are sim6l' matters "f taste 6la$es them in an ina66r"6riate frame "f referen$e in .hi$h the' $ann"t /e
adeK!atel' !nderst""d. #t is like m' asking the 6ri$e "f '"!r s"n "r da!ghter. To seriously consider a
monetary answer changes our e$perience from seeing something as rewarding in itself to "eing a
means to a separate reward. !e move from one perceptual world into another. This is why when
someone does succum" to temptation, and sells something which is fundamentally of intrinsic value to
them, they feel "ad. !hen most impressed "y "eauty in nature, we e$perience it without comparing it
with anything else. !e do not analyze itI /reaking the /ea!t' "f a m"!ntain !6I sa'ing this 6art is /ea!tif!l
and that 6art is n"tI without first withdrawing from the immediate e$perience of its "eauty. &s s""n as .e
attend t" a 6artI sa' an as6en gr"veI .e $an /egin the same 6r"$ess all "ver again. 2hat 6arts "f the gr"ve are m"st
/ea!tif!lN &gainI .e distan$e "!rselves fr"m the e-6erien$eI again taking "n an eval!ative 6ers6e$tiveI and s" l"se t"!$h
.ith the gr"ve as .ell. +he e-6erien$e /e$"mes a mem/er "f a $lass. #n im6"rtant res6e$tsI m"re is l"st than is gained /'
s!$h an e-er$ise.00 #n 6arti$!larI perceiving intrinsic value is lost from sight even if instrumental values
might there"y "e more clearly delineated. .t is very destructive .hen a66lied t" h!man /eings .e l"ve. #t
is eK!all' destr!$tive .hen a66lied t" /ea!tif!l m"!ntains.
.nstrumentalizing nature&s treasures compromises "oth ourselves and "etrays human
integrity
# 2hen # 6art .ith s"mething "f 6!rel' instr!mental val!e t" me t" gain s"mething else # val!e m"reI # am
!nam/ig!"!sl' 6leased. Doney and entrepreneurial action e$emplify the "est e$amples of purely
instrumental value and action. &n entre6rene!r sells s"mething f"r a 6r"fit. 5ad the entre6rene!r n"t
anti$i6ated making a 6r"fitI he ."!ld n"t have "/tained the g""ds t" /e s"ld in the first 6la$e. #t is $ertainl'
the $ase that many of us would sell something we regard as intrinsically valua"le if offered enough
money, which itself has only instrumental value. %ut in doing so we will not feel unam"iguously
pleased. .nstead we feel compromised, somehow dishonest with ourselvesI and seek t" rati"nali7e .hat
.e have d"ne. 2e are a$ting similarly to how we would if we "etrayed a friendship for personal gain.
#n additi"nI .e "ften res6e$t a 6ers"n .h" h"lds "!t against en"rm"!s tem6tati"nI even .hen .e ."!ld n"t "!rselves d"
s"A.hereas .e ."!ld regard a 6ers"n .h" held .hat seemed t" !s a 6!re instr!mental val!eI s!$h as m"ne'I as $ra7' if
he did n"t e-$hange it f"r a res"!r$e "f greater instr!mental val!eI s!$h as s"mething easil' sala/le f"r even m"re
m"ne'. 2h'N & $l!e $"mes fr"m 5argr"veUs s!ggesti"n that TwhenO feelings of pleasure >from natural
"eauty? are then compared with other instrumental values that can "e o"tained, f"r e-am6leI "y clear1
cutting or strip1mining, the value of the aesthetic e$perience... appears trivial, ridiculous, and indeed
indefensi"le.T04 %ut these JtrivialJ feelings can provide a foundation of mean ing for living a life
whereas the products derived from the destruction of what elicits these feelings can not. +his 6arad"-
seems a 6".erf!l reas"n t" s!s6e$t that .e are thinking a/"!t this iss!e ina66r"6riatel'. 4atural "eauty
provides something? that pure instrumental values do not.
Link Assigning Monetary Value to Environment
Applying instrumental, and not intrinsic, value to humans and nature is flawed
=udorf and 9uchinson T BChristine and 9amesI )r"fess"rs "f Religi"!s St!dies at ,l"rida #nternati"nal
=niversit'I 3"!ndaries? & Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. *1-*3C
,"r 6hil"s"6hers and religi"nistsI the e$"n"mi$ !nderstanding "f val!e is !ninterestingI f"r the m"st 6art. +he' 6referI insteadI t" st!d' its meaning in terms "f the ."rth "f an a$ti"n
"r "/Oe$t. @!r dis$!ssi"n "f val!e is /ased "n this idea "f ."rth. )hil"s"6hers are n"t "f "ne mind a/"!t val!e. +raditi"nall'I value as worth has "een
understood in two ways. .n the first, X is valua"le to me if X serves some useful purpose for me6if it
performs some function that "enefits me or others. & hammer sitting in a t""l/"- is ."rthless !ntil # rem"ve it t" drive a nail. #n this $aseI the
hammer is said t" have instr!mental val!e. A second way of understanding value is to assign worth to X in its own right,
independent of any usefulness. S6e$ified val!e /e$"mes a K!alit' $arried /' Y rather than im6!ted t" itI s" that even in the a/sen$e "f an'"ne t" a66re$iate itI
Y ma' /e said t" /e val!a/le. .nstrumental value is easily understood, "ut this intrinsic or o"'ective value is less
clear for two rea sons. 9ow are we to understand a value as attached to a "eingC .s it like a physical
property0 (econd, how is any imputed value truly o"'ective given that a quality is valua"le only when
it is appreciated "y a qualified o"server0 +hese K!esti"ns are m"re readil' av"ided .hen Y is a 6ers"n. Dost of us recognize that
others like ourselves possess intrinsic value simply "ecause they are persons. #ersons possess inherent
dignity and significant worth. Religi"ns have al.a's ta!ght that it is "!r d!t' t" treat "thers "f "!r s6e$ies T.ith dignit'T "r in a Tdignified .a'.T +his means
taking n" a$ti"ns that vi"late "thersU integrit' "r "ther.ise /ring !nO!stified harm t" them. @f $"!rseI attenti"n t" dignit' d"es n"t 6r"hi/it seeing "thers in terms "f their instr!mental
val!e. #n an e$"n"m' driven /' servi$e ind!striesI s!$h a 6r"hi/iti"n ."!ld /e "!r r!in. & servi$e ."rker s!$h as a 6l!m/er "r ele$tri$ian v"l!ntaril' 6erf"rms tasks that ma' /enefit
me. # sh"!ld n"t treat the 6l!m/er "r ele$tri$ian as an "/Oe$t "f lesser ."rth than "thers in m' ."rldI h".ever. ,!rtherm"reI "f $"!rseI servi$e re6resentatives sh"!ld re$eive fair
Tval!eT "r .ages f"r their la/"r. &s .e have des$ri/ed in the se$ti"n "n anthr"6"$entrismI pro"lems arise when X is not a person. 5". are .e t"
!nderstand the val!e "f n"nh!man /eings "r $"lle$ti"ns "f n"nh!man /eingsI s6e$iesI e$"s'stemsI nat!re itselfN Bo nonhuman "eings have any value at
all0 .f the discussion is limited to in strumental value, the question is easily answered. 4ature provides
us with the wherewithal for our secure and comforta"le lives. 4ature has tremen dous instrumental
value. .n this conte$t, our duty to nature is to conserve it, protect it, and utilize it effectively, lest we do
ourselves in. +his 6"siti"nis that "f 9"hn )assm"reI .h" $"n$l!des that .e have n" dire$t d!ties t" nat!reI "nl' dire$t d!ties t" "!rselves. +hat isI .e sh"!ld /ring as little
harm as 6"ssi/le t" nat!ral entitiesI n"t f"r their ".n sake /!t f"r "!rs. 5"lmes R"lst"n ### lists several "f these instr!mental val!es. 5e in$l!des life-s!66"rt val!eI e$"n"mi$ val!eI
re$reati"nal val!eI s$ientifi$ val!eI aestheti$ val!eI diversit' val!eI hist"ri$al val!eI $!lt!ral val!eI $hara$ter-/!ilding val!eI and religi"!s val!e. Carr'ing this anal'sis t" the e-tremeI
a 6hil"s"6her $"!ld arg!e that all val!esI even o"'ective values, imputed to nature actually are thinly disguised
instrumental or su"'ective human values. 2h' ."!ld # ."rk t" 6reserve the 4rand Can'"nN 3e$a!se its grande!r and marvel"!s vistas trigger a
6r"f"!nd res6"nse in m' 6s'$he. #s all "f this /ea!t' merel' in the e'e "f the /eh"lderI and is m' d!t' t" 6reserving the Can'"n reall' "nl' an indire$t d!t' t" m'selfN &lth"!gh #
ma' /e taking a$ti"ns that 6r"te$t the s"!r$es "f m' 6referen$e f"r /ea!t' and maOest'I # ma' /e d"ing s" /e$a!se /ea!t' and maOest' tr!l' reside in this nat!ral 6la$eI t" /e
re$"gni7ed and a66re$iated /' me. Like.iseI /e$a!se # l"ve and $herish m' s"n # .ill take ever' a$ti"n t" ass!re his f!lfillment as a 6ers"n. &re these d!ties !ltimatel' /ased in
selfish intenti"ns and eg"isti$ satisfa$ti"nN 2hat # val!e in the 4rand Can'"n and in m' s"n are n"t m' e-6erien$e and desires al"ne /!t als" the ver' e-isten$e "f this 6la$e and this
6ers"n. #t ."!ld seem "dd t" s6eak "f intrinsi$ val!e in an' "ther .a'. & religi"!s 6ers6e$tive is ver' different at this 6"intI h".ever. #f "ne /elieves that there is a g"d "r g"dsI then
the !ltimate 6ers6e$tive is n"t the h!man /!t the divine. Religi"!s s$h"lars s!$h as +h"mas &K!inas insisted that 4"d $reated the ."rld /e$a!se it 6leased himI and the 6!r6"se "f
$reati"n is t" gl"rif' 4"d. Creati"n is diverseI &K!inas .r"teI /e$a!se that diversit' testifies t" the maOest' "f 4"d. ,r"m this 6ers6e$tiveI even .ithin a ste.ardshi6 frame."rk in
.hi$h 4"d gave res6"nsi/ilit' f"r $reati"n t" h!mansI h!mans have n" right t" de$rease either the gl"r' "r the diversit' "f 4"dUs $reati"n. ,r"m a religi"!s 6ers6e$tiveI h!man
res6"nsi/ilit' f"r $reati"n is limited t" maintenan$e and 6reservati"n 6re$isel' /e$a!se it ."!ld /e id"latr'-s!/stit!ting "!r ".n O!dgment f"r 4"dUs-t" de$ide that the "nl' val!e "f
the rest "f $reati"n is instr!mental and indire$tI limited t" its val!e t" h!mans. +he im6li$ati"ns fr"m this dis$!ssi"n are several. ,irstI values are enumer ated as
su"sequent reflections on the act of valuing. 9ence, valuing may "e understood as an e$periential
'udgment, a connoisseurship, that involves "oth the evaluator and some o"'ect of evaluation in a
relational process. (ec ond, valuing is not limited to the human species. Dany sentient creatures clearly
appreciate certain e$periences for their own sake1such as play and se$1even if these e$periences are
prepared for and driven "y instinct and serve larger purposes Be.g.I 6redat"r' skills and 6r"$reati"nC.
Third, the hu man species shares this natural appreciation of essential goods, "ut its appre ciation of
value carries much further into nonessential goods in the creation of culture. Finally, the human
appreciation of value in nature entails moral duties with respect to this value. .f value is that which is
worthy or good and morality is the pursuit, realization, and preservation of the good, then value entails
duties. !ith the recognition of value "eyond human culture, our rela tions with nature "ecome moral.
Link - .echnology
The use of technology to manage the environment destroys the attitudes necessary for
lifestyles consistent with ecosystemic processes
Antolick ) B8atthe.I 8aster "f &rts >e6artment "f )hil"s"6h' C"llege "f &rts and S$ien$es =niversit' "f S"!th
,l"rida htt6?//etd.f$la.ed!/S,/S,E((((1(4/ant"li$k.6dfC
The technological developments in modern industrial societies have resulted in continuous pressures
towards a kind of lifestyle repugnant not only to supporters of the deep ecology movement "ut to those
in most alternative movementsZS"me "f the reas"ns f"r s!$h a $"nfr"ntati"n are fairl' "/vi"!s? m"dern
ind!strial technology is a centralizing factor, it tends towards "igness, it decreases the area within which
one can say Kself1made is well made&, it attaches us to "ig markets, and forces us to seek an ever1
increasing income. +he administrative technologies are adapted to the physical technologies and
encourage more and more impersonal relations.1(% A technological societyI it a66earsI inhi"its many of
the actions and attitudes necessary for lifestyle consistent with ecosystemic processes. >iversit' is
s!6er$eded /' $entrali7ati"nI $al$!lated /igness re6la$es a dee6er greatnessI instrumental 'ustifications for
production replace self1making the self1emergence of life and personal relationships take second place
to an impersonal social structure in which competition outweighs community, openness, and a deep
appreciation of the other.
Link - e!hnology
The affirmative assumptions that the solution to our environmental pro"lems is technology
only further entrenches the harms of the <A1 only "y appreciating the intrinsic value of
nature can we hope to solve
&lread' in 1%73I 4arret 5arding signalled that an implicit and almost universal assumption of
environmental de"ates is that the pro"lem under discussion has a technical solution? P& te$hni$al
s"l!ti"n ma' /e defined as "ne that reK!ires a $hange "nl' in the te$hniK!es "f the nat!ral s$ien$esI
demanding little "r n"thing in the .a' "f $hange in h!man val!es "r ideas "f m"ralit'.G B5ardin 1%73? 133-
134C. 4owadays !estern li"eral democracies not only implicitly "ut even e$plicitly approach
environmental pro"lems as essentially technical pro"lems that can "e solved "y science and technology
in relatively simple ways. +he res6"nsi/le 6"liti$ians $laim that inn"vati"n $a6a$it' and te$hn"l"g'
devel"6ment have /e$"me the $entral $"n$e6ts "f envir"nmental 6"li$' and that ne. te$hn"l"gies are the
ke' t" finding a .a' "!t "f 6"ll!ti"n 6r"/lems. (olar and fuel cell technology, improved electronic
communication systems that will decrease mo"ility, ultralight trains, highly efficient production
processes will decrease energy use and will contri"ute to meeting environmental goals B8inister van
<R@8 *((1? $ha6ters 4 and 0C. 4reen $riti$sI h".everI seri"!sl' d"!/t .hether all these s6e$ta$!lar ne.
te$hn"l"gies .ill /e availa/le in timeI .hether the' .ill /e aff"rda/le t" the general 6!/li$ and .hether the'
.ill a$t!all' 6r"d!$e the reK!ired res!lts. Again and again it has "ecome evident that governments are
insufficiently convinced or aware of the fact that the environmental pro"lematic is indeed primarily a
cultural pro"lem, despite the growing eco1philosophical critique that what is needed is a change in
human "ehaviour, interfering deeply in our value systems and "elief patterns Bals" +h"enes 1%%(? *01C.
A lasting improvement of the state of the environment and the quality of our natural ha"itat will
undou"tedly require stringent measures for the producers of goods and services, "ut also for the
consumers who 1 "y internalising alternative consumption values and applying more sufficient
consumption patterns 1 will give direction to sustaina"le ways of living. 2hat trends and devel"6ments
are the main $a!ses f"r the $"ns!mer in$reasingl' /e$"ming a ke' fig!re in the a/atement "f envir"nmental
6"ll!ti"n and the realisati"n "f s!staina/ilit'N1
Link ' <iliarian Calc(l(s
/ur entrapment in the calculation of utility and making profits off of alternative energy
entrench the destruction of the environment
=eus ) B8ari!s deI )"liti$al S$ien$e >e6artment LeidenI +he end "f envir"nmentalismN ? the envir"nment vers!s
individ!al freed"m and $"nvenien$e1/ 8ar$h *((*C
&s 4arret 5ardin and 2illiam @6h!ls have arg!edI many of today&s environmental pro"lems are caused
"y the mechanisms of collective "ehaviour and social dilemmas. &$$"rding t" them free rider /ehavi"!r
in a C"mm"ns /rings r!in t" all 6arti$i6ants. alculations of utility make that citizens B"r /' the same
t"ken? trade and ind!str'C will "e trying to profit from collective goods such as clean air and water
without actually paying for or contri"uting to them. +he rati"nal h!mans find that their share "f the $"st
"f the .astes the' dis$harge int" the C"mm"ns is less than the $"sts "f 6!rif'ing their .astes /ef"re
releasing them. (ince this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of Kfouling our own nest&, as
far as citizens "ehave only as independent, rational, free enterprisers. As long as citizens continue to
"ehave as Kma$imisers&, the well known KTragedy of the ommons& will constantly reappear in
pro"lems of pollution B5ardin 1%73? 13%C.
The study of natural sciences and using technology to solve for the environment further
entrench environmental destruction and make it inevita"le
E$"-6"liti$al thinkers like L'nn 2hite 9r.I Langd"n 2inner and 2"lfgang 3e$k have em6hasised the r"le "f
s$ien$e and te$hn"l"g'. &$$"rding t" these $riti$sI the deeper roots of the ecological crisis lie in the
ongoing progress of science, the development of new attitudes toward technology and the longer term
consequences of innovative technologies. ,r"m the 17th and 18th $ent!ries "n.ards the natural sciences
have contri"uted to the invention of new machinery and production techniques that have disrupted the
delicate "alance with nature and there"y contri"uted to massive environmental destruction. #n
$"m/inati"n .ith a nat!reh"stile attit!de "n the "ne hand and a generally techno1optimistic friendly
attitude on the other hand this has caused irreversi"le glo"al environmental risks and dangers to
society which generally remain invisi"le, such as radioactivity and to$ins and pollutants in the air,
water and our food BL'nn 2hite 1%17? *0-30I and 3e$k *(((? $ha6ters 1I * and 7C.
The plan is set in the frame of mind that technology can solve our pro"lems, alienating use
from nature and entrenching the harms of the <A
&s earl' as 1804I 5enr' >avid +h"rea! arg!ed in his 2alden that the damage to the landscape, pollution,
the e$haustion of natural resources and the e$tinction of animals were caused "y Kthe spiritual poverty&
"f his $"ntem6"raries. The causesI a$$"rding t" himI should "e sought in humanity&s ceaseless activity, its
unlimited greed, its permanent strive for e$cess and lu$ury, and its alienation from nature. 5e reas"ns
that only "y a general cultural renewal, in which people su"stantially reduce their needs and desires
and systematically renounce lu$ury goods, the increasing damage to environment and nature can
effectively "e stopped. #n fa$tI he 6r"6"ses a life stri66ed "f materialismI s" that h!manit' $an ret!rn t" its
dee6est $"reI and in his $"nvi$ti"n re$"ver a m"re ."rth.hile ha66iness in the a66re$iati"n "f nat!reI
s6irit!al !6liftingI the feeling "f Pinde6enden$e and freed"mG Bsee +h"rea! 1%11 and >e 4e!s 1%%%? 83C
Link "tilitarian Cal!ulus
Mtilitarian values are anthropocentric

=niversit'I 3"!ndaries? & Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. 4C
&s traditi"nall' a66liedI utilitarianism clearly is anthropocentric. +hat isI the #rinciple of Mtility limits
the class of "eneficiaries of an action to humans alone5 the greatest good should come to the greatest
num"er of persons. %e cause the happiness and pleasure of humans is the only intrinsic value for util 1
itarians, arguments for the interests of nonhumans rest e$clusively on their instrumental contri"ution
to this value. +he $"ntin!ed e-isten$e "f an endangered s6e$iesA6arti$!larl' if it is n"t attra$tiveI
$harismati$I "r val!a/le t" h!mans f"r "ther s"$ial "r hist"ri$al reas"nsA."!ld /e diffi$!lt t" O!stif' "n
gr"!nds "ther than h'6"theti$al arg!ments a/"!t its 6"tential $"ntri/!ti"n t" medi$ine "r the gene 6""l "f
e$"n"mi$all' 6r"d!$tive d"mesti$ s6e$ies. A small, endangered flower whose vanishing ha"itat is a
gleam in the eye of a land developer will have little chance "efore the court of utilitarian 'udgment.
Link - Deonology
Beontological thinking allows for a flawed sense of values placed on nature
=udorf and 9uchinson T BChristine and 9amesI )r"fess"rs "f Religi"!s St!dies at ,l"rida #nternati"nal =niversit'I 3"!ndaries? &
Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. 0C
#n its Fantian f"rmI deontology qualifies as a very anthropocentric ap proach to ethics. /nly /eings .h"
are $a6a/le "f reas"ning "!t d!ties and a$ting freel' !6"n themAthat isI human "eings6qualify as
recipients for the duties of others, as the "earers of rights. %ecause it is o"vious t" Fant that no
nonhumans possess these qualifying features, they are denied any direct moral standing. 3' Tdire$tT
Fant is referring t" ends, not 'ust means. An ani mal may have indirect moral standing in that "y
harming an animal B'"!r /el"ved 6et d"gI f"r e-am6le3 . may indirectly violate some right owed to you
Aperhaps the right of property. +he d"gI after allI is '"!r 6r"6ert' as .ell as '"!r $"m6ani"n. Therefore,
. am prohi"ited from harming your dog. . have no duty to the dog apart from my duties to you,
however. Fant "/Oe$ts t" $r!elt' t" animals f"r a reas"n that is $"nsistent .ith his thinking? N"t "nl' is this
/ehavi"r a /ad e-am6leI /!tI Fant reas"nsI if a man is $r!el t" animals he ma' devel"6 $r!el attit!des t".ard
"ther men as .ell.
Link - <iliarianis%/ Deonology
True environmental ethics requires us to include all of nature as valua"le
=niversit'I 3"!ndaries? & Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. 1C
.n "oth utilitarianism and deontology nonhumans clearly have no true moral standing. They are not to
"e found in Jthe greatest num"er of those affectedJ in the calculation and distri"ution of "enefits and
harmsI and the' are n"t the a!t"n"m"!s /earers "f rights. #n either s'stemI nonhumans qual ify for our
moral consideration only indirectly, as means to human ends. 8"re re$entl'I envir"nmental 6hil"s"6hers
have made $"n$erted eff"rts t" /r"aden the range "f m"ral standing t" in$l!de s6e$ies "ther than "!rselvesI
and even inanimate nat!ral s'stems. (everal thinkers attempt to modify or e$ tend traditional moral
systems to include nonhumans. )eter Singer makes this attem6t regarding !tilitarianismI and +"m Regan
d"es it regarding rights. 3e$a!se these 6hil"s"6hers are $"n$erned mainl' .ith higher life f"rmsI the' ma'
/e regarded as /i"$entrists. @thersI in$l!ding )a!l +a'l"rI see that these t." s'stems are t"" limited t" take
!s ver' far and "6t instead f"r "ther a66r"a$hes that ."!ld O!stif' the in$l!si"n "f 6lants and l".er animals.
,inall'I adv"$ates "f e$"$entrismI in$l!ding &ld" Le"6"ld and his dis$i6le 9. 3aird Calli$"ttI adv"$ate
e$"s'stems as the 6r"6er "/Oe$t "f "!r m"ral attenti"n. @ne ma' dete$t a trend "r 6r"$ess in these eff"rts. To
"e true to its o"'ect, environmental ethics must e$pand our circle of moral standing to al low for the
inclusion of other animals, plants, and systems of plants and ani mals, not to mention mountains and
rivers. ommitment to the pro'ect of this moral e$tensionism is the fundamental challenge and a
distinguishing fea ture of environmental ethics.
Link - Cons(%pion
The <A locks themselves into an environmental policy that roots itself in consumerism,
the root cause of their harms
Lohak * BEra7imI )r"fess"r Emerit!s )hil"s"6h' 3"st"n =niversit'I +he 4reen 5al"? & 3irdGs E'e <ie. "f Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6.07C
The shift to consumerism6the m"de "f life in .hi$h the driving m"t"r "f the s"$iet' $eases t" /e needI
re6la$ed /' greedAproduction for profit, not for satisfaction of need6represents a fundamental shift in
human perception of the whole of life.8 For the first time, it is a one1sided perception which does not
recognize the integrity and intrinsic value of nonhuman "eing. The con sumerist e$perience is
solipsistic. ., . alone, matter. The other ceases to "e ThouI as 3!/er !ses that termI and /e$"mes sim6l' it.
The world is constituted as a reservoir of raw materials, humans as distracted, one1dimensional con 1
sumers. .n the "ackground there is the triple assumptionC the meaning of life is to have ever more and
the task of society is to make this possi"le, "ecause a rise in consumption will solve all our unresolved
pro"lems. &ll else has t" .ait. ,irst we need to produce more and consume more. 2e have all seen
e-am6lesAr!thless $lear$!ttingI s!rfa$e miningI 6"ll!ted riversI n!$lear 6".er 6lantsI 6"is"ned atm"s6here.
E.@. 2ils"n s6eaks "f the si-th gl"/al $atastr"6heI v"n 2ei7sa$ker "f the self-destr!$ti"n "f a $ivili7ati"n
"riented s"lel' the e-am6le "f t" sh"rt-term gain. L'nn 2hite 9r.I% .riting in 1%18I sa. a different driving
me$hanismAa society .hi$h can no longer understand the idea of enough and so with iron necessity
must seek ever more until, like )lat"Us &tlantisI it destroys itself. 2hite $ites the m"re effi$ient 6l"!gh
.hi$hI h".everI reK!ired a team "f eight "-en. +" maintain s" large a team the ".ner $"!ld n"t /e $"ntent t"
6r"d!$e .ithin the limits "f need. S!$h an ".ner had t" "ver6r"d!$e t" 6a' f"r the team. Similarl'
$"ntem6"rar' s"$iet'I /"!nd /' large investmentsI $ann"t aff"rd $"ntentment. #t m!st generate dis$"ntent
and artifi$ial need. S!$$eeding de$ades /"re him "!t. 5". m!$h "f all f"r .hi$h .e strive s" /reathlessl'
did .e TneedT thirt' 'ears ag"N !e are stuck on the escalator of ever greater demands. That is the origin
of the eco logical crisisC an infinite demand finds itself in an inevita"le conflict with a very finite world.
.n a world of raw materials, a world devoid of its own life, value, and order, there is nothing natural
and so also nothing 'ust sufficient. There is no more enough, there is only more.
Link - Da%s
Bams represent flaws in technological solutions
Gosenhek ) BR!thI >ee6 e$"l"gist and >ire$t"r "f the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n CentreI 8ar$hI htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-e$"/>ams.htmlC
Bay "y day, river "y river, forest "y forest, mountain "y mountain, missile "y missile, "om" "y "om" 1
almost without our knowing it, we are "eing "roken. %ig Bams are to a 4ationIs IBevelopmentI what
4uclear %om"s are to its Dilitary Arsenal. TheyIre "oth weapons of mass destruction. TheyIre "oth
weapons =overnments use to control their own people. %oth Twentieth entury em"lems that mark a
point in time when human intelligence has outstripped its own instinct for survival. TheyIre "oth
malignant indications of civilisation turning upon itself. They represent the severing of the linkI n"t O!st
the link - the understanding 1 "etween human "eings and the planet they live on. +he' s$ram/le the
intelligen$e that $"nne$ts eggs t" hensI milk t" $".sI f""d t" f"restsI .ater t" riversI air t" life and the earth
t" h!man e-isten$e. B:+he 4reater C"mm"n 4""dT /' &r!ndhati R"'I &6ril 1%%%C #t .as the im6a$t "f dams
that # .as thinking "f in earl' ,e/r!ar' .hen a maO"r fl""d $ame thr"!gh "!r neigh/"rh""d here in the $it'
"f Lism"reI Bn"rthern Ne. S"!th 2alesI &!straliaCI 6"6!lati"n 1(I(((. 2ithin *4 h"!rs the fl""d had .i6ed
"!t the garden and the fr!it trees as .ell as the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n Centre "ffi$e. &s the .ater level r"se
/' the min!teI # f"!nd m'self thinking "f the $"!rage"!s men and ."men in #ndia .h"I in 1%%(I de$lared
that the' ."!ld rather dr".n than l"se their h"mes t" the Narmada dam. # remem/ered seeing 6i$t!res "f
these 6e"6le $linging t" the fe. remaining str!$t!resI .ith"!t f""d and shivering fr"m the $"ld.
#ndia is the ."rldUs third largest dam /!ilderI .ith 3I1(( dams that K!alif' as 3ig >ams and 1I((( m"re
!nder $"nstr!$ti"n. ;arge dams are pro"lematic for a num"er of reasonsC They dislocate huge
populations of people leaving them homeless and destitute, destroy entire forests and they cause floods,
salinity and water logging. Bams have either eliminated or endangered one1fifth of the worldIs
freshwater fish.

Link Economic Grot!
Economic =rowth and The Mtilization /f /ur Gesources for Bevelopment .s (hallow
Ecology
,"- %% 2!arwick, #rofessor at the Mniversity of Tansmania, )hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es? &rne Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I 6g 100C
+hirdI in terms "f its s"$ialI 6"liti$alI and e$"n"mi$ 6r"Oe$t, shallow ecology tends to accept "y default or positively
endorse the ideology of economic growth which characterizes industrial and developing societies of all
political comple$ions. .t is thus often referred to as the Jresource managementJ or Jresource
conservation and developmentJ approach. &s s!$hI it is content to operate in a reformist fashion
within the Jdominant social paradigmT10 andI "ftenI t" accept the economic reduc tion Bi.e.I the
red!$ti"n "f all val!es t" e$"n"mi$ termsC for the purposes of decision making. Beep ecology on the other
hand, is concerned to address e$isting social, political, and economic arrangements and to replace the
ideology of economic growth with the ideology of ecological sustaina"ility. .t is insisted that economics
Bet'm"l"gi$all'? Tmanagement "f the h"!seh"ldT) must "e seen as su"sidiary to ecology ("study of the
householdJ3, and the economic reduction of values is thus firmly resisted.
1
Fe' ideas in dee6 e$"l"g'Us s"$ialI
6"liti$alI and e$"n"mi$ 6r"Oe$t in$l!de th"se "f a O!st and s!staina/le s"$iet'I $arr'ing $a6a$it'I fr!galit' B"r v"l!ntar' sim6li$it'CI
d.elling in 6la$eI $!lt!ral and /i"l"gi$al diversit'I l"$al a!t"n"m' and de$entrali7ati"nI s"ft energ' 6athsI a66r"6riate te$hn"l"g'I
reinha/itati"nI and /i"regi"nalism. +hese last t." 6erha6s reK!ire s"me ela/"rati"n. Reinha/itati"n refers t" the 6r"$ess "f relearning
h". t" live in 6la$eI h". t" esta/lish a sense "f 6la$eI h". t" d.ell in and $are f"r a 6la$e. S"me 6e"6le are attem6ting t" $!ltivate
$"ns$i"!sl' this senseI !nder the m"st diffi$!lt "f $ir$!mstan$esI /' m"ving int" areas that have /een degraded /' ind!strial
devel"6ment and 6arti$i6ating in the reesta/lishment "f a ri$h and diverse e$"s'stem. 3i"regi"ns refer t" areas 6"ssessing $"mm"n
$hara$teristi$s "f s"ilsI .atershedsI 6lants and animals Be.g.I the &ma7"n O!ngleC. #t is arg!ed that /i"regi"ns sh"!ld re6la$e nati"n-states
as the f!ndamental ge"gra6hi$al !nit in terms "f .hi$h h!mans think and live. +he h!man $arr'ing $a6a$it' f"r ea$h /i"regi"n sh"!ld
/e determined in terms "f the n!m/er "f h!mans that $an /e s!66"rted living at a level "f res"!r$e !se that is adeK!ate f"r their needs
/!t minimall' intr!sive "n their envir"nment. 5ereI "f $"!rseI lie a m!ltit!de "f diffi$!lt K!esti"ns f"r the 6"liti$al agenda "f dee6
e$"l"g'. 5".everI these K!esti"ns haveI in vari"!s f"rmsI /een addressed /' n!mer"!s s"$ieties in the 6ast Bin$l!ding a min"rit'
traditi"n in 2estern s"$iet'C and are n". /eing taken !6 /' in$reasing n!m/ers "f thinkers in highl' ind!striali7ed s"$ieties.
Link - Econo%y
Anthropocentric gains in economy translate into the degradation of our environment
E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 1*-13C
hanges in other natural systems also show a clear downward spiral in life1sustaining capa"ilities.
Essential sources of water, such as aquifers, are "eing rapidly deleted in certain parts of the world, and
ma'or rivers s!$h as the NileI 4angesI 8ississi66iI and C"l"rad" are running at reduced flow rates as
ever more demands are placed on them. The levels of acidification of lakes and soil are increasing
dramatically in the N"rtheastern 6art "f the =nited States and CanadaI as .ell as in E!r"6eI ChinaI and 6arts
"f #ndia. !ith more land "eing "rought under irrigation, saliniza tionI estimated at t.ent' 6er$ent "f
irrigated land in the =nited StatesI is "ecoming a pro"lem. /ther changes in the life sustaining capacities
of the environment include the impact of human waste and chemicals on marine ecosystems, the
accelerating of species e$tinction as deforestation and other land use practices reduce the amount of
natural ha"itat, and the dumping on the environment of to$ic waste B"ver t.ent' /illi"n 6"!nds in the
=nited States in a single 'earC as well as other human gar"age. &lth"!gh s$ientists and "thers st!d'ing the
$hanges in the earthUs e$"s'stems ma' disagree "n the fig!res !sed t" !nderstand the intera$tive 6atterns that
s!stain the /i"s6here as a living s'stemI and the 6assage "f time .ill make "/s"lete m!$h "f the data
$!rrentl' !sed t" !nderstand thes$"6e "f the $risisI the direction of environmental change is unmistaka"le.
!ith the possi"ility of the earthIs population dou"ling within the ne$t thirty years from E to <* "illion
peo ple, most of the increase will occur in Third !orld countries that are trying to increase their levels
of economic activity in order to accommodate the increase in population and to raise living standards,
the rate of environmental degradation will likely increase. +he 1%87 re6"rt "f the 2"rld C"mmissi"n "n
Envir"nment and >evel"6mentI @!r C"mm"n ,!t!reI estimates that the anticipated increases in
population may result in a five1 to ten1fold increase in what is now a <T trillion1dollar world economy.
This may "e seen as continued evidence of human progress when viewed through our cul tural
framework "ut in terms of further impact on already stressed ecosystems it has catastrophic
implications.
Link E!onomy
All the harms presented in the <A are solved "y the alt1 a humancentered norm of reality
and value is the root cause of environmental pro"lems
,l"rida Lhtt6?//etd.f$la.ed!/S,/S,E((((1(4/ant"li$k.6dfM >EE) EC@L@4E &N> 5E#>E44ER#&N
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
5!mans have n" right t" red!$e this ri$hness and diversit' e-$e6t t" satisf' vital needs. urrent trends in
human consumerism are unsustaina"le, a fact ,clearly seen in the damage done to ma'or elements
necessary for the continued well1"eing of the planet.;133 2hen the s"ilI the air and the .ater have /een
e-tensivel' de6letedI h!man needs $ann"t /e f!lfilled. @n the fli6 sideI the $!rrent Bt""C intense f"$!s "n
6resent f!lfillment leads t" greater and greater la$k "f f!lfillment f"r the f!t!re generati"ns .h" .ill inherit
the effe$ts "f "!r 6resent 6ra$ti$es. 4ar' 4ardener n"tesC the loss of forests, wetlands, and coral reefs to
social decay in the world&s most advanced nationsOwarn us of creeping corrosion in the favored
development model of the twentieth century. That model, used "y developers as well as industrial
nations, is materials1intensive, driven "y fossil fuels, "ased on mass consumption and mass1disposal,
and oriented primarily toward economic growth 8 with insufficient regard for meeting people&s needs.
#n 1%%*I the =.N. C"nferen$e "n Envir"nment and >evel"6ment Bthe Earth S!mmitC $hallenged this m"del
and "ffered a $"m6rehensive alternative. #t $alled the h!man famil' t" a ne. e-6erien$e that "f s!staina/le
devel"6ment.134 +h"mas 3err' $ites unsustaina"le trends as resulting directly from ,a humancentered
norm of reality and value.;130 & .ider Bdee6erC vie. is needed. &gainI to say so is not to "e anti1human,
"ut anti1anthropocentric, in the sense that current practices are "ased on fundamentally flawed
conceptions of "oth human and non1human nature. &ndre. 8$La!ghlin em6hasi7es the distin$ti"n
/et.een vital and n"n-vital needs. :+his distin$ti"n is denied /' the $"ns!merism inherent in ind!strialism.
+" l"se sight "f it is t" /e$"me tra66ed .ithin an endlessl' re6eating $'$le "f de6rivati"n and tem6"rar'
satiati"n.;131 @!r $!rrent $"ns!merist $!lt!reI f!eled thr"!gh advertising and mani6!lative 6s'$h"l"gi$al
ta$ti$sI 6!ts en"rm"!s stress "n re6la$ement 6!r$hases. & $"nstant gr".th e$"n"m' maintains m"ment!m
thr"!gh $"nstant sales. L"ng-term d!ra/le g""ds $!t int" t"tal sales. N"t "nl' that? Beep, long1term
satisfaction with current possessions is actually detrimental to overall economic growth. Today, helping
corporations to increase profits is even equated with American ,patriotism,- demonstrating the fusion
of ideology and technology in the interests of a constant growth economy.
+.= Link o$ >%ission
Every policy implicitly endorses a moral@philosophical stance towards the environment
%arnhill + B>avid LandisI >ire$t"r "f Envir"nmental St!diesI =niversit' "f 2is$"nsin @shk"shI s6ringI
htt6?//....!."sh.ed!/fa$!lt'Wstaff//arnhill/ESW4%(/2"rdS*(d"$!ments/1S*(<al!esS*(inS*(envir"nmentalS*(6"li$'.d"$C
Environmental issues are often portrayed as "eing simply questions of scientific fact. #n "ther $asesI
s"$ial 6"li$' B6rimaril' e$"n"mi$s and 6"liti$sC is seen as 6art "f envir"nmental iss!es. /nly rarely do
people recognize or consider the dimension of values found primarily in the humanities 8 especially
philosophy and religi"n. #ndeedI if this dimensi"n is /r"!ght !6I its relevan$e is freK!entl' denied. #n a$t!alit'I ever'
envir"nmental iss!e "r 6"li$' inv"lves Bat least im6li$itl'C ethi$al val!es and 6hil"s"6hi$al vie.s. +he =2 @shk"sh
Envir"nmental St!dies 6r"gram is designed t" highlight this dimensi"n al"ng .ith s$ien$e and 6"li$'I and ES 4%(?
Seni"r Seminar is an "66"rt!nit' t" arti$!late at a s"6histi$ated level the signifi$an$e "f val!es in envir"nmental iss!es.
!hen you analyze a policy and when you develop your own policies, it is crucial to recognize and
articulate the values involved. +" sim6lif'I .e $an state that there are t." main as6e$ts "f the val!es dimensi"n in
envir"nmental 6"li$'. +he first is ethi$s. A policy inevita"ly involves a particular sense of moral
responsi"ility t" "ther h!mans. #n the 6"li$'I .hether it is an"therGs "r '"! ".nI '"! sh"!ld ask .hat t'6e and degree
"f m"ral res6"nsi/ilit' is ass!med in relati"n t" 6e"6le in the l"$al arena Be.g.I 2is$"nsin "r the =.S.CI 6e"6le ar"!nd the
."rld Be.g.I Sri LankaCI 6e"6le in different ra$es and $lasses Bin$l!ding ."rkersCI and 6e"6le in the f!t!re. >ifferent
vie.s "n m"ral res6"nsi/ilit' lead t" different 6"li$ies. The question of moral considera"ility is not limited to
humans. #n a 6arti$!lar 6"li$'I .hat is the t'6e and relative degree "f m"ral $"nsidera/ilit' given t" individ!al animals and 6lantsI t"
e$"s'stemsI and t" the /i"diversit' "f the 6lanetN & 6"li$' t".ard renewa"le energy, for instance, affects the health of
children who "reathe the air and the poor who eat more "f 2is$"nsinGs to$ic fish than the wealthy, the
livelihood of workers 2too often ignored "y environmentalists3, the "iological health of lake ecosystems,
and future generations of people living close to the ocean, such as in (ri ;anka. And "ecause that
policy has the potential to "enefit or harm these and many other living things, it has a moral
dimension. .f you "elieve that you have moral o"ligations to the people of (ri ;anka and to local
ecosystems, your policy will "e different than those who see their primary 2or only3 o"ligation to the
economic well1"eing of corporations and consumers. )i$k a 6"li$' "n an' iss!e? .hat m"ral val!es are at ."rkN +he
se$"nd maO"r as6e$t "f the val!es dimensi"n is .hat .e $an l""sel' $all 6hil"s"6h'I /"th 6hil"s"6h' "f nat!re and s"$ial 6hil"s"6h'. B#
sa' :l""sel'; /e$a!se the $"n$e6ts and a66r"a$hes inv"lved ma' n"t fit the $"nfines "f rati"nalit' that m"st m"dern 2estern
6hil"s"6hers ."rk .ithin.C Any policy involves at least an implicit conception of what nature is. .f you see
nature as a collection of resources, you will pro"a"ly come up with a different policy than if you see
nature as a community of fellow "eings or an integrated system we are a 6art "f "r 4"dGs sa$red $reati"n. ,"r
instan$eI the /elief that nat!re is a set "f res"!r$es .ith"!t an' real vitalit' "r inherent val!e is K!ite likel' at ."rk in a 6"li$' that
fav"rs geneti$ engineering. +hat /elief is a 6hil"s"6hi$al vie. that dates /a$k t" ,ran$is 3a$"n and "ther 6hil"s"6hers "f the s$ientifi$
rev"l!ti"n. 2hat $"n$e6ti"ns "f nat!re are at ."rk in the 6"li$ies '"! dis$!ssN &ls" inv"lved in an' 6"li$' is a s"$ial 6hil"s"6h'I in the
sense "f a vie. "f the self and "f "!r relati"ns t" "ther h!mans and t" nat!re. 8"st envir"nmental Band s"$ial and legalC 6"li$ies im6l'
that .e are individ!alsI essentiall' se6arate and distin$t f"rm "ther h!mans. @!r relati"ns t" "thersI .hether l"$all'I nati"nall'I "r
gl"/all'I are se$"ndar' and :a$$idental; n"t 6art "f "!r essential self. 3!t s"me envir"nmental 6"li$iesI es6e$iall' th"se 6r"6"sed /'
dee6 e$"l"gists and e$"feminists and th"se infl!en$ed /' &sian "r Native &meri$an $!lt!reI inv"lve a /elief that .e are ine-tri$a/l' and
essentiall' 6art "f a h!man $"mm!nit' t" .hi$h .e are res6"nsi/le and t" .hi$h .e sh"!ld have dee6 $are that g"es /e'"nd a rati"nal
sense "f O!sti$e. & related iss!e $"n$erns "!r relati"nshi6 .ith nat!re. >"es a 6"li$' Ban"therGs "r '"!rsC ass!me that .e are essentiall'
se6arate fr"m and s!6eri"r t" the nat!ral ."rldN @r d"es it ass!me that .e are f!ll' a 6art "f nat!reI .hether it is &ld" Le"6"ldGs sense
"f /eing a :6lain $iti7en "f the land; "r the m"re m'sti$al sense "f identifi$ati"n f"!nd in dee6 e$"l"g'N #n thinking a/"!t the dimensi"n
"f val!esI it is "ften hel6f!l t" kee6 in mind vari"!s s$h""ls and m"vementsI s!$h as animal rightsI /i"regi"nalismI dee6 e$"l"g'I
e$"feminismI s"$ial e$"l"g'I and ste.ardshi6. E"! sh"!ld als" $"nsider different t'6es "f ethi$s? $"nseK!entialist B!tilitarianCI
de"nt"l"gi$alI nat!ral la.I virt!e ethi$sI and ethi$s "f $are. &nd it is im6"rtant t" $"nsider a n!m/er "f distin$ti"ns made in
envir"nmental 6hil"s"6h'? anthr"6"$entrism vers!s /i"$entrism vers!s e$"$entrismI h"lism vers!s $"mm!nalism vers!s individ!alismI
intrinsi$ val!e vers!s instr!mental val!eI /i"$entri$ egalitarianism vers!s hierar$hies "f val!eI m"nism vers!s 6l!ralism. Referen$e t"
these $an hel6 anal'7e the 6hil"s"6hi$al ass!m6ti"ns in an' envir"nmental 6"li$'. .t is crucial that we learn to recognize
and articulate how these issues of value are at work in environmental policy. Be"ates a"out policies
often go astray "ecause the real disagreements are found in implicitly held values that no one talks
a"out. And one of the reasons the environment has "een so degraded is "ecause our society has failed
to consider such issues.
:::.mpacts:::
)%pac - Sae o$ Eco-E%ergency Link/3iopo1er
8C
#n a ."rld .here a te$hn"l"gi$al enframing 6red"minatesI the 6la$e f"r ethi$s and 6"liti$s is $"rres6"ndingl'
diminishedI f"r the' areI /' definiti"nI the arts "f envisi"ning and $reating a g""d life .ith th"se "thers .e
regard as /eing ends in themselves. Radi$al e$"l"g' is thenI $"ntrar' t" its misanthr"6i$ 6"rtra'al /' its
man' detra$t"rsI n"t merel' interested in saving the nat!ral ."rldI it is als" a m"vement that strives t" save a
6la$e f"r 6"liti$s and ethi$s. ,"rI "ne might sa'I it is the red!$ti"n "f the ."rld t" a standing reserve that
threatens t" red!$e h!mans t" the stat!s that 4i"rgi" &gam/en refers t" as :/are-lifeI; that isI h!man life
artifi$iall' stri66ed "f its 6"liti$al and ethi$al 6"ssi/ilities. +his threat is n"t merel' a d'st"6i$ 6"ssi/ilit' /!tI
a$$"rding t" &gam/enI alread' $"nstit!tes the :hidden matri-; "f $"ntem6"rar' B/i"C 6"liti$s.% &gam/enI
.h"se 6hil"s"6hi$al traOe$t"r' has "ft en /een ass"$iated .ith the radi$al left in #tal'I sele$tivel' ada6ts this n"ti"n "f /i"6"liti$s fr"m
the ."rk "f 8i$hel ,"!$a!ltI $"m/ining it .ith a $"m6le- anal'sis "f the idea and r"le "f s"vereignt' /ased in a $riti$al reading "f the
legal 6hil"s"6h' "f Carl S$hmitt.1( 5is 6!r6"seI in a series "f $l"sel' related ."rksAm"st es6e$iall' in +he C"ming C"mm!nit' and
in the series "f v"l!mes /eginning .ith 5"m" Sa$er? S"vereign )".er and 3are-Life11Ais t" 6r"vide a $ritiK!e "f the ver' n"ti"n "f
s"vereignt' in all its ass"$iati"ns .ith state 6".er and es6e$iall' $"ntem6"rar' re6ressive !ses "f this 6".er t" red!$e 6"liti$s t"
n"thing m"re than the administrati"n and management "f h!man /rainsI /"diesI and /i"l"g'. 5e arg!es that the esta/lishment
"f s!$h red!$tive /i"6"liti$al regimes $"nstit!tes a denialI even a destr!$ti"nI "f ever'thing that makes
h!man 6"liti$s s" vital a s"!r$e "f $reative 6"liti$al 6"ssi/ilitiesI ever'thing that frees !s t" take "!r lives
int" "!r ".n hands and make "f them s"mething !niK!e in ass"$iati"n .ith "thers. +he danger "f this
/i"6"liti$al red!$ti"n is 6resent .herever a :state "f emergen$'; B"f e-$e6ti"nCI a term &gam/en /"rr".s
fr"m 2alter 3enOaminI /e$"mes a :6eri"d "f 6ermanent $risis and the state de$ides t" !ndertake the
management "f the /i"l"gi$al life "f the nati"n dire$tl' as its ".n task.;1* =nf"rt!natel'I as 3enOamin
himself s!ggestedI 6"liti$al e-6erien$e tea$hes !s that :the Pstate "f emergen$'G in .hi$h .e live is n"t the
e-$e6ti"n /!t the r!le.;13 S"vereignt'I the 6".er t" r!le "ver "thers and determine matters "f life and deathI
is in t"da'Gs ."rld 6rimaril' legitimated thr"!gh the $"nstant 6resen$e "f emergen$iesI .hether
man!fa$t!red Bfi$titi"!sC "r real. #ndeedI in a te$hn"l"gi$all' enframed Band 6"liti$all' diminishedC
$"nditi"nI "!r realit' itself isI t" an in$reasing e-tentI man!fa$t!red Bin the rather different sense that it is
made manifest /' and thr"!gh s"$i"-e$"n"mi$ 6r"$esses that $"nstantl' transf"rm realit'C. >is$!ssi"n "f
.hether the realit' "f an' sit!ati"n merits the s!s6ensi"n "f 6"liti$s and ethi$s is /eside the radi$al e$"l"gi$al
6"liti$al 6"int B/e$a!se s!$h a s!s6ensi"n m!st al.a's /e resistedCI alth"!gh the K!esti"n "f the e-tent "f
s"vereign 6".erGs inv"lvement in man!fa$t!ring B6r"d!$ingC a $risis sit!ati"nI in$l!ding an e$"l"gi$al $risis
like gl"/al .armingI is $learl' n"t. +he real $"n$ern is that s"vereign 6".er Band hereI remem/erI &gam/en
is thinking 6rimaril' "f state 6".erC hasI as 6art "f its self-definiti"n as :s"vereignI; a$$r!ed t" itself the s"le
right t" de$ide this K!esti"n.14 +hat is t" sa'I the s"vereign 6".er invested in a stateGs O!ridi$"-6"liti$al
s'stem is e-em6lified 6re$isel' in th"se $ases in .hi$h it 6"liti$all' man!fa$t!res B6r"d!$esC a sit!ati"n
.here the ethi$"-6"liti$al n"rmsAthe 6r"te$ti"n "f .hi$hI after allI f"rm the ver' /asis f"r its "riginal $laim
t" .ield legitimate 6".erAare deemed n" l"nger t" a66l'. +he r!le B"f la.C as an e-6ressi"n "f s"vereign
6".er "ver life and death de$lares a state "f emergen$' .here :s!s6ending itselfI LitM gives rise t" the
e-$e6ti"n andI Lsim!ltane"!sl'M maintains itself in relati"n t" the e-$e6ti"n.;10 +here is th!s a realI and
devastatingl' ir"ni$I 6"ssi/ilit' that the idea "f an e$"l"gi$al $risisI s" l"ng and s" vehementl' denied /'
ever' stateI .ill n". find itself re$!6erated /' the ver' 6".ers s" res6"nsi/le f"r /ringing that $risis a/"!tI
as the latest and m"st $"m6rehensive O!stifi$ati"n f"r a 6"liti$al state "f emergen$'I a $"nditi"n that serves t"
ins!late th"se 6".ers against all 6"liti$al and ethi$al $ritiK!e. 2e ma' find that the gl"/al .ar "n terr"r .ill
seg!e seamlessl' int" the $risis "f gl"/al .armingI a $"nditi"n 6r"d!$ed /' 6revi"!s te$hn"l"gi$al
interventi"ns in the nat!ral ."rldI interventi"ns "f a kind that .ere initiall' deemed 6"liti$all'
!n$hallengea/le /' ever'"ne e-$e6t radi$al e$"l"gists. +he gr".ing B6"liti$al and e$"l"gi$alC danger is that
this emergen$' is !sed t" legitimate f!rther te$hn"$rati$ interventi"nsI t" f!rther e-tend the state and
$"r6"rate management "f /i"l"gi$al lifeI in$l!ding the $"ntin!ing red!$ti"n "f h!manit' t" /are life. 2e
sh"!ld /e $lear .hat is at stake here? n"thing less than the e$"l"gi$al f!t!re "f the nat!ral ."rld and the
ethi$"-6"liti$al f!t!re "f h!manit'. +he dr' /ed "f the &ral SeaI the /!rning f"rests "f S"!theast &siaI the
devastated lands$a6e .r"!ght /' the e-6l"itati"n "f the &tha/as$a "il-tar sandsI the ind!strial-s$ale sla!ghter
"f seal 6!6s "n CanadaGs east $"astI and a milli"n "ther e-am6les all reveal the likel' destin' "f the nat!ral
."rld .ith"!t ethi$"-6"liti$al interventi"n. &s f"r the red!$ti"n "f h!manit' t" /are lifeI &gam/en
$"ntr"versiall' s!ggests that its 6aradigmati$I and m"st e-tremeI materiali7ati"n a66ears in the :final
s"l!ti"n; "f the $"n$entrati"n $am6I a 6la$e .here the 6"liti$al e-$e6ti"n /e$"mes the r!leI .here 6e"6le are
e-$ised /' s"vereign 6".er fr"m the 6"liti$al s6hereI .ith devastating res!lts. #n s!$h l"$alitiesI .e
en$"!nter a 6e$!liarl' h!man f"rm "f :s!s6ended animati"nI; "ne .here h!man 6"ssi/ilities f"r 6"liti$al
and ethi$al inv"lvement are rem"vedI .here h!man life /e$"mes /are life. :#nasm!$h as its inha/itants have
/een stri66ed "f ever' 6"liti$al stat!s and red!$ed $"m6letel' t" naked life L/are lifeMI the $am6 is als" the
m"st /i"6"liti$al s6a$e that has ever /een realised.;11 ,"r &gam/enI thenI the $am6 :is the sign "f the
s'stemGs ina/ilit' t" f!n$ti"n .ith"!t transf"rming itself int" a lethal ma$hine.; 5".everI he als" arg!es that
6re$isel' f"r this reas"nI :.e m!st learn t" re$"gnise it Lthe $am6M in all "f its metam"r6h"sesI; and there are
man'.17 @f $"!rseI the' are rarel'I if everI s" e-tremeI /!t the red!$ti"n "f 6e"6le t" /are life isI &gam/en arg!esI the sign "f an
in$reasingl' 6ervasive f"rm "f /i"6"liti$s. 5e menti"ns the f"rmer E!g"slaviaAand 4!ant[nam" 3a' als"I inevita/l'I s6rings t" mind
A as a l"$alit' .hereI a$$"rding t" 9!dith 3!tlerI /are life rea$hes its ma-im!m indetermina$'.18 8"re freK!entl'I this /i"6"liti$s is
less l"$ali7a/le and f"r this reas"n less e-treme in its immediate effe$tsI th"!gh n" less s'stemati$ in their distri/!ti"n. +he $"r6"rate
6atenting "f individ!alsG >N&I their e-$l!si"n fr"m medi$al ins!ran$e "n geneti$ gr"!ndsI the takingI st"ringI and "rdering "f /i"l"gi$al
inf"rmati"n at /"rder $r"ssingsI fa$ial re$"gniti"n te$hn"l"g'Aall might 6r"vide $ases in 6"int. 5ere t"" .e find $"r6"rati"ns and the
state m"ving t".ard the /i"6"liti$al management "f 6"6!lati"nsR here t"" the 6r"$ed!res are O!stified /' :e-$e6ti"nal; $ir$!mstan$es
that /e$"me the ne. r!les. & m"re l"$ali7ed and e$"l"gi$al e-em6lar might /e f"!nd in the state "f emergen$'
de$lared in Ne. @rleans after 5!rri$ane Fatrina. 5ereI .hat .as 6"rtra'ed as a fail!re t" 6redi$t "r manage
a nat!ral event led t" the ethi$al and 6"liti$al a/and"nment "f a largel' &fri$an &meri$anI !r/an 6"6!lati"n
and the sim!ltane"!s im6"siti"n "f martial la. "n that same 6"6!lati"n. +he $"n$ernI if &gam/en is rightI is
that the disastr"!s $"nseK!en$es "f s!$h instan$es "nl' in$rease the likelih""d "f f!rther te$hn"l"gi$al
interventi"ns and the $all f"r m"re rig"r"!s /!rea!$rati$ $"ntr"l and 6"li$e 6".ersI "n an ever in$reasing
s$ale.
)%pac - Ecological 5oloca(s
.nstrumentalizing nature for human purposes inevita"ly leads to an ecological holocaust
Alf T B&lfI h"lds a masters degree in )hil"s"6h' fr"m the =niversit' "f =tah htt6?//....h!m.!tah.ed!/hg$/6a6ers/seegert.6df +he
)r"/lem "f )ainlessness? 2h' >ee6 E$"l"g' 2"nGt 2"rk 2ith"!t a 2illingness t" ,eelC
#roponents of deep ecologyI f"r instan$eI argue that a truncated sense of self goes hand in hand with
ecological devastation. +he' $"ntend that our present environmental crisis is fundamentally a crisis not
of ethics "ut of perception, where we narrowly and mistakenly identify ourselves with our particle1like
egos. >"ing s" intr"d!$es a s!/Oe$t/"/Oe$t s6lit /et.een the h!man and the m"re-than-h!man ."rld that is
n"t "nl' ill!s"r'I /!t als" danger"!s. %y conceiving nature as ,radically other- and separate, we
instrumentalize it and consign it to ,thinghood,- there"y reducing the more1than1human1world to the
status of raw material valua"le only in terms of its use. The perhaps unsurprising consequence of such
an isolated, dualistic sense of self is an ecological holocaust unrivaled "y anything that the planet has
seen for over QE million years.
)%pac ' "oo Ca(se
The current lens in which we view nature is the root cause of all the harms of the <A
Lohak * BEra7imI )r"fess"r Emerit!s )hil"s"6h' 3"st"n =niversit'I +he 4reen 5al"? & 3irdGs E'e <ie. "f Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6.3-4C
!hen today we speak of an ecological crisis we are "asically articulating a realization that this
primitive, seemingly self1evident ethics will no longer do. 2e made d" .ith it f"r three $ent!ries and in a
sense even l"nger. &n$ient R"mans treated nat!re .ith the same t"tal !n$"n$ern as .e. The deserts around
arthage, once GomeIs granary, and deforested rocky slopes of south ern .taly testify to that. The
monks who "rought the "eaver to e$tinction in the zech lands in the eighteenth centuryA/eaver .as
$"nsidered fish and s" all".a/le "n fast days6were no more considerate. !e have simply assumed that,
whatever we do, nature is always more powerful and can make good the damage. Still d!ring the Se$"nd
2"rld 2ar .e !sed t" hear "n the radi" h". man' gr"ss register t"ns "f $r!de "ilI destined f"r EnglandI the
4erman nav' sank. 2e .ere an-i"!s f"r England /!t never dreamed "f $"nsidering the fate "f the "$eans
and the fish. 2e sim6l' ass!med nat!re ."!ld set it right andI in generalI it ."rked "!t that .a'. #t ."rks "!t
n" l"nger. All availa"le indicators show that humankind is drastically crippling the a"ility of the
"iosphere to make up for human inter ventions and to preserve an environment suita"le for our kind of
life.3 4ature has not changed6it still is what it has "een throughout the countless millennia of its
evolution. 4or did our approach to nature change6we are still acting wholly in the spirit of Jcow"oy
ethics,J interested only in our own wishes and su"limely unconcerned a"out the consequences of our
doingI O!st as drivers $are little a/"!t the effe$t "f their e-ha!st f!mes "n the $it'I 6e"6leI "r nat!re.4 &fter
allI .e have a right and .e have al.a's d"ne s" . . . Seemingl'I n"thing has $hangedI s" .h' ."rr'N
3e$a!se s"mething has $hanged. Figuratively speaking, we have run out of yellow paint for covering up
the damage we are causing Bsee 6. iC. The effects of the heedless disregard which for centuries we could
paint over with cosmetic measures will no longer "e hid. @!r m"de "f living !6"n this Earth is
endangering its a/ilit' t" s!66"rt "!r kind "f life. +hat is .hat the gl"/al e$"l"gi$al $risis f"r the t.ent'-first
$ent!r' is all a/"!t? .e are !sing m"re than the Earth $an re6la$e. #n the C7e$h Re6!/li$I the g"vernment f"r
'ears ref!sed t" admit .hat s$ientists and $iti7ens see ever m"re $learl'I that "!r $"n$e6ti"ns "f /eing h!man
"n this Earth are in dire$t $"nfli$t .ith the $"nditi"ns "f s!staina/ilit' "f life. As the mythical Ling anute
commanded in his royal authority that the tide should stop rising, so until very recently first our om 1
munist, then our neo1li"eral leaders proclaimed that there is no ecological threat and acted
accordingly, perhaps in the hope that what they will not acknowledge will not e$ist.
(eparation From The 4atural .s The Goot ause of /ur Ecological #ro"lems
(mith + 2Dick, #rofessor at Yueens Mniversity, ,(uspended AnimationC Gadical Ecology, (overeign #owers, and (aving the 24atural3
!orld,- Fournal for the (tudy of Gadicalism, Aol. ), 4o. <, #g 7, )**+, #ro'ect Duse3
This feeling oneself part of B.hi$h is n"t the same as feeling at "ne .ithC a living world is not 'ust the
ground of radical ecology, "ut is originally present and made manifest in the phenomenal ground and
flow of every human e$istence. .t is certainly a sign of the successful dominance of the technological
4estalt that many :s"6histi$ated; ad!lts claim to no longer feel this B"r that the' have managed t" re6ress
s!$h feelingsC and that an entire polity is ordered on the "asis that such feelings are unimportant. 2The
fact that this enframing has resulted in the successful eradication of nonhuman natural matter from an
increasing proportion of so many human lives dou"tless fosters this.C 3!t this 4estalt should "e seen for
what it is6a "izarre historical a"erration, and one thatI radi$al e$"l"gists ."!ld arg!eI is closely
connected to our current ecological pro"lems.
)%pac - )%pac )ne# 1/o +lernai#e
The current state of ecological understanding is leading us in destructive paths
%owers PT BC.&. +ea$hes in S$h""l "f Ed!$ati"nI )"rtland State =niversit'I Ed!$ati"nI C!lt!ral 8'ths and the E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 1(-11C
&lth"!gh the rate "f $hange in the e$"s'stems has /een a$$elerating in the last h!ndred 'earsI the real
a$$elerati"n "$$!rred in the 6"st-2"rld-2ar-11 era. Awareness with in the dominant culture of human
interdependence with nat ural systems is a relatively recent phenomena3 6r"vided an anal"g!e f"r living
in a less e-6l"itive relati"nshi6 .ith the "ther f"rms "f life that make !6 the envir"nment. 5is /""kI $alling
f"r the devel"6ment "f an ethi$ t".ard the land that ."!ld s!66lant the traditi"n "f vie.ing the envir"nment
6rimaril' in e$"n"mi$ and 6"liti$al termsI .as 6!/lished in 1%41. Ra$hel arsonUs Silent S6ring B1%1*C
provided in a way that could "e understood "y the general pu"lic the scientific evidence that our
technological approach to the environment threatened the "asis of all forms of life6includ ing our own.
3' the time "f )a!l Ehrli$hUs +he )"6!lati"n 3"m/ B1%18C and 3arr' C"mm"nerUs +he Cl"sing Cir$le
B1%71CI the envir"nmental m"vement .as gaining a .ider f"ll".ing .ithin $ertain se$ti"ns "f s"$iet'. +he
6"int /eing made here is that the re$"gniti"n that cultural practices can not evolve independently of a
concern for the well1"eing of the ha"itat g"es /a$k a mere f"rt' 'earsR and it .as an a.areness !nevenl'
!nderst""d and a66re$iated .ithin mainstream s"$iet'. Native &meri$an $!lt!resI "f $"!rseI had ev"lved in
e$"l"gi$all' res6"nsive .a'sR /!t .hat $"!ld have /een learned fr"m their th"!sands "f 'ears "f e-6erien$e
in ada6ting t" the !niK!e $hara$teristi$s "f their ha/itat .as ign"red /e$a!se the' .ere 6er$eived as !nen-
lightened and 6re-m"dern. The discrepancy "etween the view of cultural change held "y the middle class
and the nature of environmental change can "e seen in the findings of scientists who are studying the
interactive environmental systems that make life possi"le as we know it. The schema of understanding
"ased on !estern culture represents change as a progres sive e$pansion of human possi"ilitiesC
personal freedom and individual advancement, control over life1threatening sit uations, power to solve
pro"lems and direct the course of future events, and of course an e$pansion of possi"ilities for
consumption. The e$pansion of human population Bfr"m 1.1 /illi"n in 1%(( t" 0 /illi"n in 1%81C and the
corresponding increase in world economic activity Bfr"m (.1 trilli"n d"llars in 1%(( t" 13.1 trilli"n in
1%81C are indeed impressive fig ures. %ut this growth in the num"er of people and the scale of economic
activity has also increased the disruptive impact of humans on the ha"itat. 9ere the trend line indi cates
a decline in the via"ility of natural systems.
)%pac - 5(%an Desr(cion
Anthropocentrism will ultimately result in the self destruction of our e$istence
=emeinhardt and (chmidt 7 B8a- and Lars Lhtt6?//....s"!nd"fsirens.net/inde-.6h6/definiti"nsM S"!nds "f Sirens/ *((7C
,Anthropocentrism Bgreek?anthr"6"sI h!man /eing / kentr"nI $enterC is the idea that, for humans,
humans must "e the central concern, and that humanity must 'udge all things accordingly? 9uman
"eings must "e considered, looked after and cared for, a"ove all other real or imaginary "eings.; Bvia
2iki6ediaC @ne alternative t" this .a' "f 6er$eiving "ffers the 4aia 5'6"thesisI .hi$h !nderstands the earth
as "ne living "rganismI th!s the h!man /eing as an integral 6art "f the .h"le s'stemI /eing em/edded in it
and de6endent "n it. E"! find this !nderstanding als" in man' indigene"!s $!lt!res and '"! $"!ld sa' that it
is em/edded in "!r $"lle$tive !n$"ns$i"!s. The anthropocentric way of perceiving must ultimately lead
to self1destruction, since it results in separation and isolation from nature @ the earth, and the earth
forms the very "asis of our e$istence.
)%pac ' No Sol#ency
Framing environmental policies through government action guarantees they will not work
As a consequence of increasing pu"lic concern over environmental issues, sustaina"le development has
"ecome a main goal of governmental policy in virt!all' all 2estern li/eral dem"$ra$ies. @ver the last three
de$ades environmental policy has "ecome Kinstitutionalised& in the .estern ."rld? envir"nmental iss!es
are n". 6rimaril' a66r"a$hed as te$hni$al 6r"/lems .hi$h $an /e ta$kled /' ela/"rate g"vernmental 6"li$ies
and strategies. Ne. envir"nmental legislati"n has /een intr"d!$ed and inn"vative legalI e$"n"mi$ and s"$ial
6"li$' instr!ments have /een a$$e6ted. 9owever, in many areas there still remains a world of difference
"etween official governmental o"'ectives and actual developments in the environmental field. ,r"m a
green 6ers6e$tiveI it seems that the policies and strategies of western li"eral democracies have not "een
a"le to effectively cope with the environmental crisis.
)%pac - +nhropocenris% 3a!
Anthropogenic causes are making the world incapa"le of human survival

E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 11-1*C
The cultural image of progress isI in 6artI "ased on sci entific1technological developments, such as the
synthesizing and introduction into the environment of appro$imately sev enty thousand different kinds
of chemicals, as well as the widespread use of technologies for transportation that "urn fossil fuelAt"
$ite O!st t." e-am6les. The scale of human impact on environmental systems, which scientists view as
accelerating over the last three hundred years6with a partic ularly large 'ump in the rate of change
occurring during the last E* years6is indeed daunting. &$$"rding t" the lead arti$le in a S$ientifi$
&meri$an s6e$ial iss!e BSe6tem/er 1%8%CI T8anaging )lanet EarthIT the planet since the "eginning of the
eighteenth century has lost forest cover equal in area to the size of Europe. And the rate of
deforestation has now increased to "etween 7*,*** and <<*,*** square kilome ters of land a year, which
is equivalent to the com"ined land mass of the 4etherlands and (witzerland. To put it another way, an
additional one percent of the total forest cover is "eing lost each year, and the rate is accelerating. The
con centrations in the atm"s6here "f methane and $ar/"n di"-ideAt." $hemi$als vie.ed as $"ntri/!ting t"
the green house effect6are estimated to have increased )E percent over the last T** years. +aking int"
a$$"!nt $hanges in $!rrent levels "f 6"6!lati"n and e$"n"mi$ a$tivit'I it is 6r"Oe$ted that the $"n$entrati"n "f
$ar/"n di"-ide in the atm"s6here .ill have d"!/led s"metime after the 'ear *(3(A.hi$h .ill /e .ell .ithin
the lifetime "f the $hildren "f the readers "f this /""k. &lth"!gh there is n"t agreement am"ng s$ientists
a/"!t the fa$t"rs that $"ntri/!te t" the greenh"!se effe$tAthe infl!en$e "f $l"!d $"verI the e-a$t invent"r'
"f the earthUs $ar/"n di"-ide a/s"r/ing /i"massI and s" f"rthAthere is agreement that the earthUs atm"s6here
is .arming at an a$$elerating rateI and that this trend will have unknown consequences "n 6re$i6itati"n
6atternsI agri$!lt!ral 6r"d!$ti"nI f"rest 7"nesI andAgiven even O!st the e-6e$ted rise in sea levelAon
human settlement.
)%pac ' Ehics
Anthropocentrism assigns value to nonhuman things, limiting ethical prescription
Dc(hane 7 BFatieI >e6t. "f )hil"s"6h' and Religi"n N"rth Car"lina State =niversit'I Envir"nmental <al!es 11
B*((7C? 11%-180 ( *((7 +he 2hite 5"rse )ressC
Anthropocentrism claims that the nonhuman world and@or its parts have value only "ecause, and
insofar as, they directly or indirectly serve human interests. #t is ."rth n"ti$ing that in the first instan$eI
this is not a claim a"out how we ought to "ehave. .t is a claim a"out which features of nonhuman
things can make them matter in which ways. Anthropocentrism says that only one feature 8 serving
human interests, directly or indirectly 8 can make a nonhuman thing valua"le. Claims a/"!t .h'
s"mething has val!e are $laims a/"!t .h' .eI as m"ral agentsI have reas"n t" $are a/"!t the thing.13 8"re
6re$isel'I the' are $laims a/"!t .h' the thing is ."rth $aring a/"!t 11 Anthropocentrism says that when it
comes to the nonhuman natural world, the only accepta"le reasons of this kind are those that show a
connection to the satisfaction of human interests. These claims a"out why we moral agents should care
a"out a thing serve as the grounds for ethical norms concerning the thing. +hese ethi$al n"rms $"me in
at least t." flav"!rs? n"rms f"r a$ti"n B.hat .e "!ght t" d"CI and n"rms f"r feeling Bh". .e "!ght t"
feelC.10 +he 6i$t!re .e have s" farI thenI is this? anthropocentrism limits the kind of claims we can
2'ustifia"ly3 make a"out why certain things are worth caring a"out. The worry a"out
anthropocentrism can thus "e understood as the worry that since these claims serve to ground our
ethical prescriptions, limiting the claims we can make might limit the kinds of ethical prescriptions we
can offer. +he ."rr' a/"!t N"rt"nUs $"nvergen$e h'6"thesisI thenI is a ."rr' a/"!t .hat s"rts "f limits .ill
/e 6la$ed "n "!r n"rms f"r a$ti"n? if .e a$$e6t anthr"6"$entrismI .ill .e still have a the"r' that $an tell !s
t" d" the right thingsN +he $"nvergen$e h'6"thesis ans.ers this K!esti"n U>esUI and # .ill n"t $hallenge that
$laim here 11
+.= Ehical /ra%ing 3a!
Beep ecology surpasses the realm of traditional ethics and includes nonhuman "eings
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
,ritO"f Ca6ra sa's :the most important task for a new school of ethics will "e to develop a non1
anthropocentric theory of value.-104 +he 6revi"!s se$ti"n dealt /riefl' .ith the sh"rt$"mings "f
traditi"nal val!e the"ries. +heir defi$ien$ies are d!e t" their f"$!s "n the narr". self .hi$h dee6 e$"l"g'
seeks t" .iden. BE does not seek to merely e$tend traditional ethical frameworks to include non1
human "eings5 these ethical frameworks themselves are pro"lematic. Their pro"lems are tracea"le to
the narrowness of the self Bs!/Oe$tC that adopts and employs such frameworks 8 t" .h"m s!$h
frame."rks make sense as well as to presuppositions of su"stantial o"'ective presence. !e are thus
dealing with a shift in perception, rather than a mere e$tension of the "ounds of the same ethical
paradigm.
As our capacity to care for nature grows, we "reak from the enslavement of modern ethics
to a freer spirituality
BiNerga *< B4!sI :>ee6 E$"l"g' and Li/eralsim? +he 4reener #m6li$ati"ns "f Ev"l!tinar' Li/eral +he"r'; 6.
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
,ar fr"m gl"rif'ing the rati"nal $al$!lat"rI fr"m this vantage li"eralism urges us to develop our uniquely
human potential for empathy as widely and deeply as possi"le. +he $"mm"n $"mm!nitarian $harge that
li/eralism denies the 6"ssi/ilit' "f a m"ral $"mm!nit' is falseI ins"far as it is a66lied t" the ev"l!ti"nar'
traditi"n.0* !e are led to a inspiring standard for human e$cellence, one largely harmonious with the
worldIs dominant spiritual traditions. +" the e-tent a 6ers"n agrees .ith the arg!ment # am makingI he "r
she .ill .ant t" a$t in a s'm6atheti$ manner t".ard all their relati"ns. Ethics in its traditional gar" as a set
of commands and prohi"itions su"stitutes for gaps and failures in our understanding. As such it is
important for ine$perienced or ignorant people. &nd all "f !s are ine-6erien$ed and ign"rant t" s"me
degree. 9owever, sympathetic relationships with others are e$pansions, not limitations upon our selves.
#n this sense as our capacity to care for others grows, we "ecome more free.03
+.= Ehical /ra%ing 3a!
!e must e$pand our circle of ethics to include other species
!eston Q B&nth"n' L tea$hes 6hil"s"6h' and envir"nmental st!dies at El"n =niversit' in N"rth Car"linaM 8!lti-
Centrism? & 8anifest"/ *((1C
Envir"nmental ethi$s is "ften framed in ge"metri$al terms. 2e are invited t" ask h". /ig the $ir$le "f m"ral
$"nsiderati"n $an "r sh"!ld get and .here t" dra. the line /et.een .hat $"!nts and .hat d"esnGt.
9istorically, a$$"rding t" this vie.I ethics "egan "y stretching the circle of the self first to include some
other humans Bfamil'I $"mm!nit'I et$.C and thenI event!all'I t" a :!niversal; vie. "n .hi$h all h!mans
$"!nt. +he familiar e-tensi"nist arg!ment insists that we cannot 'ustly draw the line at the "oundary of
the human species either. !hy should the species "order "e any more impenetra"le, truly any more
natural, than the "oundaries of human clan or nation0 /ther animals present themselves Afirst "nl'
s"meI then arg!a/l' all. The ,e$panding circle,; as )eter Singer fam"!sl' $alled itI1 keeps pushing
outwardC to all living things ne$t, including plants and trees for e$ample, which may not "e conscious
su"'ects "ut are clearly self1organized and responsive systems5 then to the land6the community of life.
A little farther and we may have to consider the rivers, mountains, the air as well, and perhaps even
the Earth as a whole.
on1centrism views of framing environmental ethics will inevita"ly fail1 framing it this way
doesn&t allow for the growth of moral sensitivity
!eston Q B&nth"n' L tea$hes 6hil"s"6h' and envir"nmental st!dies at El"n =niversit' in N"rth Car"linaM 8!lti-
Centrism? & 8anifest"/ *((1C
on1centrism is a natural and indeed generous way of framing environmental ethics. Eet it $ann"t /e
said t" /e the "nl' 6"ssi/le a66r"a$h. Even in 6!rel' ge"metri$al termsI there is an "/vi"!s alternative? a
multi1centred vision according to which more1than1human others enter the moral realm on their own
terms, rather than "y e$pansion from a single centreAa visi"n a$$"rding t" .hi$h there are diverse
$entresI shifting and "verla66ing /!t still ea$h .ith its ".n distin$tive starting-6"int. For a multi1centred
ethic, then, the growth of moral sensitivity and consideration does not proceed through an e$panding
series of con1centric realmsI ea$h neatl' assimilating "r in$"r6"rating the 6revi"!s stage .ithin a larger and
m"re in$l!sive .h"le. N"? instead we discover a world of separate though mutually implicated centres.
Doral growth consists in e$periencing more and more deeply the te$ture of multiplicity in the world,
not in tracing the wider and wider circles set off from one single centre. S!$h a m!lti-$entri$ visi"n
refle$ts "!r e-6erien$e "f the differen$e "f m"re-than-h!man "thersI .ith"!tI "n the "ther handI .h"ll'
den'ing $"mm"nalit' either. Geal e$perience is 'ust not so uni1centric? n"t "!t there .ith the /!gs and the
lightningI the m"!ntains and the starsI and ma'/e n"t even .ith ea$h "ther. 8"re"ver, even the "arest
sketch of a multi1centred vision quickly reminds us of many themes that have occupied certain rich
lines of alternative environmental philosophizing for yearsC of feminist and phenomenological critiques
of the sameness1versus1difference construction of so many Kothers,& "oth human and other1than1
human5 of the possi"ility of a relational ethic toward nature intimated "oth "y these postmodern kinds
of philosophizing as well as "y certain premodern or indigenous thoughtlines5 and of certain other
suggestive, "ut as yet unassimilated concepts in the field, such as ,universal consideration,-
environmental ,etiquette,- and the first sketches of a possi"le ,communicative ethics for the
"iosphere.-
:::Alternatives:::
+l, Sol#ency?@+ga%2en-Deep Eco Co%2o 4oo!A
The com"ination of deep ecology and Agam"en resituates ethics
11C
2hat is m"reI since nature is not essentially 2in and of itself3 political,
saving nature only "ecomes possi"le through re1articulating the relative
autonomy of "oth nature and politics in terms of an ecological ethics, that
is, as politically e$pressed ethical concerns for nature that offer critiques of
claims to human sovereignty . This possi"ility is precisely what forms the core
of any radical ecology and precisely what is e$plicitly missing in Agam"en&s
analysis. Garely, if an'.here in his ."rkI does Agam"en show the slightest
concern a"out the repercussions for animals of their relegation to what has
"een a permanent state of e$ception, still less for nature in any wider sense.
The possi"ility remains, though, of a radical ecological take on aspects of
Agam"en&s work, one that develops his analysis of sovereignty and "are life
in terms of a "roader understanding of saving the natural world, s!$h as
that s!ggested /' the ."rk "f Neil Evernden. +his re-arti$!lati"n m!st "/vi"!sl'
6a' s6e$ial attenti"n t" the ethi$al ramifi$ati"ns "f the different .a's in
.hi$h s!$h the"rists !nderstand the differentiati"n "f h!man /eing B>aseinC
fr"m the n"nh!man ."rld.
+lernai#e - B(esioning
Asking deeper questions a"out our "eing solves the harms of the aff and allows us to
appreciate life quality
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
The ideological change will "e mainly that of appreciating life quality Bd.elling in sit!ati"ns "f inherent
val!eC rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. +here .ill /e a 6r"f"!nd
a.areness "f the differen$e /et.een /igness and greatness. !hen argumentation shifts from short1term to
long1term, a$ioms necessarily shift as well. Arguments are constructed upon foundational assumptions
that are deeper and "roader in terms of ethical considerationC they consider non1humans Band m"reC as
worthy ethical su"'ects B$"nsidered as 6"ssi/le ethi$al 6atientsC. .n order to uncover deeper assumptions,
the deep ecologist asks ,deeper questions.-141 :#n >EI we ask whether the present society fulfills "asic
human needs like love and security and access to nature, and, in so doing, we question our society&s
underlying assumptions.;14* #n &meri$aI at 6resentI there e-ists the strange $"m/inati"n "f an ama7ingl'
high n!m/er "f affl!ent $iti7ens .ith staggering rates "f de6ressi"n and an-iet'. >ee6 e$"l"gists vie. this
$"rrelati"n as a res!lt "f a $"lle$tive Bide"l"gi$all' infl!en$edC em6hasis "n the K!antit' "f 6"ssessi"ns - the
trademark "f an :!ltimatel' !nsatisf'ing $"ns!merism; 143 - "ver a sim6ler and dee6er K!alit' "f life.
8$La!ghlin .rites? !ith a focus on quality, people can see that e$isting patterns of la"or and
consumption are not satisfying, "ut rather involve chronic dissatisfaction. Doving towards an
appreciation of the quality of life, instead of quantities of things, leads to an increase in happiness, not
a decrease. This is fundamental, since people are more apt to change when they e$perience change as
improvement, rather than a grudging su"mission to necessity. As long as environmentalism seems to
require only denial and sacrifice, its political effectiveness will "e lessened. Beep Ecology seeks a more
satisfactory way of living, an increase in vitality and 'oy La!th"rGs em6hasisM.144 /ld paradigms are
,inadequate for dealing with the pro"lems of our overpopulated, glo"ally interconnected world.-140
,"r the dee6 e$"l"gistI our crisis is a ,crisis of perception.-141 BE proposes a change not 'ust in policy,
and attit!de? it goes deeper "y rooting the necessity of these changes in a different philosophical account
of how we as e$periencing su"'ects 2actively3 perceive 2and construct3 ,reality.- +he 6aradigm that is
n". re$eding has d"minated "!r $!lt!re f"r several h!ndred 'earsI d!ring .hi$h time it has sha6ed "!r
m"dern 2estern s"$iet' and has signifi$antl' infl!en$ed the rest "f the ."rld. +his 6aradigm $"nsists "f a
n!m/er "f ideals and val!esI am"ng them the vie. "f the !niverse as a me$hani$al s'stem $"m6"sed "f
elementar' /!ilding /l"$ksI the vie. "f the h!man /"d' as a ma$hineI the vie. "f life in s"$iet' as a
$"m6etitive str!ggle f"r e-isten$eI the /elief in !nlimited material 6r"gress t" /e a$hieved thr"!gh e$"n"mi$
and te$hn"l"gi$al gr".thI an last /!t n"t leastI the /elief that a s"$iet' in .hi$h the female is ever'.here
s!/s!med !nder the male is "ne that f"ll".s a /asi$ la. "f nat!re. #n recent decades, all of these
assumptions have "een found to "e severely limited and in need of radical revision.147 The already
cited link "etween ethics and ontology, as well as intrinsic value grounded in self1emergence, all have a
role to play as realizations in the progression out of the traditional mechanistic ontology.
+lernai#e ' Ecological Sel$
Mpon reaching our ecological self and accepting responsi"ility within environmental ethics,
it would solve the root of their environmental destruction
3ill >evall .r"te man' arti$les "n dee6 e$"l"g'I "ne /eing his /""k Sim6le in 8eansI Ri$h in EndsI and it is
essentiall' a/"!t living 6ra$ti$all' /' the dee6 e$"l"g' 6rin$i6les. >evall 6arti$!larl' gets int" the ecological
self, .hi$h is one of the "est e$planations of the deep ecologists& view on the role of humans in their
environment. The ecological self is that which is "eyond, mature, aware, sensitive, and caring towards
the environment and nature. !e all have the potential to reach our ecological self, "ut we are dis1
encouraged "y the surrounding institutions of society to pursue such a self. +he self is f!rtherm"re n"t
a/"!t /eing inde6endent fr"m the :"ther;I in referen$e t" nat!re. %y calling nature the other, we allow
ourselves, free from guilt, to manipulate, use, and control nature for our own "enefits, "ecause
/asi$all'I no one is a"le to identify with the other. >ee6 e$"l"g' s!ggests that humans need to start
seeing the relation of themselves to the environment. >evall K!"tes ,ran$es <a!ghn in sa'ing that the
health' self is :an "6en living s'stem in an intri$ate .e/ "f m!t!all' $"nditi"ned relati"nshi6s B>evallI 41C.;
%y realizing our relationships with nature, we realize our dependence on nature, and thus our
responsi"ility as humans to care for nature and to treat it for its true worth is created. >evall agreesI
.hen he sa's that :as we reach our ecological self we will 'oyfully defend and interact with that with
which we identify5 and instead of imposing environmental ethics on people, we will naturally respect,
love, honor, and protect that which is of our self B>evallI 43C.; #n "!r reali7ati"n "f nat!re as a 6art "f
h!mansI /!t h!mans .ill rea$h a higher level "f self as .ell.
+lernai#e ' "ecogni6e )nerconnece!ness
8' thesis is that ecological understanding negates the traditional view of Earth as merely a ,life1
support system,- as no more than a passive ark serving to keep afloat its organic cargo, including
humanity. The s!n-.armed Ecosphere e$hi"its many evolved inorganic@organic processes that in
endless cycles link its impro"a"le air, water, rocks, sediments, and organisms. %y integrating these
diverse components, Earth shows itself to "e a higher level of organization than organismsI O!st as
"rganisms are a higher level than their "rgansI and as "rgans s!r6ass in "rgani7ati"n the tiss!es and $ells the'
$"m6rise.1 S" far as is kn".n in the s"lar s'stem and /e'"ndI EarthI the Ecosphere, is the only celestial
"ody that e$hi"its the closely related organic@inorganic cyclic processes that have "een named ,living-
and ,dying.- As such, Earth e$ceeds in creativity and importance all organisms, including the human
species. Ecology accents the im6"rtan$e "f the Earth $"nte-tI !nderlining the fact that humans and all
other organisms are EarthlingsC "orn on and from Earth, made of Earth&s surface d!st Bitself derived
fr"m an$ient star-d!stCI evolved and sustained "y its ecosystems of which they are dependent parts.
These truths support the hypothesis that Earth and its ecosystems are the essential ;ife1giving source
and not merely the support of organic life1forms. C"n$eiving the relati"nshi6 "f "rganism- t"-Earth as that
"f 6art-t"-2h"leI inverts the traditi"nal val!e s'stem that identifies 6e"6le as m"re im6"rtant than their Earth
$"nte-t. The identification of Earth and its sectional ecosystems as possessing higher intrinsic value
than its organic@inorganic components, elevates the status of the former as moral o"'ects and points
toward an ecological Ecospheric Ethic that transcends while including the human species. 8"ralit' and
ethi$al a$ti"n inv"lve $h"i$esI .ith f!ndamental val!es 6r"viding the standard. omprehension of Earth as
the generative source of ;ife and the carrier of #rimary Aalues shifts ethical emphasis from people1
centredness Bh"m"$entrismC to Earth1centredness Be$"$entrismC. +h!s to protect and perpetuate the
creativity of Earth&s ecosystems, ecocentric people will re'ect many of the traditional cultural norms
and practices of homocentric society. They will replace the concept of the autonomous individual with
the ecological individual, reclassify ,progress- as whatever is conducive to sustaina"le participation in
Earth&s ecosystems, and redirect science and technology to the same end. .n action they will place
limits on their population num"ers, their consumption, and the wastes they produce. (ituating the
primary ethical standard outside the human race6askingC ,.s it good for Earth0-6will facilitate
solution of such human dilemmas as glo"al versus regional trade, appropriate technology, population
num"ers, and the control of "irths. +he latter t"6i$ raises the K!esti"n "f .here the life-f"r$e is $entred and
m"st needs 6r"te$ti"n? in f!sed se- $ellsI in the h!man m"therI in 8"ther EarthN;
+l Sol#es ' En#iron%enal Desr(cion
/nly through the cultivation of an ecocentric mindset can we solve environmental pro"lems
caused "y the human population
Eckersely P) BR"/'nI &!stralian Resear$h C"!n$il ,ell".I Centre f"r Envir"nmental St!dies at the =niversit' "f
+asmaniaI Envir"nmentalism and )"liti$al +he"r'? +".ards and E$"$entri$ &66r"a$hI 6.180C
N"nethelessI # have arg!ed that the cultivation of an ecocentric culture is crucial to achieving a lasting
solution to the ecological crisis. +his is /e$a!se it is only in those political communities in which an
ecocentric sensi"ility is widely shared that there will "e a general consensus in favor of the kinds of far1
reaching, su"stantive reforms that will protect "iological diversity and life1support systems. &t a
minim!mI th"se .h" share an ecocentric perspec tive understand and accept the need for the protection
of large tracts of repre sentative ecosystems5 the development of a humane population policy that
respects the carrying capacity of ecosystems and the JrightsJ of other species to share the EarthIs life1
support system5 a fundamental reevaluation of human needs, technologies, and lifestyles in such a way
as to minimize energy and resource consumption and minimize or eliminate pollution5 and the
provision of adequate compensation whenever ecological reforms are likely to produce inequita"le
consequences for certain social groups, classes, or nations.
A "road acceptance of a nonanthropocentric ethic will solve the harms of the <A
allicott PP B9. 3airdI )r"fess"r )hil"s"6h' =niversit' "f N"rth +e-asI 3e'"nd the Land Ethi$I ).33C
+he event!al instit!ti"nali7ati"n "f a new holistic, nonanthropocentric environmental ethic will make as
much practical difference in the envi ronmental arena as the institutionalization of the intrinsic value of
all human "eings has made in the social arena. As recently as a century and a half ago, it was
permissi"le to own human "eings. !ith the eventual in stitutionalization of Enlightenment ethicsA
6ers!asivel' arti$!lated /' 5"//esI L"$keI 3enthamI and FantI am"ng "thersAslavery was a"ol ished in
!estern civilization. @f $"!rse, a case could have "een made to slave owners and an indifferent pu"lic
that slavery was economically "ack ward and more trou"le than it was worth. %ut that would not have
gotten at the powerful moral truth that for one human "eing to own another is wrong. !ith the
eventual institutionalization of a holistic, nonanthropo centric environmental ethicAt"da' 6ers!asivel'
arti$!lated /' &ld" Le"6"ldI &rne NaessI 5"lmes R"lst"nI and <al )l!m.""dI am"ng "thersAthe wanton
destruction of the nonhuman world will, hopefully, come to "e regarded as equally unconsciona"le.
+l, Sol#es - En#iron%en
Geconnecting with the "iosphere reverses the disastrous disconnect with nature and the
environment
R"senhek 4 BR!thI >ee6 e$"l"gist and >ire$t"r "f the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n CentreI htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-
e$"//i"diversit'.htmlC
,"rt!natel'I in spite of illusions to the contrary, we humans are deeply em"edded in the "iosphere and
it is quite simple to "egin to remem"er this connection. Beep ecology suggests that we develop nature
rituals to remind ourselves of who we really are, our true kinship with nature. #n fa$tI indigen"!s
$!lt!res have al.a's 6erf"rmed rit!als and $erem"nies t" remem/er .h" the' are .ithin the .e/ "f life and
t" $ele/rate and remem/er the $'$les "f the EarthI s!$h as the f"!r seas"ns "r the m""n $'$le. E!r"6eans t""
had s!$h $!lt!ral f"rms /ef"re the' .ere savagel' re6ressed /' inK!isiti"ns and the like. !e modern
humans are the first people in the history of the world to have dispensed with these and as a result we
face a severe environmental crisis. #n m' ."rk al"ng .ith 9"anna 8a$'I 9"hn Seed and man' "thersI .e
re$reate these rit!als and $erem"nies in .a's that ."rk f"r /!s' m"dern f"lk. Through deep ecology
workshops, participants develop ,re1Earthing- practices to connect with the Earth on an ongoing
"asis. !e might take a silent walk in the forest stopping to greet a large cedar or take a moment to
smell the crum"ling "ark of a tree. !e might lie on our "acks on the grass as we gaze at the star lit
night sky. /r perhaps we sit "y a plant in our office, while we remem"er that the air that we "reathe
cycles from us and through the plant world and then "ack to us again, as it has for millions and
millions of years. #n this .a'I we can "egin to reclaim our ecological identity as we remem"er who we
are at a fundamental level5 2e remem/er that "!r /"dies are largel' made "!t "f .aterI that the $ar/"n that
makes !6 all life f"rms is "ne and the same in !s as in all living /eingsI that the f""d .e eatI the air .e
/reatheI /e$"me a 6art "f !s /ef"re ret!rning t" the Earth and .e are "nl' as health' and .ell as the' are. .t
is this sort of shift in consciousness that deep ecology espouses, from a human centred perspective to an
Earth community worldview one im"ued with the values of respect and care. &s dee6 e$"l"gist 9"hn
Seed sa'sI T>ee6 e$"l"g' is the sear$h f"r a via/le $"ns$i"!sness. S!rel' $"ns$i"!sness emerged and
ev"lved a$$"rding t" the same la.s as ever'thing else. 8"lded /' envir"nmental 6ress!resI the mind "f "!r
an$est"rs m!st time and again have /een f"r$ed t" trans$end itself. +" s!rvive "!r $!rrent envir"nmental
6ress!resI .e m!st $"ns$i"!sl' remem/er "!r ev"l!ti"nar' and e$"l"gi$al inheritan$e. 2e m!st learn t"
think like a m"!ntain.T +his idea "f thinking like a m"!ntain reminds !s "f the ins6irati"n "f .ell kn".n
nat!ralistI &ld" Le"6"ld. Le"6"ldI re$"!nts a st"r' .hen in his h!nting da's he killed an "ld she-."lf. &s he
rea$hed the "ld ."lfI he arrived O!st in time t" .at$h a fier$e green fire d'ing in her e'es. 5e .as a '"!ng
man thenI and f!ll "f .hat he $alls trigger-it$h /!t he th"!ght that /e$a!se fe.er ."lves meant m"re deerI
that n" ."lves ."!ld mean h!ntersU 6aradise. 3!t after seeing the green fire in the ."lfGs e'es dieI he sensed
that neither the ."lf n"r the m"!ntain agreed .ith s!$h a vie.. &nd s" he /e$ame a nat!ralist. #t is this s"rt
"f radi$al transf"rmati"n "f $"ns$i"!sness that dee6 e$"l"g' 6"ints !s t".ards. !hile certainly vast
changes are needed in the economic, social and political structures and institutions, without a shift in
values and "eliefs those changes that we put in place at the institutional level will not "e "inding.
,"rt!natel'I this transformation is not too much to ask. !e&re the survivors of a long slew of species
that didn&t survive. /ver PP.P percent of all the species that ever lived on the planet did not make it
through the e$tinction sieves to "e still living now. @nl' "ne in a th"!sand s6e$ies have managed t"
s!rvive thr"!gh all 6revi"!s e-tin$ti"ns and "ne "f these s6e$ies is !s. +hatGs a reall' 6r"!d hist"r' that
'"! and # haveI that .e have managed t" make it. !e&re one of the adapta"le, fle$i"le "eings that are still
here. !e can rest assured that it&s within our capacity and our intelligence to figure out what needs to
happen so that we can go on. Teetering on the "rink as we stand right now, this invites us to go deeper
into that intelligence that has led us to "e here today. +" dis$"ver an Earth ethi$ that /egins t" sha6e a
f!t!re that .e are 6r"!d t" 6ass d".n t" "!r $hildren and "!r $hildrenGs $hildren.

+l Sol#es ' Cli%ae Change
%ender 7 B,rederi$I +ea$hes 6hil"s"6h' at the =niversit' "f C"l"rad" .here he s6e$iali7es in 8ar-ismI $riti$al the"r'I dee6 e$"l"g'I and
&sian 6hil"s"6h'I htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./%%3/1380C
2e live t"da' "n a 6lanet !nderg"ing a/r!6t n"n-linear $hangeI als" kn".n as "versh""t and $"lla6seI n"t
least .ith res6e$t t" ra6id rises in atm"s6heri$ $ar/"n di"-ide and eK!ivalentsI average gl"/al tem6erat!reI
and sea level. The "est science we have todayI as re6resented /' the Re6"rt "f the =nited Nati"ns
#nterg"vernmental )anel "n Climate Change B#)CCC "f ,e/r!ar' *((7I predicts, as a "aseline consensus,
that atmospheric /) will at least dou"le from pre1 industrial levels of )+* parts per millionI $"m6ared
t" 318 66m in *(((.1 The ),E** scientists fr"m "ver 13( nati"ns res6"nsi/le f"r the re6"rt predict average
glo"al temperatures will rise /' 1.8 t" 4.( degrees BT.) to 7.+ degrees FahrenheitCI "ut warn that greater
warming cannot "e ruled out.* +he gl"/al mean sea level .ill rise /' *8 t" 43 $entimetres B11.* t" 17.*
in$hesC /' *1((I with larger increases possi"le if ice sheets in Antarctica and =reenland continue their
rapid thawing.3 %eyond reasona"le dou"t the primary cause of these changes has "een industrialized
humanity? 5"m" $"l"ss!s. M"iquitous to$ic pollution and ever1rising atmospheric concentrations of
car"on dio$ide, methane, and nitrous o$ide have "een the "y1products of industrialization since its
inception, and have created pollution and climate change that is now so drastic as to define industrial
civilization as the culture of e$tinction. S"!nding ever' /it like a s!66"rter "f dee6 e$"l"g'I ,ren$h
)resident 9a$K!es Chira$ statedI :fa$ed .ith this emergen$'I n". is n"t the time f"r half meas!res. #t is the
time f"r a rev"l!ti"nI in the tr!e sense "f the term. 2e are in tr!th "n the hist"ri$al d""rste6 "f the
irreversi/le.;4 ,"r f!rther details see m' anal'sis "f ind!strial s"$iet'Gs e$"l"gi$al im6a$t in +he C!lt!re "f
E-tin$ti"n? +".ard a )hil"s"6h' "f >ee6 E$"l"g' B*((3C. %esides glo"al warming and rising sea levels,
that earlier analysis focused on stratospheric ozone depletion, unsustaina"le human takeover of net
photosynthesis, ha"itat destruction, ecosystem collapse, massive e$tinction, deforestation, ocean
degradation, and ara"le land loss. 2ith"!t /ela/"!ring the 6"intI the $hanges $!rrentl' "$$!rringI
6arti$!larl' the melting "f the 6"lar i$e-sheets and methane-releasing tha.ing "f the 6ermafr"stI have 6r"ven
t" /e far m"re ra6id than even # /elieved 6"ssi/le O!st f"!r 'ears ag". 5eadlines fr"m the #)CC f"$!s "n sea
levels and gl"/al .arming. Rising sea levels are related t" gl"/al tem6erat!re rise n"t O!st /e$a!se "f melting
6"lar i$e $a6sI /!t als" /e$a!se "f the "$eanGs ".n $"effi$ient "f e-6ansi"n. Sin$e .ater e-6ands as heat is
addedI gl"/al tem6erat!re rise means that the "$eans .ill e-6and f"r :m"re than a millenni!m.;0 +he
6redi$ta/le $"nseK!en$es f"r milli"ns "f h!mans living at "r near $!rrent sea level are dire. Even with
9erculean efforts to halt the increase of atmospheric /), future ecological refugees from low1lying
coastal regions and islands will dwarf the suffering caused "y 9urricane Latrina or the annual
flooding of %angladesh. Ecological change cannot "e discussed without also addressing accompanying
social stresses. #revalent social networks, especially those associated with the glo"alization of capitalist
industrial society, very likely will undergo non1linear a"rupt changes of their own. (ocial "reakdown,
violence, and migrations on an unprecedented scale5 widespread famine due to desertification, flooding
or other causes of loss of agricultural fertility in many parts of the glo"e5 the spread of disease as insect
and other vectors migrate into territory for which they were formerly unfit5 collapse of governments
and crises of confidence in other institutions of civil society, are 'ust a few of glo"al warming&s
predicta"le effects during the present century. +" mitigate the ."rst "f s!$h effe$tsI h!mans .ill have t"
learn ver' ra6idl' t" reframe their r"le "n 6lanet Earth and m"dif' /asi$ /elief s'stemsI /ehavi"!rsI and
instit!ti"ns a$$"rdingl'. &ddressing this pending collapse of the legitimacy of the industrial paradigm is
perhaps the most important role for deep ecology theory today. +" the e-tent that dee6 e$"l"g'
s!66"rters $an 6"sit feasi/le and desira/le 6"st-ind!strial .a's "f life s!ita/le f"r a desta/ili7ed 6lanetI the'
$an $"ntri/!te a !niK!el' im6"rtant 6ers6e$tive as e$"s'stemi$ /reakd".n !nf"lds. .f we can develop the
deep ecological wisdom with which to ameliorate some of the most dire of industrialization&s effects,
then we may reasona"ly hope to cope with collapse. To the e$tent that collapse spirals out of control,
deep ecologyI # ."!ld s!ggestI can also help address issues related to how survivors might "est pick up
the pieces in the face of unimagina"le suffering.
+l Sol#es - 3io!i#ersiy
Beep Ecology creates new accepta"le norms of development

R"senhek 4 BR!thI >ee6 e$"l"gist and >ire$t"r "f the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n CentreI
htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-e$"//i"diversit'.htmlC
2"rld.ideI the loss of "iodiversity is fuelled "y the large and e$panding threat of ha"itat destruction
caused "y human actions. Every day environmental networks "ring news of indigenous people fighting
to halt oil pipelines, local communities rising up against large scale mining pro'ects, and the dire plight
of mammals s!$h as the 4reat &6es .h" fa$e e-tin$ti"n d!e largel' t" .ides6read $lear $!tting "f their
6re$i"!s f"rest h"mes. >ee6 e$"l"g' is a 6hil"s"6h' "f nat!re that invites !s t" 6"se dee6 K!esti"ns t" /egin
t" !nderstand the !nderl'ing $a!ses "f the e$"l"gi$al $risis .e fa$e and t" 6ave the .a' t".ards a life-
s!staining f!t!re. +he term itself .as $"ined /' the N"r.egian 6r"fess"r "f 6hil"s"6h' and e$"-a$tivist &rne
NaessI and has /een taken !6 /' a$ademi$s and envir"nmentalists ."rld.ide -- in E!r"6eI the =S and
&!stralia. 3!t as Naess sa'sI B2it"s7ek X 3rennan 1%%%3 deep ecology is more than a philosophy5 it is a
living movement. JThe movement is not mainly one of professional philosophers and other academic
specialists, "ut of a large pu"lic in many countries and cultures.J The deep ecology movement has as
its primary focus the reversal of the ecological crisis. +" dee6 e$"l"g', the well1"eing and flourishing of
"oth human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in and of themselves. These values are
independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes. 3ased "n this 6rin$i6le Bthe
first 6rin$i6le "f the 8-6rin$i6le dee6 e$"l"g' 6latf"rm .hi$h f"rms the !nif'ing 6rin$i6les "f the dee6
e$"l"g' m"vementCI deep ecology critiques the .ndustrial =rowth (ociety as "eing fundamentally
anthropocentricI "r h!man-$entred. From the standpoint of this worldview, western culture views the
Earth as something outside of itself, raw materials to manipulate, shape, e$ploit in any way required to
meet not only vital needs "ut also increasingly inflated desires whose satisfaction requires endless
consumption. Rather than seeing "!rselves as "ne strand in a $"m6le- living .e/I western culture paints a
picture of humans as the crown of all creation or the measure of all "eing. !e see ourselves much like a
spider that can tear out any strands of the we" she wishes "ecause she has the power to remake the
we". /f course this is not so with the "iological fa"ric5 humankind is ine$trica"ly em"edded in the
Earth and the Earth community. +his .a' "f seeing "!rselves as s"mething se6arate is ill!s"r' and is n".
Oe"6ardising n"t "nl' the lives "f man' "ther s6e$ies /!t "!rselves as .ell. ,"r as .e all kn".I we have
grossly weakened the we" of life not only through the tremendous loss of species "ut also glo"al
warming, nuclear radioactivity, loss of topsoil, genetic engineering, poisoning and scarcity of water
worldwideOthe list goes on. !hile industrial culture represents itself as the only accepta"le model for
development, its destructive technology destroys cultural and "iological diversity tooth and nail in the
name of human convenience and profit. @ne $an "nl' ."nderI at .hat 6"int .ill this .e/ /e s" .eakened
that it .ill $"lla6seN
+l - 3ioregionalis%
Becentralization is key to "ioregionalism, it allows for self realization and autonomous local
communities
Bavidson 7 BSte.artI >e6artment "f 4"vernment =niversit' "f Strath$l'deI +he +r"!/led 8arriage "f >ee6
E$"l"g' and 3i"regi"nalism/ &!g!st *((7C
S!$h $"n$erns $learl' res"nate .ith "ioregionalismUs em6hasis "n reinha/itati"nI "n \/e$"ming native t" a
6la$e thr"!gh /e$"ming a.are "f the 6arti$!lar e$"l"gi$al relati"nshi6s .hi$h "6erate .ithin and ar"!nd itU
B3erg and >asmann 1%77? 3%%C. &s &ndre. 8$La!ghlin B1%%3? *(7-*(8I em6hasis addedC $"rre$tl'
"/servesI \#t is care for other life forms, engendered "y an identification with place, that is one of the
reasons for the affinity "etween deep ecology and "ioregionalism. /ne can truly love what one knows.U
5".everI "eyond merely resonating with the aim of identification, it may "e that a "ioregional form of
decentralisation is an important contri"utor to this process. &s 8athe.s B1%%1? 11C $"mmentsI \small
face1to1face communities provide conditions for the growth of relational selvesU. Naess similarl' /elieves
that local autonomy and self1sufficiency provide the conditions for identification and self1realisation, as
people have more control over their environment in decentralised, self1suf ficient, autonomous local
communities than in centralised polities where the sources of need satisfaction are remote BNaess 1%8%?
*(4-*(1C.
%ioregionalism creates an ideal world to implement the foundations of deep ecology
S!$h "/servati"ns hel6 e-6lain .h' deep ecologists have perceived "iore gionalism to "e the most
suita"le vehicle for the implementation of their goals. %ioregionalists themselves have generall'
em"raced this linkage. #ndeedI as +a'l"r B*(((/? 07C n"tesI at the se$"nd N"rth &meri$an 3i"regi"nal
C"ngressI the 6rin$i6les "f dee6 e$"l"g' .ere ad"6ted alm"st inta$t. This grafting of "ioregionalism onto
deep ecology has unsurprisingly had a weighty impact upon the shape of "ioregional theory itself. .t
has im"ued "ioregionalism with a tendency to focus upon the consciousness or worldview of the
individual when e$plaining the causes of the current ecological predicament. #n 6arti$!larI and in
a$$"rdan$e .ith dee6 e$"l"g'I "ioregionalists regularly emphasise the lack of human identification with
the "iotic communities that constitute the "ioregions they inha"itR f"r e-am6leI 8$4innis et al. B1%%%?
*(1C m"!rn the l"ss "f an \e$"l"g' "f shared identit'U. (uch a dysfunctional consciousness is also often
e$pressed in spiritual terms5 for e$ample, Lirkpatrick (ale laments the a"andonment of =aea
worshipping religions in which nature is viewed as sacred BSale *(((? 1*-10C.
+lernai#e- -ri%ii#is%
E$ploitation of nature "y humans is wrong. !e must creatively return to the old way to
ensure survival
%ender 7 B,rederi$I +ea$hes 6hil"s"6h' at the =niversit' "f C"l"rad"
htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./%%3/1380C
To live ecologically is to learn that there is no isolated ,.- set over against ,it,- that is, that no clear line
demarcates self and other. &s 4reg"r' 3ates"n "/servesI to limit our notion of self to the region within
our skin ,is "asic to the planetary ecological crisis in which we find ourselves.;8 The question is, how
to get from here to there. +h"!gh $ertainl' n"t al"neI She6ard .as a kind "f s6irit g!ide .h" has sh".n the
.a'I rev"l!ti"ni7ing "!r vie. "f the allegedl' 6rimitive life.a's "f h!nter-gatherersI 6e"6le .h" 4ar'
Sn'der terms @ld-2a's 6e"6les.% Though they often e$perience material hardships we of the culture of
e$tinction would not willingly accept, primal peoples know how to live meaningful lives in harmony
with Earth. The point is not to "ecome hunter1gatherers again, if we can avoid so doing Bthe 6"st-
$"lla6se defa!lt 6"siti"nCI "ut to learn how to live in harmony with Earth, creatively applying /ld1!ays
wisdom to cope with collapse or pick up the pieces. ,"ll".ing She6ardI Sn'der and "ther s"!r$es
$"nsistent .ith the dee6 e$"l"g' literat!reI let us try to think outside the "o$ a"out culture. The /ld
!ays are the wisdom of identifying with, and living in harmony with, the "eings of one&s place. ,.n the
old ways, the flora and fauna and landforms are part of the culture.;1( +h"!gh h!mans have lived /'
the @ld 2a's "ver ninet'-eight 6er$ent "f the timeI She6ard 6"ints "!t that ever since #lato and =enesis,
!estern thinkers have held that the quality or trait distinguishing humans from the rest of nature Be.g.I
s6iritI reas"nI m"ralit'I alleged g"dlikenessC makes us into fundamentally non1natural "eings, outside
nature, and superior. This false pride, or hu"ris, in turn legitimates the reduction of nonhuman nature
to resources for human e$ploitation. &$$"rdingl'I !estern philosophy has failed utterly to understand
the roles of nature and culture in our humanity. #n 6arti$!larI it has ignored, denied, or devalued our
own animality6the myriad ways our needs and "ehaviours resem"le those of our fellow animalsI and
the man' .a's She6ard has sh".n in +hinking &nimals? &nimals and the >evel"6ment "f 5!man
#ntelligen$e B1%%8C and else.here that /!dding h!man intelligen$e derived fr"m "/servati"n "f animals and
intera$ti"n .ith them. EetI to imagine ourselves other than fully natural "eings, that is, something other
than animals with particularly human kinds of intelligences, is mere vanity. 9umans are neither
computers B6!rel' rati"nal intelle$tsCI nor deities Bg"dlikeCI nor disem"odied spirits Bs"!lsC trapped
temporarily within "odies. 4or, very often, are we sapient, that is, rational, moral, or wise.
Alternative- #rimitivism
Beep Ecology and returning to old ways key to avoid e$tinction
%ender 7 B,rederi$I +ea$hes 6hil"s"6h' at the =niversit' "f C"l"rad" .here he s6e$iali7es in 8ar-ismI $riti$al
the"r'I dee6 e$"l"g'I and &sian 6hil"s"6h'I
A"out twelve thousand years ago, climate change "rought the paleolithic to a close, at least for the
initial few who "egan tending plants and settling in villages. Mp to that point, every human "eing who
had ever lived had "een a hunter1gatherer. #eople everywhere had used fire for protection and
cooking5 had made tools from stone, wood, or "one5 had "uilt shelters and clothed themselves as the
climate required5 had eaten varied, omnivorous diets drawn from a great variety of locally1availa"le
foods5 and had led meaningful lives within comple$ cultures. 5!nter-gatherersI h".everI .ere n"t
e$"l"gi$al her"es. &s /i"l"gist E. @. 2ils"n "/servesI )leist"$ene h!nters e-ting!ished m"re than fift' 6er
$ent "f the large mammal and /ird s6e$ies native t" &fri$aI &!straliaI N"rth &meri$aI 8adagas$arI and Ne.
Jealand.18 N"nethelessI .ith s" large and devastating an im6a$tI s!rviving h!nter- gatherer $!lt!res ."!ld
have had t" learn t" maintain envir"nmental eK!ili/ri!m. +h!sI hunter1gatherers limited their ecospheric
impact, chiefly through initiatory ritual, sacred cosmology, and fertility control Bthe latter $hiefl'
thr"!gh rit!als that 6eri"di$all' ta/""ed se-!al inter$"!rseC.1% Today, faced with imminent overshoot and
collapse, we must make a compara"le cultural leap, from 9omo colossus to 9omo ecologicus. She6ardGs
."rk hel6s !s !nderstand that to do so will require adopting nondualist sacred cosmologies, for e$ample
deep ecology, and other techniques. +his is .hat # mean /' ret!rning s'm/"li$all' @ld 2a'sI als" kn".n
as She6ardGs :6ale"lithi$ $"!nterrev"l!ti"n; against m"dernit'.*(
The knowledge that humans and nature should "e one is critical to avoiding the coming
death of culture as we know it
9umans are not only animals, "ut cultural animalsI in t." distin$t senses. To actualize our potentials
fully we require comple$ cultural e$pression unprecedented in nature. 9uman culture is ,genetically
framed and ecologically adaptedI; as She6ard 6!ts it.11 Se$"ndI .e are $a6a/le "f a degree "f $!lt!ral
variegati"n !nkn".n else.here in nat!re. &s She6ard arg!esI h".everI cultural varia"ility is limited, since
natural selection has hardwired certain tastes, dispositions, and needs into 9omo sapiens, as into every
species. To succeed over the long run, human cultures must allow these dispositions to "e e$pressed
and needs satisfied. That a culture is necessary to awaken our potentials does not preclude the
'udgment that some cultures do so "etter than others. Every human cultureI as R!th 3enedi$t "/servesI
attempts to fulfill the natural needs provided us "y the human age1cycle and the environment. !e pass
down accepted solutions to succeeding generations as normsC each culture&s norms a small su"set from
among the potentials latent in humanity. 3enedi$t n"tes that a culture ,that capitalized even a
considera"le proportion of these- would "e ,as unintelligi"le as a language that used all possi"le
sounds.;1* She6ard adds that a culture&s quality is measured "y how well it eases the ma'or life1
transitions em"edded in the human genome. +hese in$l!de m"ther-$hild /"ndingR se6arati"n fr"m the
m"therR f"rmati"n "f 6rimar' s"$ial ties in earl' $hildh""dR f"rmati"n "f "!r e-istential attit!deI that isI
.hether .e e-6erien$e the ."rld as $aringI n"!rishingI instr!$tingI 6r"te$tingI vindi$tiveI me$hani$alI and s"
"nR 6assage thr"!gh 6!/ert' and entr' int" ad!lth""dI marriageI $hild/earingI $hild rearingI "ld ageI and
death.13 9ow, and how well, a person traverses these stages varies from one culture and individual to
the ne$t. She6ard arg!es that hunter1gatherer cultures suit human ontogeny "est, "ecause natural
selection shaped thehuman genome to hunting1gathering over a period of two million years. 9istoric
cultures hardly can improve on the "asic cultural style found among hunter1gatherers. !hen historic
cultures fail to provide appropriate tutoring, testing, and ceremony for human development, a ,slide
into adult infantility- occurs.14 #n She6ardGs vie.I the egoism, consumerism, and human chauvinism
prevalent in the culture of e$tinction5 our drastically shortened, acosmic sense of time5 and our
culture&s rationales for refusing to live in harmony with nature, are all symptoms of such arrested
development. # ."!ld add to this list the culture of e$tinction&s denial of death.
ustomized primitive ways of life are "est to adapt to civilization on the "rink of e$tinction
To manage ecosystems sustaina"ly, primal peoples must know them intimately. @ver millennia the'
have devel"6ed K!ite ama7ing ta-"n"mi$ kn".ledgeI thr"!gh $l"se "/servati"n "f the 6lants and animals
am"ng .hi$h the' live. &s 3"/ 9"hannes saidI modern "iologists are only now "eginning to realize that
native peoples& knowledge is encyclopedic ,and of ma'or scientific value, particularly as it relates to
natural resource management.;** &nthr"6"l"gist 8ilt"n 8. R. ,reeman adds that .nuit game1
management practices, for e$ample, are "ased on ,the community&s empirically "ased knowledge
awesome in "readth and detail, >that? often stands in marked contrast to the attenuated data availa"le
from scientific studies.;*3 Similarl'I anthropologist 5. &. Feit descri"es the rituals of the Fames %ay
ree as manifesting ,reciprocity "etween man and animals . . . includ>ing? respect for the needs of
animals to survive as a population.;*4 !here modern !estern1trained wildlife or forest managers are
taught to frame wildlife and ha"itat as resources to e$ploit for economic gain, native peoples, on the
contrary, never treat animals or ecosystems as mere resources, "ut as strands in Earth&s comple$ we"
of life. )h'si$all' and 6s'$h"l"gi$all' the /ld !ays suit us "est, since genetically we remain virtually
identical to our paleolithic for"ears. +hisI in$identall'I is .h' $"ntem6"rar' h!nter-gatherers remain
remarka/l' alike ar"!nd the gl"/e. 2e fear thatI if modern society reconstructed itself for ecological
sustaina"ility, then we must regress to intolera"ly primitive, impoverished hunting1foraging. (uch a
simplistic, all1or1nothing approach in fact descri"es the consequences we should e$pect from overshoot
and collapse Bthe defa!lt 6"siti"nCI if we do not otherwise change proactively. %usiness1as1usual
portends 'ust such a dismal future. !e are perhaps the last generation "f 5"m" $"l"ss!s with the
opportunity, and responsi"ility, to prevent the default scenarioAif it is n"t alread' t"" late. %y ,going
"ack- or ,going deeply within- ourselves in awareness, we might learn how to ,go forward- from
today&s unsustaina"le present to a sustaina"le future. .n the culture of e$tinction, of course, most
people recoil from such a suggestion in horror. This makes perfect sense, given their acculturation.
Thus, a large part of the philosophical task is to delegitimate said presuppositions and to show how we
might "est adapt the /ld !ays to our present situation so they can serve the goals of ecological
sustaina"ility and enhance quality of life. D!alit'-"f-life O!dgmentsI "f $"!rseI raise diffi$!lt aestheti$I
m"ralI and religi"!s iss!esI all the m"re intra$ta/le sin$e the nihilism "f "!r age re6!diates seri"!s val!e-
dis$"!rse.*0 &$$"rding t" anthr"6"l"gist Stanle' >iam"ndI industrial civilization frustrates many of our
"asic human needsI*1 causing us to compensate su"consciously "y o"sessing on material possessions,
in the mistaken "elief that goods1consumption can replace the now a"sent, archaic sense of nature&s
sacred interdependence and mythic identification. The su"conscious realization that such
compensation is futileI # might addI accounts for our well1known am"ivalence a"out native cultures. 2e
hate themI /e$a!se the' are s" differentR 'etI 6arad"-i$all'I .e als" admire and env' themI /e$a!seI as 9err'
8ander saidI :the' e-6ress the 6arts "f "!r 6ers"nal and $!lt!ral 6s'$hes that .e m!st s!66ress in "rder t"
f!n$ti"n in the ."rld as .e d".;*7 ;ike us, hunter1gatherers often fail to live up to their own ideals. EetI
the virtues they try to make central in their lives are n" less admira/le f"r that. +hese include
cooperation, sharing, good humour, gratitude, humility, modesty, generosity, cheerful tolerance of
discomfort, unstinting work and play, physical prowess, appreciation of life&s fragility, appropriate
"oldness, hunting skill, domestic skill, trans1generational and trans1species kinship awareness, love of
children, respect for elders, acceptance of group1responsi"ility, conflict1avoidance, respect for nature,
frugality that precludes Bf"r e-am6leC "eing careless with or wasteful of the "ody parts of living things
hunted or gathered, holistic, world1affirming spirituality, and en'oyment of our common humanity
while accepting that we are "ut one strand in life&s we". S!$h virt!esI $"m6rising .hat Sn'der $alls the
etiK!ette "f the .ild ."rldI*8 have served "!r s6e$ies .ell f"r millennia. 5!nter-gatherers as individ!alsI "f
$"!rseI have man' m"ral sh"rt$"mingsI in$l!ding small-s$ale $r!elt' and s"metimes the ina/ilit' "r
!n.illingness t" end $"nfli$t .ithinI "r /et.een tri/es. N"rI despite intense ecosystem awareness, are their
lifeways without adverse environmental impact.*% Like all living "eingsI 5"m" sa6iens must take over
some fraction of the ecosphere, that otherwise would "e availa"le to other species, to survive.
Alt - #rimitive !ulture
The ideal attitude re'ects human manipulation of the Earth for their own ends instead for
the wilderness
(arkar and Lalof *Q BSah"tra Sarkar and Linda Fal"f B+"6i$ Edit"rsC En$'$l"6edia "f Earth. :>ee6 E$"l"g';
2ednesda'I @$t"/er 17I #n? En$'$l"6edia "f Earth. htt6?//....e"earth."rg/arti$le/>ee6We$"l"g'C
C"mm"n $hara$teristi$s "f dee6 e$"l"g' @ne "f the $"mm"n $hara$teristi$s "f dee6 e$"l"g' is the
val"ri7ati"n "f .ilderness. (ince nature is "eing destroyed "y human e$ploitation and manipulation, the
ideal is to "e found in areas in which there has "een virtually no such use and control. .n wilderness
areas we see how nature works without human interference, flourishing with a comple$ and
spontaneous order. #n additi"nI in wilderness we recognize ourselves as "ut a small part of the vast
richness of the natural world. ,"r s"me dee6 e$"l"gistsI this has lead to a critical attitude toward
agriculture as another instance of humans manipulating the Earth for their own ends. %y contrast,
hunting and gatheringAgathering nat!reGs ri$hes rather than $"ntr"lling itAhas "een seen "y some as an
ideal h!man !se "f nat!re.
.dentifying with nature1"ased cultures opens the self up for a true individual and world
realization.
(ale ++ BFir6atri$kI :>ee6 E$"l"g' &nd #ts Criti$s; 6!/lished in +he Nati"nI +he C!tting Edge. 8a' 14I 1%88
)>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6. 171-70C
#dentifi$ati"n .ith 6rimal 6e"6les. #n generalI it is in the traditions of the nature1"ased peoples of the
worldAthe T6rimalT 6e"6les s!$h as the &meri$an #ndians and "ther re6resentatives "f the 6ale"lithi$
traditi"nAthat teachings and models for ecological consciousness are to "e found. &s hist"rian 9. >"nald
5!ghes 6!ts itI T+he &meri$an #ndiansU $!lt!ral 6atternsI /ased "n $aref!l h!nting and agri$!lt!re $arried "n
a$$"rding t" s6irit!al 6er$e6ti"ns "f nat!reI a$t!all' 6reserved the earth and life "n the earth.T S6irit!alit'.
Gationality has its place, "ut part of oneIs understanding of nature may also come from intuition, emo 1
tion, e$perience and a spiritual connection with the non human world. &rne Naess has .ritten? T8"st
people in dee6 e$"l"g' have had the feelingA!s!all'I /!t n"t al.a'sI in nat!reAthat the' are connected
with something greater than their ego. . . . #ns"far as these dee6 feelings are religi"!sI dee6 e$"l"g' has a
religi"!s $"m6"nent . . . f!ndamental int!iti"ns that ever'"ne m!st $!ltivate if he "r she is t" have a life
/ased "n val!es and n"t f!n$ti"n like a $"m6!ter.T Self-reali7ati"n. The true realization of the individual
self is in a close and unfolding identification, spiritual and intel lectual, with the larger "iotic JselfJ5 the
more diverse and comple$ the larger one, the richer and more developed the smaller one. &s Naess has
6!t itI TThe self1realization we e$perience when we identify with the universe is heightened "y an
increase in the num"er of ways in which individuals, societies, and even species and life forms realize
themselves.J N". those hardly sound like the elements of fascismI d" the'N
+.= 9Co( 7ake <s Ca#e%en:
!e do not call for a complete re'ection of technology, "ut rather that we must avoid
technology that e$ploits nature and prevents us from realizing the intrinsic values of others
+asmaniaI Envir"nmentalism and )"liti$al +he"r'? +".ards and E$"$entri$ &66r"a$hI 6.01-0*C
Clearl'I ecocentric theorists are not against science or technology per se5 rather they are against
s$ientism Bi.e.I the conviction that empiric1analytic sci ence is the only valid way of knowing3 and
te$hn"$entrism Bi.e.I anthropocen tric technological optimismC. The distinction is crucial. #ndeedI
man' ecocen tric theorists are keenly interested in the history and philosophy of science and are fond of
pointing out the reciprocal interplay "etween dominant images of nature B.hether derived fr"m
s$ien$eI 6hil"s"6h'I "r religi"nC and d"minant images "f s"$iet'.
11
This mutual reinforcement is
reflected in the resonance "etween medieval hristian cosmology and the medieval political order
B/"th "f .hi$h em6hasi7ed a hierar$h' "f /eingC and "etween the 4ewtonian world1view and the rise
of modern li"eral democracy 2"oth of which emphasized atomismC. Ecocentric theorists are now
drawing attention to what Fo$ has referred to as the Jstructural similarityJ "etween the ecological
model of inter-11?11 relatedness and the picture of reality that has emerged in modern "iologyand
physicsI alth"!gh it is t"" earl' t" sa' .hat the s"$ietal im6li$ati"ns "f these devel"6ments might
/e.
1*
=nlike Ca6raI # see n"thing inevitable a/"!t the 6"ssi/ilit' "f a ne.I e$"l"gi$all'
inf"rmed $!lt!ral transf"rmati"nI alth"!gh there are $ertainl' man' e-$iting 6"ssi/ilities Tin the
.ind.T13
+.= +l Links o he D
Approaching ethical e$pansion from the side of the agent allows us to "e a genuine part of
all life
Antolick ) B8atthe.I 8aster "f &rts >e6artment "f )hil"s"6h' C"llege "f &rts and S$ien$es =niversit' "f S"!th ,l"rida
Lhtt6?//etd.f$la.ed!/S,/S,E((((1(4/ant"li$k.6dfM >EE) EC@L@4E &N> 5E#>E44ER#&N )5EN@8EN@L@4EM
3!t the linear model still remains human centered, thus falling under the ,shallow- categorization of
ecology. BE rather approaches ethical e$pansion from the side of the agentC the agent as su"'ect is
e$panded to include animals, plants and ecosystems as itselfC "ut not in a selfish, human centered, or
,me-1oriented sense. +he ethi$al 6atient is n"t se6arate. (elf is originally wide. +he intensit' "f
identifi$ati"n .ith "ther f"rms "f life de6ends "n milie!I $!lt!reI and e$"n"mi$ $"nditi"ns. The ecosophical
outlook is developed through an identification so deep that one&s own self is no longer adequately
delimited "y the personal ego or organism. /ne e$periences oneself to "e a genuine part of all life. Ea$h
living /eing is !nderst""d as a g"al in itselfI in 6rin$i6le "n eK!al f""ting .ith "neGs ".n eg". .t also entails
a transition from .1it attitudes to .1thou attitudes t" !se 3!/erGs termin"l"g'Z+his d"es n"t im6l' that
"ne a$tsI .ishes t" a$tI "r $"nsistentl' $an a$t in harm"n' .ith the 6rin$i6le "f eK!alit'. +he statements
a/"!t /i"s6heri$ eK!alit' m!st /e merel' taken as g!idelines.%4
!e speak for nature to reveal the diversity of interest opposed to aff shallow individuality
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
onflict "etween universal li"eral claims and the values of other communities can only "e fairly
handled when these communities can protect themselves from "eing su"'ected to the standards of the
a"stract society. This necessitates creating countervailing power, not the a"olition of the li"eral order.
%e cause nature cannot enter into 'udicial proceedings, human JrepresentativesJ must "e allowed to act
in her stead.7] 9!st as .e rightl' val!e diversity and individuality .ithin h!man $"mm!nitiesI the' should
"e valued within the ecologi cal community. &s "!r !nderstanding "f "!r relati"nshi6s .ith "thers /e$"mes
ri$her and m"re varied .e "!rselves /e$"me ri$herI .ith m"re dimensi"ns t" .h" .e are. !e then more
fully em"ody our innate human potential for sympathy and its result ing deep individuality rather than
the shallow individuality e$emplified "y models of economic man and rational choice.
+.= +l /ails ' 5(%ans canE 2e non anhropocenric
Even though we are human, we can still view the world from a non anthropocentric view.
To say otherwise would "e the same as saying a male cannot "e nonse$ist
/ne common criticism is that it is impossi"le to perceive the world other than from an anthropocentric
perspective sin$e .e areI after allI h!man s!/Oe$ts. This criticism, h".everI entirely misses the point of
the critique of anthropocentrism "y conflating the identity of the perceiving su"'ect with the content of
what is perceived and valuedI a $"nflati"n that ,"- has $alled the Tanthr"6"$entri$ falla$'.T*0 #n 6arti$!larI
this kind of understanding con flates the trivial and tautological sense of the term anthropocentrism
Bi.e.I that .e $an "nl' ever 6er$eive the ."rld as h!man s!/Oe$tsA.h" $an arg!e against thisNC and the
s!/stantive and inf"rmative sense "f the term Bthe !n.arrantedI differential treatment "f "ther /eings "n the
/asis that the' d" n"t /el"ng t" "!r ".n s6e$iesC.*1 Ecocentric theorists are not claiming that we must, or
indeed can, know e$actly what it is like to "e, say, a kangaroo Balth"!gh there are meditati"n traditi"ns
and f"rms "f shamani$ O"!rne'ing that ena/le h!mans t" e-6erien$e the ."rld as "ther /eingsC.*7 &s 3ar/ara
N"ske e-6lainsI Tthere is a sense in which we cannot know the /ther B.hether it /e "ther s6e$iesI "ther
$!lt!resI the "ther se- "r even ea$h "therC Lh".everM we must remind ourselves that other meanings e$ist,
even if we may "e severely limited in our understanding of them.J*8 &s ,"- 6"ints "!tI to say that
humans cannot "e nonanthropocentric is like saying that a male cannot "e nonse$ist or that a white
person cannot "e nonracist "ecause they can only perceive the world as male or white su"'ects.*% +his
!nderstanding ign"res the fa$t that males and .hites are K!ite $a6a/le "f $!ltivating a n"nse-ist "r n"nra$ist
$"ns$i"!sness "rI in this $aseI that h!mans are K!ite $a6a/le "f $!ltivating a n"nanthr"6"$entri$
$"ns$i"!sness.
+.= +l F Do Nohing
Beep ecology clarifies the place of humans within nature "y com"ining a"stract
philosophical formulations with concrete action
@n Se6tem/er 3I 1%7*I at the third 2"rld ,!t!re Resear$h C"nferen$e in 3!$harestI R"maniaI the
N"r.egian 6hil"s"6her &rne 4aess, coined the term Beep Ecology Bhereafter referred t" as P>EGC "y
differentiating "etween .hat he $alled :shallow- and ,deep- ecological views. The former involve
concern for environmental matters solely insofar as human interests are involved. Naess la/eled this
,standard view of conservationists- shallow ecology, which he descri"es as ,mainly an
anthropocentric, individualistic, !estern movement, concerned with the health and affluence of people
in the developed countries.;70 & shall". f"$!s is narr".I /!t n"t $"m6letel' !nethi$al. :The limitation of
the shallow movement is not due to a weak or unethical philosophyI; sa's NaessI :"ut to a lack of
e$plicit concern with ultimate aims, goals, and norms.;71 +he ."rd :shall".; nevertheless has an
!nderstanda/l' der"gat"r' t"ne. >avid R"then/erg states in the #ntr"d!$ti"n t" NaessGs E$"l"g'I
C"mm!nit'I Lifest'leI 8"re 6re$isel'I LBE? is the utilization of "asic concepts from the science of
ecology 8 such as comple$ity, diversity, and sym"iosis 8 to clarify the place of our species within nature
through the process of working out a total view.77 BE does notI as a rea$ti"n t" shall".nessI constitute a
re'ection of social activism. Naess himself states that in >EI :!nlike a$ademi$ 6hil"s"6h'I de$isi"ns and
a$ti"ns $"!nt m"re than generalities.;78 3!t nor does it re'ect philosophical reasoningC it com"ines
a"stract philosophical formulations with prescriptions for concrete action. The focus of action in
shallow ecology is at issue.
+.= +l Ecoopia is )%possi2le
The transition from the modern world to ecotopia is possi"le and will solve
#epper 7 B>avidI >e6artment "f 4e"gra6h' S$h""l "f S"$ial S$ien$es X La. @-f"rd 3r""kes =niversit'I
+ensi"ns and >ilemmas "f E$"t"6ianism/&!g!st *((7C
@n the "ther hand there are e$amples of ecotopianism seemingly more en gaged with the modern world.
The seminal %lueprint for (urvival B4"ldsmith 1%7*CI f"r instan$eI gave much space to detailing the
transitional processes and forms thought necessary in the 'ourney from what is recognisa"ly todayIs
world to the unfamiliar world of ecotopia. #ndeedI Callen/a$h B1%81C 6resents a .h"le v"l!me dev"ted t"
transiti"n fr"m the 6resent t" e$"t"6iaI seeing this transition as triggered "y contemporary processes of
ecological degradation that, alongside economic glo"alisation, produce crises in human welfare.
Callen/a$h dra.s "n a 6ervasive theme "f $"ntem6"rar' &meri$a .hen he s!ggests that the str!ggle "f small
$"mm!nities against state $"ntr"l and the dislike "f \"rdinar'U 6e"6le against \/igness and greedU .ill /e
signifi$ant in 6r"v"king e$"t"6iaUs emergen$e. (ale B1%80? 17%CI t""I roots his "ioregional vision in what
he Blike man' anar$histsC claims to "e Zthoroughly e$pressive of the "asic trends of the )*th centuryIC
that isI distr!st "f /ignessI /reakd".n "f the nati"n state and "f the ind!strial e$"n"m'. %ioregionalists, he
assertsI call for nothing that is not already here today Bth"!gh .hether he "r "ther e$"t"6ians have
a$$!ratel' diagn"sed $"ntem6"rar' \/asi$ trendsU is "f $"!rse arg!a/leC.
:::ATC #ermutations:::
+.= -er% - 7((ally E0cl(si#e
Technical fi$ will always overwhelm the alt
4aess PE B&rneI )r"fess"r Emerit!s )hil"s"6h'I >ee6 E$"l"g' f"r the *1st Cent!r'. Ed. 4e"rge
Sessi"nsI 6g. 70C
+here are several dangers in arg!ing s"lel' fr"m the 6"int "f vie. "f narr". h!man interests. S"me policies
"ased upon successful homocentric argu ments turn out to violate or unduly compromise the o"'ectives
of deeper argumentation. ,!rther, homocentric arguments tend to weaken the motiva tion to fight for
necessary social change, together with the willingness to serve a great cause. #n additi"nI the $"m6li$ated
arg!ments in h!man-$entered $"nservati"n d"$!ments s!$h as the 2"rld C"nservati"n Strateg' g" /e'"nd
the time and a/ilit' "f man' 6e"6le t" assimilate and !nderstand. They also tend to provoke intermina"le
technical disagreements among e$perts. (pecial inter est groups with narrow short1term e$ploitive
o"'ectives, which run counter to saner ecological policies, often e$ploit these disagreements and
there"y stall the de"ate and steps toward effective action. !hen arguing from deep ecological
premises, most of the complicated pro posed technological fi$es need not "e discussed at all. The
relative merits of alternative technological proposals are pointless if our vital needs have already "een
met. A focus on vital issues activates mental energy and strengthens motivation. /n the other hand, the
shallow environmental approach, "y focus ing almost e$clusively on the technical aspects of
environmental pro"lems, tends to make the pu"lic more passive and disinterested in the more crucial
non1technical, lifestyle1related, environmental issues.
#olicy actions that attempt to solve for deep ecology inevita"ly fail1 only through a "ottom
down approach can we solve for environmental harms
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
,The earth "elongs to itself and to all the component mem"ers of the community.;10( +his attitude is
the opposite of one in which, for instance, technology reveals ecosystems as ordered resource pools set
in place specifically for human use. 2e th!s ret!rn t" NaessGs f!ndamental distin$ti"n /et.een Pshall".G
and Pdee6G e$"l"gies. The ,necessary changes- $ited a/"ve must go deeper than mere modification of
industrial or legislative procedures, or new regulations of the same economic processes. Efforts are
made to mitigate the evils consequent to this industrial1commercial process "y modifying the manner
in which these esta"lishments function, reducing the amount of to$ic waste produced as well as
developing more efficient modes of storing or deto$ifying waste. Het all of this is trivial in relation to
the magnitude of the pro"lem. (o, too, are the regulatory efforts of the government5 these are
microphase solutions for macrophase pro"lems.101 4aess&s characterization of deep1ecological
attitudes as ,simple in means "ut rich in ends;10*points to a move away from top1down inclinations
towards ecologicalmindedness. The heart of the critique of shallow ecological approaches to
environmental pro"lems is connected to avoidance of e$cessive restrictions on a populace in order to
simulate action in the ,right- direction. !hen changes are deep and wide enough, people act on
natural B6ra$ti$all' s6"ntane"!sC inclinations rather than out of a sense of a"stract duty or the fear of
punishment, resulting in ,"eautiful actions.-
+.= -er% - Coopion
#olicy actions ultimately detract from the aims of environmental philosophy and water
down their efforts1 this is a solvency deficit to the perm
+he neg"tiating and de/ating in the "ffi$ial policy platforms of the government have caused the green
interest groups to "ecome less active through fundamental critique and normative ideals. .n order to
gain the confidence of the other participants and /e taken seri"!sl' in de/atesI the environmental groups
tend to "ecome more accommodating and compliant and to assume a less antagonistic attitude
BL"gten/erg *((*? $ha6ters 3 and 4C. +he result has "een that environmental issues are now perceived as
less acute and are regarded as relatively easy to solve at the negotiating ta"les "f the green 6"lder m"del.
3' this a"sorption of green interest groups into the official decision1making process the >!t$h
g"vernment has generated a nati"n-.ide 6a$ifi$ati"n "f envir"nmental $"n$ernI taking the sting out of the
green protest movement.
+.= per% - .echnology
Technological progress does not occur in a vacuum1not only does it not solve, "ut has
destructive unforeseen consequences
>E stresses a redefiniti"n "f the meaning "f :6r"gress; fr"m in$reasing 4N) t" life K!alit'. +here is data /a$king !6 the need f"r s!$h a
redefiniti"n. #n the =nited StatesI the n!m/er "f 6e"6le des$ri/ing themselves as :ver' ha66'; dr"66ed fr"m 30S in 1%07 t" 3(S in the
mid 1%%(GsI even th"!gh the same 6eri"d .itnessed a d"!/ling "f in$"me 6er $a6ita.111 +here is n" dire$t $"rrelati"n /et.een material
.ealth and "verall .ell-/eingI as man' advertising $am6aigns ."!ld have !s /elieve. 4aess characterizes our present
industrialized society as a ,technocracy- in which people are ,more occupied with su"ordinate ends
B/!ildingsC over fundamental ones Bh"mesC.;117 5eideggerGs distin$ti"n /et.een /!ilding and d.elling $ertainl' $"mes t"
mind here. oncern s"lel' .ith /!ilding arises from an instrumental filtering of nature into means1ends
production frameworks, .hereas d.elling is a 6reservati"n "f essen$e. +he 6arallel in Naess is :self-emergen$e; and :intrinsi$
val!e.; The more the a"ility to dwell on intrinsic value diminishes, the faster consciousness turns from
immediate e$perience to planning for the coming time. Although the intrinsic values are ostensi"ly still
the central themes, the procurement of effective means is the principle occupation. The undesira"le
consequences of this "ecome more and more aggravated as the individ!al $"ns!mer has less and less t" d" .ith
6r"d!$ti"n. The techniques are Kimproved& constantly, requiring great sacrifices of time and energy.
Mnnoticed, the time spent upon goals withers away. The headlong rush after means takes overC the
improvements are illusory.118 +here is n" inherent 6ri$e tag "n nat!re "r h!man /eings. :C"st-/enefit anal'sis /reaks d".n in
the $ase "f rights.;11% 2hat is the 6ri$e "f /reaking '"!r armN S!$h a sit!ati"n drives the 6"int h"me. +he :/reakd".n; "$$!rs d!e t"
the link /et.een val!e and self-emergen$e dis$!ssed in the 6revi"!s se$ti"n. That which is inherently valua"le in itself
cannot at the same time "e solely instrumentally valua"le. There is no a"solute separation "etween
ontology and ethics. ;ikewise, there can "e no separation "etween technical proliferation and its
ethical consequences. Technological progress does not occur Kin a vacuum.&
/ur oncern For 4onhuman /thers an 4ot %e ;egislated
(mith + 2Dick, #rofessor at Yueens Mniversity, ,(uspended AnimationC Gadical Ecology,
(overeign #owers, and (aving the 24atural3 !orld,- Fournal for the (tudy of Gadicalism,
Aol. ), 4o. <, #g )<, )**+, #ro'ect Duse3
S" .e m!st re$"gni7e that .hat &gam/en s" h"6ef!ll' des$ri/es as the :C"ming C"mm!nit'; .ill never a$t!all'
/e$"me a ."rldl' 6"ssi/ilit' !nless and !ntil 6"liti$s is re-envisaged e$"l"gi$all'. +his is .h' radical ecology
offers such a vital political challengeI and .h' it is ultimately founded upon the possi"ility of an
environmental ethics, that is, in our a"ilities to e$press concerns for those nonhuman Bas .ell as h!man3 others
whose e$istence ,takes place- all a"out us. &nd again this cannot "e legislated for or guaranteed "y sovereign
powers, even 2especially3 in terms of some a"stract inter1specific egalitarianism, "ut will only emerge though
a transformative politics that recognizes the constitutive Bn"t $"nstit!ti"nal3 world1forming powers of different
forms of lifeI their infinite e$"l"gi$al 6"tentials.1( 5".ever naivel'I this reK!ires that .e /e$"me alive t" the
."rldGs 6"ssi/ilities thr"!gh re$"gni7ing that it isI after allI alive-t"-!s.
+.= per% - Geak +nhropocenris%
4ot even ,weak- forms of anthropocentrism allow for solvency
=niversit'I 3"!ndaries? & Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. *C
2ith fe. n"ta/le e-$e6ti"nsI the !estern tradition in philosophy and reli gion is predominately
anthropocentric in its claim that moral value is to "e found primarily, if not e$clusively, in humans. .t
is possi"le to argue that al though humans are the most valua"le "eings, some value may "e found in
nonhumans as well. #n 6ra$ti$eI this weak form of anthropocentrism differs little from the strong form,
which insists that humans alone have moral value. .n cases in which the interests of humans conflict
with those of nonhumans, the human interests usually trump those of the nonhuman6'ust as they
would in cases in which humans are valua"le in the strong sense. 4iven the l"ng anthr"6"$entri$ traditi"n
in 2estern 6hil"s"6h' and the"l"g'I it comes as no surprise that conventional approaches to making
moral 'udgments Bals" kn".n as m"ral the"riesC focus entirely on other humans as the proper o"'ects of
our moral attention.
+.= -er% - Shallo1
(hallow ecology doesn&t allow for enough of a change to solve the negative effects of
anthropocentrism
=udorf and 9uchinson T BChristine and 9amesI )r"fess"rs "f Religi"!s St!dies at ,l"rida #nternati"nal =niversit'I 3"!ndaries? &
Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. 1*-13C
The first thing to note a"out deep ecology is its rhetorical advantage over what would "e characterized
unattractively as Jshallow.J +he distin$ti"n is revealing. (hallow ecology is esta"lishment
environmentalism. .ts advocates work within the philosophical framework and assumptions of the
modern world. These assumptions are primarily anthropocentric, utilitarian, and indi vidualistic. The
"est that shallow ecology can hope for is to reform this worldview without touching its "asic premises.
(hallow ecology works within the system5 it does not ask whether the system itself is the pro"lem.
Beep ecology is radical to the e$tent that it intends to correct this "lind ness "y replacing the very
foundations of shallow ecologyI its 6revailing ."rldvie.. This approach makes deep ecology more "f a
T$"sm"l"gi$alT Bhaving to do with the whole of the world and not 'ust the human part of itC or
Tmeta6h'si$alT Bemphasizing fundamental philosophical "eliefs as op posed to the o"viousC approach to
environmental ethics. +he h!man s6e$ies d"es n"t fare .ell in this re$"nstr!$ti"n 6r"Oe$t. Beep ecologyI
like )a!l +a'l"rUs /i"$entrismI proposes that all creatures are equal in intrinsic valueAa kind "f s6e$ies
egalitarianism. #n additi"nI f"ll".ing the m"re radi$al e$"$entristsI it arg!es that the individual is
completely su"ordinated to the well1"eing of the ecosystemR the .h"le is "f m!$h greater val!e than an'
"f its 6artsI in$l!ding the h!man 6arts. +he m"re "!ts6"ken dee6 e$"l"gists s"metimes invite the $harge that
the' em/ra$e misanthr"6' Bhatred "f h!mansC in this m"ral h"lism /' des$ri/ing the s6e$ies as a 6ath"gen "r
6lag!e "f the earth.
:::ATC Framework:::
+.= /ra%e1ork - "ory
Gorty&s worldview is anthropocentric, ignoring the interdependence of the "iosphere.
%owers *T (C. &. 3".ers has ta!ght at the =niversit' "f @reg"n and )"rtland State =niversit'I and n".I in retirementI serves as adO!n$t
6r"fess"r "f envir"nmental st!dies at the =niversit' "f @reg"n. :&ssessing Ri$hard R"rt'Gs #r"nist #ndivid!al 2ithin the C"nte-t "f the
E$"l"gi$al Crisis; +he +r!m6eter 1%.* B*((3C. htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./%1/%4 a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
+he a/"ve K!"tati"ns 6r"vide a g""d 6i$t!re "f R"rt'Gs vie. "f $"mm!nit' as an "ng"ing set "f relati"nshi6s
.here ea$h mem/er attem6ts t" re$"n$ile self-$reati"n .ith their eK!all' individ!alisti$ inter6retati"n "f the
meaning "f s"lidarit'. 3!t there is an"ther as6e$t "f his vie. "f $"mm!nit' that has 6arti$!lar relevan$e in
terms "f the e$"l"gi$al $risis. Gorty&s way of understanding community, like /"th the Classi$al Li/eral
and >e.e'ian traditi"ns he res"nates .ith, involves humans only. #n effe$tI Gorty&s efforts to envision
human life lived without the false security of final voca"ularies remains em"edded in the root
metaphor of an anthropocentric universe. .t is his unconscious acceptance of this root metaphor that
frames his understanding of community in a way that ignores the interdependence of humans with
other life forms that make up the "iosphere. !hen we recognize this interdependenceI .hi$h inv"lves
the via/ilit' "f f""d $hains that are far m"re /asi$ t" life than final "r an' "ther f"rm "f v"$a/!lar'I "oth
Gorty&s li"eralism and his naive epistemological formulations "egin to unravel. +here are indeed
a/s"l!tes that g"vern relati"nshi6sI and "ne "f the m"st $riti$al "nes is that h!mans Bin$l!ding :str"ng
6"ets;C $ann"t s!rvive the destr!$ti"n "f their ha/itat. The well "eing of humans and ha"itat, "ver the l"ng
r!nI go together6though the ha"itat would not "e adversely affected if humans were to disappear.
+here have /een a n!m/er "f thinkers .h" have !sed the nat!ral e$"l"g' as a r""t meta6h"r f"r $hallenging
ke' elements "f li/eral th"!ght. &ld" Le"6"ldI f"r e-am6leI arg!es that humans must "e understood in
terms of their place in the food chain. !hereas Gorty&s anthropocentrism leads him to limit moral
o"ligations to the domain of human relationships, Le"6"ld e-tends the /"!ndaries "f m"ral "/ligati"n t"
in$l!de all the "ther elements $"ntri/!ting t" .hat he des$ri/es as :energ' fl".ing thr"!gh a $ir$!it "f s"ilsI
6lantsI and animals.;*4 5e even arg!es f"r a m"ral a/s"l!te? :A thing is right when it tends to preserve
the integrity, sta"ility, and "eauty of the "iotic community. .t is wrong when it tends otherwise.-)E
That is, freedom is to "e understood as self1limitation for the sake of others. 3!t this is n"t meant t" /e
!nderst""d in altr!isti$ termsR :"thers; in$l!de the entire /i"ti$ $"mm!nit' that is the s"!r$e "f energ' f"r
s!staining life. <ie.ed in e$"l"gi$al termsI self-limitati"n is essential "ver the l"ng term t" the s!stenan$e "f
the individ!alGs ".n lifeAin$l!ding her/his 6r"gen'.
Gorty&s technological philosophy empirically results in environmental destruction.
%owers *T (C. &. 3".ers has ta!ght at the =niversit' "f @reg"n and )"rtland State =niversit'I and n".I in retirementI serves as adO!n$t
6r"fess"r "f envir"nmental st!dies at the =niversit' "f @reg"n. :&ssessing Ri$hard R"rt'Gs #r"nist #ndivid!al 2ithin the C"nte-t "f the
E$"l"gi$al Crisis; +he +r!m6eter 1%.* B*((3C. htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./%1/%4 a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
!estern philosophy has "een a part of a nearly )E**1year effort to esta"lish a new regime of truth that
led to viewing primal peoples as intellectually and culturally inferior. +hese m"stl' agrarianI n"n-literate
$!lt!res have /een st!died s$ientifi$all' and !sed as a s"!r$e "f artifa$ts f"r m!se!m $!rat"rs. +he' have
als" /een !sed as a referen$e 6"int f"r determining h". far the rati"nall' /ased $!lt!res "f the 2est have
ev"lved. /ne of the possi"ilities denied "y this regime of truth is that there is anything really important
to learn from these cultures. %ut with the growing awareness that the val!es and .a's "f thinking
!nderl'ing !estern technological practices are degrading the ha"itat at an alarming rateI there is a
gr".ing re$"gniti"n that primal cultures may "e important for reasons that go "eyond our fascination
with their form of aesthetic e$pression. /f particular interest now is their a"ility to live in sustaina"le
"alance with their ha"itat. +hat the' have /een a/le t" d" this "ver a s6an "f time .e are n"t likel' t"
mat$hI even .ith "!r :s!6eri"r; f"rms "f $!lt!reI makes their a$hievement even m"re remarka/le. &lth"!gh
6rimal $!lt!res var' .idel' in their /elief s'stemsI te$hn"l"giesI and 6atterns f"r g!iding dail' lifeI there are
a num"er of shared traits that relate directly to their a"ility to live within the margins of their ha"itats.
& /rief identifi$ati"n "f these $hara$teristi$s ma' hel6 6!t in f"$!s .h' Gorty&s more progressive and
rationally "ased ideas would likely contri"ute to further accelerating the destruction of the
environment. +he identifi$ati"n "f these characteristics is n"t meant t" /e taken as read' made 6atterns .e
$an ad"6t f"r "!r ".n $!lt!re. 3!t the' $an suggest new pathways we might evolve along in our own
distinctive way.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 &*
+.= /ra%e1ork
%y contesting our deep ecological position via a political framework it leads to more
fracitious infighting and guts solvency, preventing "oth genuine social and ecological
movement
)>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6. 171-70C
N".I it is eas' en"!gh t" see .h' all of this might "e upsetting to those the political mainstream and to
tradi tional socialists as much as diehard capitalists. +aken in the /r"ad inI it represents a fundamental
challenge n"t "nl' t" the t'6i$al &meri$an te$hn"l"gi$al .a' "f life "ut to much of what constitutes
!estern civilization itself. #t d"es seem s!r6risingI th"!ghI that these 6"siti"ns ."!ld have s" alarmed "ther
6arts "f the e$"l"gi$al ."rld that there sh"!ld s!ddenl' /e an "!t6"!ring against it. # m!st sa' # am at a l"ss
t" e-6lain it adeK!atel'. .t canIt real ly "e a "attle over turf, since thereIs o"viously plenty of room for all
kinds of viewpoints here, or over power, since so far there is none. &nd "f $"!rseI there is a great danger
that this s"rt "f a frontal attack is far more likely to lead to enervating and fractious "ickering and
"ack"iting of the kinds that destroy social movements than it is to a th"!ghtf!lI a$$"mm"dative s'nthesis
and a restrengthened move ment. +" me it is n"t "nl' all ver' sad /!t /e.ildering. 3!tI in the s6irit "f
a$$"mm"dati"n rather than $"nfr"ntati"nI and in the h"6e that the fiss!res $an /e /ridged rather than
/r"adenedI let me dis$!ss .hat # see as the three maO"r # iss!es the $riti$s "f dee6 e$"l"g' have raised.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 &1
:::ATC )ac Args:::
+.= Case Sol#ency/Scieni$ic Clai%s
Their technocratic solvency claims 'ustify destruction of the natural world, alt solves "etter
Eckersely P) BR"/'nI &!stralian Resear$h C"!n$il ,ell".I Centre f"r Envir"nmental St!dies at the =niversit' "f +asmaniaI
Envir"nmentalism and )"liti$al +he"r'? +".ards and E$"$entri$ &66r"a$hI 6.0*C
The ecocentric recognition of the interrelatedness of all phenomena together with its prima facie
orientation of inclusiveness of all "eings means that it is far more protective of the EarthIs life1support
system than an anthropocentric perspective. &s 8i$hael Jimmerman has arg!ed in addressing the
6ra$ti$al $"nseK!en$es "f an anthr"6"$entri$ 6ers6e$tive? .f humankind is understood as the goal of
history, the source of all value, the pinnacle of evolution, and so forth, then it is not difficult for
humans to 'ustify the plundering of the natural world, which is not human and therefore
Jvalueless.T10 !hen anthropocentric assumptions of this kind are com"ined with a powerful
technology, the capacity for environmental destruction increases dramatically. &nthr"6"$entrism "f this
e-treme kind ma' /e seen as a kind "f e$"l"gi$al m'"6ia "r !nenlightened self-interest that is /lind t" the
e$"l"gi$al $ir$!larities /et.een the self and the e-ternal ."rldI .ith the res!lt that it leads to the
perpetuation of unintended and unforeseen ecological damage. An eco centric perspectiveI in $"ntrastI
recognizes that nature is not only more com ple$ than we presently know "ut also quite possi"ly more
comple$, in princi ple, than we can knowAan insight that has /een /"rne "!t in the ra6idl' e-6anding field
"f $ha"s the"r'.U1
Msing technology to study the ecosystem only makes us aware of our ignorance
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
The ecological movement relies upon the results of research in ecology and more recently in
conservation "iologyZ3!t t" the great ama7ement "f man'I the scientific conclusions are often
statements of ignoranceC K!e do not know what long1range consequences the proposed interference in
the ecosystem will "eget, so we cannot make and hard and fast changes.& /nly rarely can scientists
predict with any certainty the effect of a new chemical on even a single small ecosystemOThe study of
ecosystems makes us conscious of our ignorance.%3
A$ Case Solves
Aff advantage claims treat the human and non 1 human world as a standing reserve
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
The well1"eing and flourishing of human and non1human life on Earth have value in themselves
Bs'n"n'ms? intrinsi$ val!eI inherent ."rthC. +hese val!es are inde6endent "f the !sef!lness "f the n"n-h!man ."rld f"r h!man
6!r6"ses. #n his essa' :+he <ia/le 5!manI; +h"mas 3err' .rites The "asic orientation of the common law tradition is
toward personal rights and toward the natural world as e$isting for human use. There is no provision
for recognition of nonhuman "eings as su"'ects having legal rights. To the ecologists, the entire question of
possession and use of the earth, either "y individuals or "y esta"lishments, needs to "e profoundly
reconsidered. The na[ve assumption that the natural world e$ists solely to "e possessed and used "y
humans for their unlimited advantage cannot "e accepted. The earth "elongs to itself and to all the
component mem"ers of the community.1*3 3err' 6"ints "!t the mistaken nat!re "f the ass!m6ti"n that the earth e-ists
s"lel' f"r 6resent h!man !se. #resent social and economic reality reveals humans as selfproclaimed privileged
possessors of natural BanimalI 6lantI and mineral res"!r$esCI and even other peopleI as revealed thr"!gh the man'
instan$es thr"!gh"!t hist"r' "f slave tradingI s.eat-sh"6 la/"rI and harsh ."rking $"nditi"ns pure e$amples of 5eideggerGs
standing reserve. As possessors, the earth, along with its inha"itants and resources, "ecome possessions
8 things owned and present for consumptive use. BE challenges the inherent use standpoint, a $hallenge
Naess end"rses .here he .ritesI :The earth does not "elong to humans.;1*4 ,!rtherm"reI in the deep ecological
approach, 9umans only inha"it the lands, using resources to satisfy vital needs. And if their non1vital
needs come in conflict with the vital needs of nonhumans, then humans should defer to the latter. The
ecological destruction now going on will not "e cured "y a technological fi$. urrent arrogant notions
in industrial Band "therC societies must "e resisted.1*0 & fundamental aspect of Kintrinsic value& includes
allowing ,all entities 2including humans3 the freedom to unfold in their own way unhindered "y the
various forms of human domination.-1*1 There is a fundamental distinction "etween vital needs and
created needs 2wants3C "etween what we truly need and what we merely think 2or are influenced to
think3 we need. +he f"rmer are intrinsi$ t" fl"!rishingI the latter are n"t and ma'I .hen $arried t"" farI a$t!all' hinder fl"!rishing.
Ri$hness and diversit' "f life f"rms $"ntri/!te t" the reali7ati"n "f these val!es and are als" val!es in themselves. Naess s6eaks "f a
:$"re dem"$ra$' in the /i"s6here.;1*8 +his intr"d!$es a ne$essar' :diversit' "f /"th h!man and n"n-h!man life.;1*% >iversit' lends
itself t" the strength "f an e$"s'stemI s!$h as a .ild f"restI .here a greater n!m/er "f s6e$ies leads t" greater resilien$e t" diseaseI m"re
m!t!al res"!r$es f"r the inha/iting "rganisms "f the areaI and "verall e$"s'stemi$ integrit'. Naess th!s f"rm!lates :8a-im!m diversit'Q
8a-im s'm/i"sisQ; as a $"re re6resentative tenet "f the dee6 e$"l"gi$al a66r"a$h. C"re dem"$ra$' refers t" m!$h m"re than the
"rganisms in a single envir"nmental ni$he. Change and interferen$eI s!$h as a lightning strike $a!sing a .ildfire in a .""ded areaI are
integral as6e$ts "f the /i"s6here. NeverthelessI .e $an assert that the ma-imi7ati"n "f diversit' and s'm/i"sis in$l!des a 6reservati"n "f
"therness. Rather than deriving nat!re fr"m the single a-i"mati$ 6"int "f h!man /enefitI >EI en$"!rages ma-imi7ati"n "f diversit'.
:2hat is at iss!e here is 6re$isel' the K!esti"n "f the integrit' "f n"nh!man s6e$ies and individ!als in terms "f their :"therness; and
differen$e fr"m h!mansI and a res6e$t f"r the "ng"ing integrit' "f .ild ev"l!ti"nar' 6r"$esses.;13( +he idea is t" minimi7e h!man
instr!mental interferen$e as m!$h as 6"ssi/leI "nl' $a!sing dist!r/an$es f"r vital needs and interests. >ee6 E$"l"g' th!s inv"lves a
m"ve a.a' fr"m vie.ing the "ther as :enem'I; and th!s a.a' fr"m the 5"//esian 6aradigm that the state "f nat!re is f!ndamentall'
h"stile t" h!man fl"!rishing :a state "f .ar .ith an' and all "thers.;131 The preservation of otherness amounts to
vastly different circumstances than current trends towards the humanization of nature. 9um"leness
and openness replace the currently dominant attitude .hi$h 4e"rge Sessi"ns $alls :arr"gan$e t".ards nat!re.;13*
+.= .ech Sol#es En#, 5ar%s
Technological a"ility does not give the right to plunder the non 8human environment and
risk ecological destruction
,l"ridaI htt6?//etd.f$la.ed!/S,/S,E((((1(4/ant"li$k.6dfC
+h"se .h" s!/s$ri/e t" the f"rg"ing 6"ints have an "/ligati"n dire$tl' "r indire$tl' t" im6lement the
ne$essar' $hanges. :+he 6lanet that r!led itself dire$tl' f"r the 6ast millennia is n". determining its f!t!re
thr"!gh h!man de$isi"n.;148 Beep ecologists recognize the greater value of the larger community of life.
At the same time, they do not take lightly modern human claims to technological superiority.
(uperiority of technological a"ility is not equivalent to superiority of the human species itself, or the
right to plunder all others. .f anything, this ,higher- standpoint places an ethical responsi"ility upon
the humans to preserve the other specie apparently not so endowed. @n$e we grant that a change from
an anthropocentric to a "iocentric sense of reality and value is neededI .e m!st ask h". this $an /e
a$hieved and h". it ."!ld ."rk. !e must "egin "y accepting the fact that the life community of all
living species is the greater reality and the greater value, and that the primary concern of the human
must "e the preservation of this larger community. +he h!man d"es have its ".n distin$tive realit' and its
".n distin$tive val!eI /!t this distin$tiveness m!st /e arti$!lated .ithin the m"re $"m6rehensive $"nte-t.
The human ultimately must discover the larger dimensions of its own "eing within this community
conte$t. That the value of the human "eing is enhanced "y diminishing the value of the larger
community is an illusion, the great illusion of the present industrial age, which seeks to advance the
human "y plundering the planet&s geological structure and all its "iological species.14%
+.= -re$er speci$iciy o$ +$$ e#i!ence
Their ,e$perts- technological view of the real is hopelessly flawed
The technological worldview falters when it treats its own definition of the real as something more than
a particular definition for a particular purpose. That the technological definition of the real "ecomes a
worldview means that it usurps the primordial, putting itself in the place of that which underlies it and
allows it to come forth as a perspective at all. 3!t ,that- which ,allows- is not a thing. .dentification of
the primordial with some deeper thing is e$actly the su"stance1ontological mistake targeted "y
5eidegger and 4aess as the source of the distortion of the modern technological definition of the realC
,the metaphysical determination according to which every "eing appears as the material of la"or.;11%
+2= .i%e /ra%e
;ong or short term "oth solve equally 11 Gealizations key
Gosenhek 7 BR!thI >ee6 e$"l"gist and >ire$t"r "f the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n CentreI 4/*8I htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-
e$"/,earWt"W,reed"m.htmlC
#n the 3hagavad 4itaI it sa'sI P3e n"t atta$hed t" the fr!its "f the a$ti"nG. #t talks endlessl' a/"!t thatI a/"!t
n"t l""king t".ards the "!t$"me. .f we can attach to our desire for outcomes the more overarching or
underlying goal of our awakening or self1realisation, then we will "e a"le to move outside of this
dominant paradigm way of looking at success and failure. !hile our acts may not always lead to the
fruits in the short term Bor even the long term s"metimesCI ultimately the acts will have served to relieve
suffering and each act of loving1kindness in the world is a "eautiful act which can "e called a so called
Ksuccessful& or completely fulfilled moment. S" we can shift our perspective and know that when we&re
taking an action we&re not only doing it to get from A to %, "ut that we also do it for for the sake of all
"eings, for our self1realisation 8 however you want to put it, to "etter yourself as a person, to offer
many acts of loving1kindness in the world, whatever works for each person, to frame our lives in a way
that makes a prayer every step of the way .hether .e are .ashing dishesI ."rking .ith $"lleag!esI
sending a 6r"test letterI attending a rall' "r smelling the s6ring lila$s. #f .e have an"ther g"al thatGs "f a
s6irit!al nat!reI then it lifts !s "!tside "f the 6aradigm "f :# need t" a$hieve this N@2.; &nd then .e have a
.a' t" l""k at "!r ."rkI ever' da' and ever' m"ment "f "!r life in terms "fI :2as # ."rking t" self-realise
m'self t"da'N; "r :2as # ."rking t".ards 6lanetar' transf"rmati"nN;. 2hile .eGre at itI letGs g" f"r the
$"m6lete .h"le rev"l!ti"nI inner and "!terQ
+.= >il/Cli%ae +!#,
These impacts are inevita"le, what matters is our orientation towards the events
Dacy E B9"annaI E$"-6hil"s"6herI )h.>I #n #ND=#R#N4 8#N>I 1/*7I htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/$limate/ma$'.htmC
,"r !s alive t"da' in the midst "f it allI .e $an learn t" see the 4reat +!rning /' /ringing int" f"$!s its three
dimensions. +he' co1arise and reinforce each other. The first dimension is holding actions in defense of
life5 they function to slow down the destruction caused "y the industrial growth society, and "uy time
for more fundamental changes. The second includes all the life1affirming structures emerging now,
fresh social and economic e$periments ranging from land trusts, ecovillages, and local currencies to
alternative forms of education and healing, many of them inspired "y old, indigenous ways. And the
third dimension consists of a profound shift in our perception of reality. As the ecological and systems
worldview takes hold, our planet appears to us, not as supply house and sewer, "ut as a living we" of
relationships. &nd as an$ient s6irit!al tea$hings res!rfa$eI .e a.aken t" "!r essential identit' .ith this .e/
"f life and a$$e6t "!r sa$red res6"nsi/ilit' t" h"n"r and serve it. This multidimensional revolution holds
such promise that # $anUt hel6 thinking "f it as $"m6ara/le t" the ,irst +!rning "f the 2heelI .hen the
3!ddha >harma /r"ke f"rth !6"n the ."rld. /nce again the reality of our radical interconnectedness
with each other, and all "eings through space and time, "ecomes clear. And now our very survival
depends on our waking up to that reality. This =reat Turning alters none of the facts a"out end of oil
and climate change. .t cannot save us from the immense and painful challenges they "ring upon us5
"ut it does ena"le us to engage them wholeheartedly, with wisdom and courage. ,"rI like th"se t."
m!dras--,ear N"t and +"!$h the Earth--it gr"!nds !s in "!r m!t!al /el"nging. .n that mutual "elonging is
our solidarity11with past and future generations, and with each other. There is no end to that resource.
.t will never run out.
+.= N(clear Gar +!#,
/nly deep ecological ethics can avoid nuclear war
apra PE 2Frit'of, Gesearch #hysicist, Beep Ecology for the )<
st
entury. Ed. =eorge (essions3
The newly emerging paradigm can "e descri"ed in various ways. .t may "e called a holistic worldview,
emphasizing the whole rather than the parts. .t may also "e called an ecological worldview, using the
term JecologicalJ in the sense of deep ecology. +he distin$ti"n /et.een Tshall".T and Tdee6T e$"l"g' .as
made in the earl' seventies /' the 6hil"s"6her &rne Naess and has n". /een .idel' a$$e6ted as a ver'
!sef!l termin"l"g' t" refer t" the maO"r divisi"n .ithin $"mtem6"rar' envir"nmental th"!ght. (hallow
ecology is anthropocentric. .t views humans as a"ove or outside of nature, as the source of all value,
and ascri"es only instrumental, or use value to nature. Beep ecology does not separate humans from
the natural environ ment, nor does it separate anything else from it. #t d"es n"t see the ."rld as a
$"lle$ti"n "f is"lated "/Oe$ts /!t rather as a net."rk "f 6hen"mena that are f!ndamentall' inter$"nne$ted and
interde6endent. Beep ecology recognizes the intrinsic values of all living "eings and views humans as
'ust one particular strand in the we" of life. The new ecological paradigm implies a corresponding
ecologically oriented ethics. The ethical framework associated with the old paradigm is no longer
adequate to deal with some of the ma'or ethical pro"lems of today, most of which involve threats to
non1human forms of life. !ith nuclear weapons that threaten to wipe out all life on the planet, to$ic
su"stances that contaminate the environment on a large scale, new and unknown micro1organisms
await ing release into the environment without knowledge of the consequences, ani mals tortured in the
name of consumer safety6with all these activities occurring, it seems most important to introduce
ecologically oriented ethical standards into modern science and technology.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 &&
+.= Gar +!#
Environmental ethic em"races nonviolence, solves the impact
apra PE 2Frit'of, Gesearch #hysicist, Beep Ecology for the )<
st
entury. Ed. =eorge (essions3
The shift to a new worldview and a new mode of thinking goes hand in hand with a profound change in
values. 2hat is s" fas$inating a/"!t these $hangesI t" meI is a striking $"nne$ti"n /et.een the $hange "f
thinking and the $hange "f val!es. %oth can "e seen as a shift from self1assertion to integra tion. As far as
thinking is concerned, we can o"serve a shift from the rational to the intuitive, from analysis to
synthesis, from reductionism to holism, from linear to nonlinear thinking. # .ant t" em6hasi7e that the
aim is n"t t" re6la$e "ne m"de /' the "therI /!t rather t" shift fr"m the "verem6hasis "n "ne m"de t" a
greater /alan$e /et.een the t.". As far as values are concerned, we o"serve a corresponding shift from
e$pansion to conservation, from quantity to quality, from competition to coop eration, from domination
and control to nonviolence.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1**
:::ATC Beep Ecology %ad:::
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1*1
+.= Eco$e%inis Criicis% o$ DE
Ecofeminist criticisms have already "een incorporated into BE
(arkar and Lalof Q BSah"tra Sarkar and Linda Fal"f B+"6i$ Edit"rsC En$'$l"6edia "f Earth. :>ee6 E$"l"g';
2ednesda'I @$t"/er 17I *((7 arti$le? intr" t" dee6 e$"l"g'. *((1. T>ee6 e$"l"g'.T #n? En$'$l"6edia "f Earth.
htt6?//....e"earth."rg/arti$le/>ee6We$"l"g' a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
>e/ating dee6 e$"l"g' >ee6 e$"l"g' /egan as a $ritiK!e "f the :shall". e$"l"g'; "f anthr"6"$entri$ $"nservati"nismI e6it"mi7ed /'
4iff"rd )in$h"tI .h" sa. the Earth as a set "f nat!ral res"!r$es that need t" /e managed f"r 6resent and f!t!re generati"ns "f h!mans.
>ee6 e$"l"gists als" tend t" $riti$i7e the ref"rmist envir"nmentalism e-em6lified /' largeI mainstream envir"nmental "rgani7ati"ns that
."rk .ithin the 6"liti$al s'stem t" gain 6"li$' vi$t"ries .ith"!t $hallenging s"$iet'Gs main ass!m6ti"ns and val!es that are the !ltimate
$a!se "f envir"nmental degradati"n. S"me dee6 e$"l"gists als" have $riti$i7ed the animal rights m"vement as maintaining an im6li$itl'
anthr"6"$entri$ vie. that e-tends h!man rights t" at least s"me animalsI and in s" d"ing !6h"lding a hierar$hi$al vie. "f nat!re
Banimals are m"re im6"rtant than 6lantsC. +he' als" "/Oe$t t" the individ!alist a66r"a$h $"mm"n am"ng animal li/erati"nistsI .hi$h
the' /elieve negle$ts the im6"rtan$e "f .h"le s'stems. +here has /een a vig"r"!sI and at times shrillI de/ate /et.een 6r"6"nents "f
dee6 e$"l"g' and "ther s$h""ls "f radi$al envir"nmental th"!ght. Ecofeminism has criticized deep ecology for
neglecting the close ties "etween environmental thought and social ideology, es6e$iall' the l"ng-standing
tenden$' t" ass"$iate nat!re .ith the female and then deval!ing and "66ressing /"th. Similarl'I it has $riti$i7ed dee6 e$"l"g'Gs general
negle$t "f s"$ial 6r"/lems that are $a!sed /' the l"gi$ "f d"minati"nI in .hi$h s"me s"$ial gr"!6s are ass!med t" have m"re val!e and
have the right t" $"ntr"l and !se "thersI the same l"gi$ "f d"minati"n that f!els envir"nmental destr!$ti"n. #n additi"nI e$"feminists
have arg!ed that a /i"$entri$ 6hil"s"6h' that ign"res s"$ial inO!sti$e is n"t a$$e6ta/le. +here has als" /een a dee6 s!s6i$i"n "f dee6
e$"l"g'Gs a$$"!nts "f self-reali7ati"n and "neness .ith nat!reI .hi$h have seemed t" s"me e$"feminists as a meta6h'si$al
aggrandi7ement "f the male eg" as .ell as a h"lism that diminishes the val!e "f the individ!al and relati"nshi6s. S"me "f these
criticisms have "een "ased on representing deep ecology with e$treme positions that are not
em"lematic of the central thrust of deep ecology. 5".everI many of the criticisms have /een 6".erf!l
and resulted in clarifications and refinements in deep ecology philosophy. Dany contemporary deep
ecologists are deeply concerned a"out these social issues and have articulated a holism that does not
diminish the reality or value of individuals and their relationships.
Elimination of #atriarchy doesn&t solve and not e$clusive with BE
4aess PP 2Arnie, Founder of Beep Ecology, #hilosophical BialogesC Arne 4aess and the #rogress of Ecophilosophy, pg )7T3
2arren /elieves that T#f 6atriar$h' ."!ld /e eliminatedI thenI /' m' a$$"!nt .. s" ."!ld all the "ther Uisms
"f d"minati"nU Bin$l!ding Unat!rismUC because 6atriar$h' m!st /e re$"n$eived as $"nne$ted .ith all these
"ther Uisms "f d"minati"nU thr"!gh the l"gi$ "f d"minati"n. .f patriarchy is eliminated, so is the logic of
domination.J For me, it is difficult to "elieve that the elimination of patriarchy would have such
heterogeneous consequences, "ut . certainly do wish such elimination. And such a wish leads me and
others to support every attempt to get rid of patriarchy. (ince !arren acknowledges the plurality of
forms of ecofeminist philosophy, . imagine my dou"t a"out the elimination of all Jisms of dominationJ
will not e$ clude me.
+.= Deep Eco )gnores "ace/Class
Dodern Beep Ecology does not ignore race or class.
(arkar and Lalof Q BSah"tra Sarkar and Linda Fal"f B+"6i$ Edit"rsC En$'$l"6edia "f Earth. :>ee6 E$"l"g';
2ednesda'I @$t"/er 17I *((7 arti$le? intr" t" dee6 e$"l"g'. *((1. T>ee6 e$"l"g'.T #n? En$'$l"6edia "f Earth.
htt6?//....e"earth."rg/arti$le/>ee6We$"l"g' a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
(ocial ecologists and e$"s"$ialists have made similar $ritiK!es "f dee6 e$"l"g'Us negle$t "f the s"$ial
dimensi"n "f envir"nmental 6r"/lems. +he' have in 6arti$!lar accused deep ecologists of neglecting issues
of class and race. #n additi"nI they have argued that deep ecology overlooks the significance of
authoritarianism, hierarchy, and the nation1state as causes of environmental and social pro"lems.
Derely focusing on changing worldviews and living lightly on the land leaves the structures of power
free to ravage the planet and oppress human society. S"me have als" /een s!s6i$i"!s "f dee6 e$"l"g'
s6irit!alit'I .hi$h the' see as irrati"nalI s!6erfi$ialI and ina!thenti$. #n t!rnI deep ecologists have e$pressed
concern that the emphasis on human society "y ecofeminists, social ecologists, and ecosocialists can
signal a regression to anthropocentrism. And they point out that it is quite possi"le to have a society
that e$hi"its social 'ustice while devaluing and a"using the environment. 5".everI as in the $ase "f
e$"feminismI s"me "f the $riti$isms /' s"$ial e$"l"gists and e$"s"$ialists have e-6"sed im6"rtant
.eaknesses in dee6 e$"l"g' and lead t" a m"re $"m6rehensive vie.. #n s"me $ases, these de"ates have
"een unnecessarily antagonistic, reflecting an un"ending sectarianism that fails to recognize the
possi"ility of "ringing together insights from various schools of thought. @ther .ritersI "n the "ther handI
have sh".n h". different a66r"a$hes $an /e enri$hed /' /eing "6en t" ea$h "therGs vie.s. R"ger S. 4"ttlie/
has 6ers!asivel' arg!ed that deep ecology spirituality is compati"le with keen social analysis and
pragmatic political activism. 9"hn Clark has sh".n that s"$ial e$"l"g' and dee6 e$"l"g' $an learn fr"m
ea$h "ther. Ste6hanie Fa7a has dem"nstrated that there $an /e a dee6 e$"l"gi$al e$"feminism. &nd 4ar'
Sn'derI "ften $"nsidered an i$"n "f dee6 e$"l"g'I has signifi$ant elements "f s"$ial e$"l"g' and
e$"feminism in his .ritings.
BE addresses human e$ploitation as well
4aess PE B&rneI )r"fess"r emerit!s 6hil"s"6h'I =niversit' "f @sl" >ee6 E$"l"g' f"r the *1st Cent!r'. Ed. 4e"rge
Sessi"nsI 6. 10*C
&nti-$lass 6"st!re. Biversity of human ways of life is in part due to Bintended "r !nintendedC e$ploitation
and suppression on the part of certain groups. The e$ploiter lives differently from the e$ploited, "ut
"oth are ad versely affected in their potentialities of self1realization. +he 6rin$i6le "f diversit' d"es n"t
$"ver differen$es d!e merel' t" $ertain attit!des "r /ehavi"rs f"r$i/l' /l"$ked "r restrained. The principles
of ecological egalitarianism and of sym"iosis support the same anti1class posture. The ecological
attitude favors the e$tension of all three principles to any group conflicts, including those of today
"etween developing and developed nations. The three principles also favor e$treme caution toward any
over1all plans for the future, e$cept those consistent with wide and widening classless diversity.
+.= Deep Eco )gnores he Social
Beep ecology isan analysis of
(ale ++ BFir6atri$kI :>ee6 E$"l"g' &nd #ts Criti$s; 6!/lished in +he Nati"nI +he C!tting Edge. 8a' 14I 1%88 )>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6.
171-70C
The first and pro"a"ly most fundamental charge is that deep ecology has no e$plicit JsocialJ analysis
6that is, it does not adequately talk a"out matters of class, race, in'us tice, capitalism, imperialism and
the like, and instead tends to regard humans collectively and hence tar the whole spe cies for
environmental degradations with a "rush that would "e more appropriately aimed at specific social
institutions and systems. 3""k$hin sees it as 6rea$hing Ta g"s6el "f a kind "f U"riginal sinU that a$$!rses a
vag!e s6e$ies $alled U5!manit'U Aas th"!gh 6e"6le "f $"l"r are eK!ata/le .ith .hitesI ."men .ith menI the
+hird 2"rld .ith the ,irstI the 6""r .ith the ri$hI the e-6l"ited .ith their e-6l"iters.T # think it is tr!e that
m"st dee6 e$"l"gists have tended t" see h!mans as a s6e$iesI sin$e that isI after allI the e$"l"gi$al .a' t"
regard this 6arti$!lar large mammal "f 5"m" gen!sI and . think that this has largely "een usefulC useful
to help see, in planetary terms, overriding nation and culture and ideology, the large consequences of a
triumphant, e$ploita tive species en'oying a population "oom and technological prowess. From this
larger perspective, it does not reallymatter what the petty political and social arrangements are that
have led to our ecological crisis, or even what dire conse quences those arrangements have had for
certain individu als, types, nations or races. !hat matters is to understand the total effect of this crisis5
"n the living earth and "!r fell". s6e$iesI and the 6eril .e have /r"!ght t" them. This perspective does not
deny the awful character of industrial R society or its inherent destructiveness Bt" h!mans as .ell as
nat!reCR it sa'sI rather, that the path to fundamental restruc turing "est comes a"out through the
development of a new and profound ecological consciousness, which itself can only come a"out
throughI in 6hil"s"6her +h"mas 3err'Us ."rdsI Jthe reinvention of the human at the species levelT and
the !nderstanding that T.e m!st rea66l' f"r admissi"n t" the /i"s6here.T #t is n"t that the s"$ial dimensi"n "r
an anal'sis "f $a6italism "r a 6er$e6ti"n "f ra$ial inO!sti$e is a/sent fr"m the dee6 e$"l"g' 6hil"s"6h'. #n
fa$tI >evall and Sessi"nsI am"ng "thersI are K!ite e-6li$it a/"!t the evils "f .hat the' $all the Td"minant
."rld vie.T and the need f"r dire$t a$ti"n t" $hallenge itI and most of the deep ecology activists # have met
have quite a clear idea of the nature of repression and su"'ugation in this society and have often put
their "odies on the line in resistance to it. %ut it is 6r"/a/l' a$$!rate t" sa' that dee6 e$"l"gists think
6rimaril' in /i"ti$ rather than s"$ial terms. They regard the fundamental issue to "e the destruction of
nature and the suffering of the rapidly dying species and ecosystems as distinct from those who regard
the "asic issue as the a"sence of 'ustice and the suffering of human populations. +hatI as # see itI is a
$lear differen$e in em6hasisI in $"n$ernI in dedi$ati"nA/!t notI 4"d kn".s, such an e$treme difference
that it should prompt invective and opposition and outrage. +here is n" needI # ."!ld have th"!ghtI f"r
6ist"ls-at-da.n rhet"ri$.
+.= Eco$ascis%
Beep ecology does not cause authoritarianism, it doesn&t want replace the welfare of the
individual
allicott PP B9. 3airdI )r"fess"r )hil"s"6h' =niversit' "f N"rth +e-asI 3e'"nd the Land Ethi$I ).71-7*C
8i$hael Nimmerman B1%%0C has defended the land ethic against the charge of ecofascism, pointing out
that in addition to su"ordinating the welfare of the individual to that of the community, fascism
involves other characterizing features, salient among them nationalism and militarism. And there is no
hint of nationalism and militarism in the land ethic. 3!t h".ever "ne la/els itI if the land ethi$ im6lies
.hat &ikenI ReganI ,erreI and Shrader-,re$hette allege that it d"esI it m!st /e reOe$ted as m"nstr"!s.
5a66il'I it d"es n"t. +" think that it d"esI "ne m!st ass!me that Le"6"ld 6r"ffered the land ethi$ as a
s!/stit!te f"rI n"t an additi"n t"I "!r venera/le and familiar h!man ethi$s. 3!t he did n"t. Le"6old refers to
the various stages of ethical development6from tri"al mores to universal human rights and, finally, to
the land ethic6as Jaccretions.J Accretion means an Jincrease "y e$ternal addition or accumulation.J
The land ethic is an accretion6that is, an addition6to our several accumulated social ethics, not
something that is supposed to replace them. #fI as # here e-6lainI Le"6"ld is /!ilding the land ethi$ "n
the"reti$al f"!ndati"ns that he finds in >ar.inI then it is "/vi"!s that .ith the advent "f ea$h ne. stage in
the a$$reting devel"6ment "f ethi$sI the "ld stages are n"t erased "r re6la$edI /!t added t". #I f"r e-am6leI
am a $iti7en "f a re6!/li$I /!t # als" remain a mem/er "f an e-tended famil'I and a resident "f a m!ni$i6alit'.
And it is quite evident to us all, from our own moral e$perience, that the duties attendant on
citizenship in a repu"lic Bt" 6a' ta-esI t" serve in the armed f"r$es "r in the )ea$e C"r6sI f"r e-am6leC do
not cancel or replace the duties attendant on mem"ership in a family Bt" h"n"r 6arentsI t" l"ve and
ed!$ate $hildrenI f"r e-am6leC or residence in a mu nicipality Bt" s!66"rt 6!/li$ s$h""lsI t" attend t".n
meetingsC. (imilarly, it is equally evidentAat least t" Le"6"ld and his e-6"nentsI if n"t t" his $riti$sAthat
the duties attendant upon citizenship in the "iotic community Bt" 6reserve its integrit'I sta/ilit'I and
/ea!t'C do not cancel or replace the duties attendant on mem"ership in the human glo"al village Bt"
res6e$t h!man rightsC.
Dodern day environmental philosophy does not cause ecofascism, rather unless we change
our ways, ecofascism is inevita"le in the current system
Nimmerman 7 B8i$hael EI )r"fess"r "f )hil"s"6h' at +!lane =niversit'
Lhtt6?//....$"l"rad".ed!/&rtsS$ien$es/C5&/6r"files/7imm6df/e$"fas$ism.6dfM Envir"nmental )hil"s"6h'? ,r"m &nimal Rights t" Radi$al
E$"l"g'I f"!rth editi"nI ed /C
The epithet ,ecofascism- is not applica"le to most forms of contemporary environmentalism, which
does not speak in terms of a new racism or a dictatorial tri"alism that would dismantle modern
democratic society .hile !tili7ing m"dern te$hn"l"g' t" a$$"m6lish the 6reservati"n "f 6re$i"!s T/l""d and
s"il.T .ndeed, many environmentalists warn that oppressive, draconian, and authoritarian regimes of
one kind or another, including ecofascism, will inevita"ly arise unless people decide soon enough to
make dramatic changes in their "ehavior and institutions. Criti$s re6l'I h".everI that s"me
envir"nmentalists are alread' 6r"m"ting s!$h a!th"ritarian 6ra$ti$esI even th"!gh the m!$h-heralded
e$"l"gi$al d""m has n"t 'et taken 6la$e. +r!e en"!ghI environmentalists have often overstated their case,
"ut in so doing they have contri"uted to political, institutional, attitudinal, and "ehavioral changes that
have helped to address some environmental pro"lems. 3% #t remains t" /e seenI h".everI .hether
h!mankind $an deal .ith the envir"nmental $hallenges l'ing aheadI .ith"!t s!$$!m/ing t" K!asi-religi"!sI
a!th"ritarian regimes $laiming that h!man freed"m m!st /e a/"lished t" save the h!man s6e$ies.
A$ E!o %as!ism
=enuine Beep Eco renounces destructive social recollectivization for a continuing evolution
and transcendence of this modern world.
Nimmerman P< B8i$hael E.I 5eideggerean S$h"lar +!lane =niv. :>ee6 E$"l"g'I E$"a$tivismI and 5!man
Ev"l!ti"n; 6!/lished in Re<isi"n 2inter 1%%1 13.3. )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8 6. 1*3-1*7C.
Fascism may "e regardedI at least in 6artI as a phenomenon of recollectiviza tionI a regressive m"vement
in which people willingly surrender the an$iety and guilt associated with responsi"ility and freedom.
The self1assertiveness involved in modern anthrocentrism B.hether $"lle$tivisti$ "r individ!alisti$C
demands actions that cause great harm to natural systemsI t" the T8"therT fr"m .hi$h .e s6ring.
#m6li$ati"n in s!$h a$ti"ns ma' precipitate a sense of guilt and defilement, as well as a cor responding
need for reconciliation and purification. +he fa$t that Nati"nal S"$ialism remains se$retl' fas$inating t" s"
man' 6e"6le is indi$ative "f the widespread longing to relinquish the alienation of modernity, to "e
purified of the defilement caused "y the self1assertive transgressions involved in individuation, and to
regain lost communal and natural ties. U+he danger "f 5eideggerUs vie. "f hist"r' as a $"!rse "f de$line
and degenerati"nI thenI is that it invites psy chological regression and a destructive social
recollectivizationI a t'6e that .e have .itnessed t"" "ften in this vi"lent $ent!r'. >ee6 e$"l"g'I thenI $ann"t
$all f"r a ret!rn t" the g!ilt-freeI !ndefiled da's .hen h!mankind and nat!re allegedl' e-isted Tin harm"n'.T
.nsteadI deep ecology must urge that humankind continue the evolutionary developments that led first
from original unity toward increasing individuation and that may ultimately lead to (elf1realization.
+he vie. that h!man hist"r' is a hist"r' "f ev"l!ti"nar' devel"6ment fr"m an !ndifferentiated t" an in$reasingl'
differentiated state is relatedI /!t n"t eK!ivalentI t" the vie. that hist"r' is a linear 6r"gressi"n fr"m the state "f
s!6erstiti"!s 6rimitivism t" rati"nal m"dernit'. +he latter vie. is tr!m6eted /' th"se .h" h"ld that m"dernit' is the
$!lminating stage "f h!man devel"6ment. +he f"rmer is held /' th"se .h" $laim that modernity is only the
mid way point, and also the most alienated point, of a continuing evolution of humankind. #n re$ent
'earsI the m"st effe$tive 6r"6"nent "f this vie.6"int has /een Fen 2il/er.
Beep ecologists are not seeking to set up an authoritarianism, rather to revise our notion of
politics in an ecological framework
+asmaniaI Envir"nmentalism and )"liti$al +he"r'? +".ards and E$"$entri$ &66r"a$hI 6.0*C
#t sh"!ld /e $learI h".everI that e$"$entri$ theorists are not seeking to discard the central value of
autonomy in !estern political thought and replace it with something completely new. RatherI e$"$entri$
theorists are merely concerned to revise the notion of autonomy and incorporate it into a "roader,
ecological framework. +he ."rd a!t"n"m' is derived fr"m the 4reek a!t"s BselfC and n"m"s Bla.C and
meansI literall'I t" live /' "neUs ".n la.s. +his is similar t" #mman!el FantUs infl!ential f"rm!lati"n
a$$"rding t" .hi$h an a!t"n"m"!s 6ers"n is s"me"ne .h" a$ts fr"m self-im6"sed 6rin$i6le Bas distin$t fr"m
6ers"nal .him "r e-ternall' im6"sed $"mmandsC. Ecocentric theorists have carried forward this "asic
notion of autonomy as self1determination. 5".everI the' have e-tended the inter6retati"n and a66li$ati"n
"f the n"ti"n /' radi$all' revising the n"ti"n "f Tself.T &fter allI if .e take a!t"n"m' t" mean self-
determinati"nI this still /egs the K!esti"n as t" .hat kind "f TselfU .e are addressing. #n lie! "f the at"misti$
and individ!alisti$ self "f li/eralism "r the m"re s"$ial self "f s"$ialismI ecocentric theorists have
introduced a "roader, ecological notion of self that incorporates these individual and social aspects in a
more encompassing framework. ,r"m the 6ers6e$tive "f the e$"l"gi$al m"del "f internal relati"nsI the
li/eral idea "f a!t"n"m' as inde6enden$e fr"m B"r Tfreed"m fr"mTC "thers is seen as 6hil"s"6hi$all'
misg!ided. B+" the e-tent that inter$"nne$tedness .ith "thers is a$kn".ledged !nder this 6arti$!lar li/eral
inter6retati"nI it is likel' t" /e e-6erien$ed as threateningI as $a!sing a l"ss "f selfC. !hile socialists tend to
adopt a more relational model of self 2which sometimes encompasses our relations with the nonhuman
world3, this still remains em"edded in an anthropocentric framework.
+.= Deep Eco is +ni - 5(%an
Beep ecology isn&t anti1human "ut rather affirms the fullest self1realization of humankind
within nature.
&s 6revi"!sl' statedI deep ecology has "een criticized for "eing anti1human in trying to separate man
from his environment. .t is often misinterpreted that deep ecology sees that the only way for ecological
"alance is in the a"sence of humansI .hen in realit'I this is n"t the $ase. +he 6latf"rm "f dee6 e$"l"g'
/egins /' sa'ing that human interference is too e$cessive, "ut never once says that it needs to "e
eliminated all together. #t is als" e-tremel' im6"rtant t" remem/er that alth"!gh this is s"me.hat "f a
radi$al m"vementI it was devised "y people who love nature. S"me 6e"6le still have $"ntin!ed t" arg!e
that h!mans sh"!ld reali7e their $"nne$ti"n .ith nat!reI /!t remain $"m6letel' "!t "f nat!reI alienated fr"m
the nat!ral ."rld. Naess arg!es that nature should never "e something that is ,hands1off-, nor should
humans ever "e alienated from their environment. &s K!"ted in his arti$le :& >efense "f the >ee6
E$"l"g' 8"vement;I Naess sa's that :there is no general norm in ecosophy against our full life in
nature, and this implies acceptance of hurting and killing. EcosophyI as # $"n$eive itI says yes to the
fullest self1realization of man B3rennanI 1*0C.; &s Naess s6"ke "f this f!ll self-reali7ati"nI 3ill >evall als"
/r"!ght !6 h". dee6 e$"l"g' 6rin$i6les $an hel6 t" rea$h a higher self.
Beep ecology is not misanthropic5 it simply asks us to re'ect the ideology of human
chauvinism
A second misconception of ecocentrism is to interpret its s!stained $ritiK!e "f anthr"6"$entrism as anti1
human and/"r as dis6la'ing an insensitivit' t" the needs "f the 6""r and the "66ressed /' $"lle$tivel'
/laming the h!man s6e$ies as a .h"le f"r the e$"l"gi$al $risis Brather than singling "!t s6e$ifi$ nati"nsI
gr"!6sI "r $lassesC. 5".everI this criticism fails to appreciate the clear distinction "etween a
nonanthropocentric and a misanthropic perspec tive.3( Ecocentrism is not against humans 6er se or the
cele"ration of human ityIs special forms of e$cellence5 rather, it is against the ideology of human
chauvinism. Ecocentric theorists see each human individual and ea$h h!man $!lt!re as 'ust as entitled t"
live and /l"ss"m as any other speciesI 6r"vided the' d" s" in a .a' that is sensitive t" the needs "f "ther
h!man individ!alsI $"mm!nitiesI and $!lt!resI and "ther life-f"rms generall'. 8"re"verI many critics of
ecocentrism fail to realize that a perspective that seeks emancipa tion writ large is one that necessarily
supports social 'ustice in the human community. 4iven that it is 6atentl' the $ase that n"t all h!mans are
im6li$ated in e$"l"gi$al destr!$ti"n t" the same degreeI then it f"ll".s that e$"$entri$ the"rists ."!ld n"t
e-6e$t the $"sts "f envir"nmental ref"rm t" /e /"rne eK!all' /' all $lasses and nati"nsI regardless "f relative
.ealth "r 6rivilege. +hat many ecocentric theorists have given special theoretical attention to human1
nonhuman relations arises from the fact that these relations are so often neglected "y theorists in the
humanities and social sciences. .t does not arise from any lack of concern or lack of theoretical
inclusiveness with regard to human emancipatory struggles.
A$ &ee' E!o is Anti - (uman
!e aren&t ecofascist6deep ecology accepts that humans have the freedom to act stupid as
long as they accept Earth&s consequences.
Nimmerman 7 B8i$hael E. Jimmerman is )r"fess"r and Chair "f )hil"s"6h' at +!lane =niversit'. :5!manit'Gs Relati"n t" 4aia? )art "f
the 2h"leI "r 8em/er "f the C"mm!nit'N; +he +r!m6eter *(.1 6. 4-17. htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./71/18
)>, a$$essed 9!l' 8I *((8C
#n an"ther essa' 6!/lished in +he +r!m6eterI :,r"m Shall". t" >ee6 E$"l"gi$al )hil"s"6h'I; R".e
reinf"r$es his 6"int? :Earth /ef"re "rganisms. E$"s'stems /ef"re 6e"6le.;37 R".e a$kn".ledges that some
will ask whether the ,the holarchy that places Earth a"ove people >is? 'ust another path to
totalitarianism, to ecofascism0- oncern a"out ecofascism, we are told, arises from individualists and
humanists who assume that ,only people possess high intelligence, are important, and loved "y =od.-
FascismI R".e $"rre$tl' 6"ints "!tI is a human institution, not a natural one. Even th"!gh it is
:e$"l"gi$al realit'; that :5!mans as Earthlings are s!/servient t" the EarthI; :Earth&s ecosystems e$press
no dictatorial decrees as to human "ehaviour.- 9umans are free to pursue whatever reckless and self1
destructive paths they want. Earth generally shows humans the folly of their ways slowlyI her
res6"nses 6resented as less"ns t" /e learned. 2hether Earth is re$"gni7ed as h!manit'Gs /"d'/mind/s6irit
s"!r$e and s!66"rtI and .hether "r n"t 6e"6le a$t res6"nsi/l' "n that kn".ledge is their $h"i$e.38
&+? #tGs C"lle$tive 5!man S!i$ide
>ee6 E$"l"g' >"esnGt &dv"$ate & 8ass 5!man S!i$ide
Reed %% 2#eter, Beep Ecology Author and #rofessor at Mniversity of Dinnesota,
)hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es? &rne Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I 6g 1%*C
According to NapffeI nature gives us special inspirations and 'oys5 it makes possi"le human values that
cannot "e found e$cept in relation to that which is not human. 2e find these val!esI and hints "f val!es
/e'"nd themI in sit!ati"ns in .hi$h nat!re is terri/l' d"minant. Encounters with these values are vital,
providing challenges for the development of our peculiar talents as a species. #t is f"r this reas"nI Ja6ffe
sa'sI that .e are rel!$tant t" l"se the $han$e t" meet free nat!re. Still there is n" reas"n f"r !s t" think "f
"!rselves as /eing the al6ha and the "mega "f the !niverse. +he !niverse $an get "n K!ite .ell .ith"!t !sI
diminishedI 6erha6sI /!t n"t greatl' s". T,"r meIT .rites Ja6ffeI Ta desert island is n" traged'I and neither
is a deserted 6lanet.T
38
@rI as "ne "f Ja6ffeUs alter eg"s adm"nishes the thr"ngI T+he life "n man'
."rlds is like a r!shing riverI /!t life "n this ."rld is like a stagnant 6!ddle and a /a$k.ater. . . . Fn". th'-
selvesR /e !nfr!itf!l and let there /e 6ea$e "n Earth after th' 6assing.TTP Napffe is not arguing for
collective suicide. !hat Napffe 2and .3 want to do is put a question mark6only a question mark6on
the whole of human e$is tence. 2hen .e K!esti"n the right "f "ther s6e$ies t" e-ist "n the 6lanetI it is
"nl' fair that .e 6"se the same K!esti"n .ith regard t" "!rselves? d" .e needI "r deserveI t" s!rviveN
!hen it is clear that there is value and "eauty and won der and greatness that is wholly independent of
us, we cannot conclude that the universe would "e a whole lot worse off without us.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1*&
+.= Deep Eco says Dill -oor -eople
(ustaining the present human population is factually impossi"le6no deep ecologist
actually desires to kill off poor people.
)>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6. 171-70C
+he se$"nd and related iss!e is that "f 6"6!lati"n si7eI s6e$ifi$all' the dee6 e$"l"gistsU $"ntenti"n that a
significant reduction in human num"ers is essential for the proper "al ance and functioning of the
"iosphere. +hisI it is saidI is 8alth!sianI h"ldingI as ,ifth Estate $laimedI that Tthere are too many people
and not enough resources to keep them aliveJ and that Jscarcity and famine are thus e$plained as
natural phenomena.T +hisI it is saidI is $all"!s and $r!elI akin t" gen"$ideI sin$e it m!st have in mind
targeting the 6""restI the darkest and the si$kestI designing their demiseI a$$"rding t" 3""k$hinI T/'
meas!res that are virt!all' e$"-fas$ist.T #t is al.a's diffi$!lt t" deal .ith the 6"6!lati"n K!esti"nI /!t f"r
starters it sh"!ld /e n"ted that th"se deep ecologists who have confronted it do not "egin with Dalthusian
as sumptions and certainly do not arrive at Dalthusian conclu sions. Their argument is notAre6eat n"t
Athat population reduction is necessary "ecause of inadequate food in the ."rldI sin$e it is fairl'
evident Band the ."rk "f ,ran$es 8""re La66e tends t" $"nfirmC that 6resent 6"6!lati"ns $"!ld /e
adeK!atel' fed if 6"liti$al and e$"n"mi$ arrangements .ere differentI alth"!gh l"ng-term f""d sta/ilit'
."!ld $ertainl' de6end "n /"th intra- and interregi"nal 6"6!lati"n distri/!ti"n. The argument is, rather,
that sus taining human population at present 2not to mention pre dicted3 levels puts too great a strain on
all the resources, life forms and systems of the earth. This affects most particular ly our fellow speciesI
.h"m .e are killing at the estimated rate "f "ne an h"!r t" maintain "!rselves at these n!m/ersI /!t also the
worldIs fertile soil, its waters, its air, its cli matic and hydrologic systems6in short, the a"ility of the
"iosphere to survive. S!$h a position does not argue that capitalism is not egre giously at fault for much
of this assault, although it is pa tently clear that industrialized socialist systems are every "it as guilty in
kind if n"t degreeI as are man' "f the $"l"ni7ed states in the "r/it "f either em6ire. #ndeedI the l"gi$ h"ldsI as
>evall and Sessi"ns sa' e-6li$itl'I that it is the industrial ized societies6particularly the most rapacious,
e$ploitative, wasteful and polluting one of all, found in this country 6that that are overpopulated the
mostI if # ma' 6!t it that .a'. +heir n!m/ers Bes6e$iall' their .ealthier n!m/ersC are s!stained at far higher
living standards and d" far greater !ltimate damage t" the /i"s6here. 4owhere here is there the idea that
itIs desira"le or inevita"le6or even useful, in "io spheric terms6for poor people to die offR K!ite the
$"ntrar'.
+.= 9Co( S(ppor +)DS/Sar#aion:
Beep ecololgy doesn&t call for the destruction of mankind1 we can still defend ourselves
from forces that threaten to annihilate us
& third $riti$ism is that e$"$entrism is a 6assive and K!ietisti$ 6ers6e$tive that regards h!mans as n" m"re
val!a/le thanI sa'I ants "r the &#>S vir!s. 5".everI ecocentrism merely seeks to cultivate a prima facie
orienta tion of nonfavoritism5 it does not mean that humans cannot eat or act to defend themselves or
others Bin$l!ding "ther threatened s6e$iesC from danger or life1threatening diseases.33 #n this res6e$tI the
degree "f sentien$e "f an "rganism and its degree "f self-$"ns$i"!sness and $a6a$it' f"r ri$hness "f
e-6erien$e are relevant fa$t"rs Bas distin$t fr"m e-$l!sive $riteriaC in an' ethi$al $h"i$e sit!ati"n al"ngside
"ther fa$t"rsI s!$h as .hether a 6arti$!lar s6e$ies is endangered "r .hether a 6arti$!lar 6"6!lati"n is $r!$ial
t" the maintenan$e "f a 6arti$!lar e$"s'stem.34 A nonanthropocentric perspective is one that ensures that
the interests of nonhuman species and ecological com munities B"f var'ing levels "f aggregati"nC are not
ignored in human deci sion making simply "ecause they are not human or "ecause they are not of
instrumental value to humans. #t d"es n"t f"ll". fr"m this 6rima fa$ie "rientati"n "f n"nfav"ritismI
h".everI that the a$t!al "!t$"me "f h!man de$isi"n making m!st ne$essaril' fav"r n"ninterferen$e .ith
"ther life-f"rms. 9umans are 'ust as entitled to live and "lossom as any other species, and this
inevita"ly necessitates some killing of, suffering "y, and interference with, the lives and ha"itats of
other species.30 2hen fa$ed .ith a $h"i$eI h".everI those who adopt an ecocentric perspective will seek
to choose the course that will minimize such harm and ma$imize the opportunity of the widest range of
organisms and communities6including ourselves6to flourish in their@our own way. +his is
en$a6s!lated in the 6"6!lar sl"gan Tlive sim6l' s" that "thers L/"th h!man and n"nh!manM ma' sim6l'
live.T31
Beep Eco criticism of human "ehaviors and overpopulation is descriptive of the earth, not
prescriptive as to any "eliefs or attitudes.
)>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6. 171-70C
8isanthr"6'I in m' di$ti"nar'I is defined as Ta hatred "r distr!st "f mankindIT /!t it seems !sef!l t"
disting!ish /et.een the t.". .t is pro"a"ly true that most deep ecologists are distrustful, "r fearf!l, of the
human role in the "io sphere, "ut very dou"tful that they hate the human species and wish its
e$tinction. # am s!re there are in the m"vement th"se .h" are led t" des6air "f the h!man $"nditi"n and th"se .h" ."!ld sa' that the
"ng"ing s!rvival "f the living earth and its /i"s6here is m"re im6"rtant than the s!rvival "f the h!man s6e$ies. #ndeedI it is 6la!si/l'
arg!ed that the s!rvival "f ar/"real Bes6e$iall' tr"6i$alC s6e$ies is far m"re im6"rtant t" the health "f the /i"s6here as a .h"le than the
s!rvival "f an' mammalian 6rimateI inasm!$h as it is the f"rmer that are $hiefl' res6"nsi/le f"r the 6r"$essing "f $ar/"n di"-ide and
"-'gen ne$essar' f"r m"st "f life. # d" n"t see h". that 6"siti"nI h".everI $"!ld /e regarded as eK!ivalent t" the hatred "f h!mans "r
the desire f"r their /anishment. N". it is true that, in trying to put its quite radical mes sage acrossI /"th >ave
,"reman and Earth First\ have printed careless things that have, generally out of conte$t, upset some
people and led to charges of misanthropy of the JhatredJ kind. Foreman once asserted, when asked in
an interview a"out starvation in Ethiopia, that he thought Jthe "est thing would "e to 'ust let nature
seek its own "alance, to let the people there 'ust starve there,J certainly an unnec essarily heartless way
of putting it, although the point he was trying to make is that the Ethiopian population has overshot
the capacity of its devastated environment to pro duce food, and that outside aid might alleviate that
for the moment "ut wouldnIt do anything to achieve the population reduction that is necessary for
ecological "alance there. (im ilarly, the Earth First\ article on A.B( argued that, in spite of the
suffering involved, it was a Jwelcome developmentJ in the necessary reduction of human population,
especially since 2unlike war or environmental catastrophe3 it appears to affect only humanity and not
other species. all it cal lous, if you will, "ut it is meant to "e descriptive, not pre scriptive6to suggest
that the earth as a living ecosystem might have its own defense mechanisms, including viruses that
strike at species that overstress it, to protect it in times of crisis. Agree or disagree, that is not
misanthropy or fascism.
+.= 9i$ yo(Ere !eep ecologissH kill (s @or yo(rsel$A:
Beep ecology is committed to non violence
BE endorses ,not a slight reform of our present society, "ut a su"stantial reorientation of our whole
civilization.-83 There is an intrinsic connection "etween BE and nonviolence 2in the =handian sense3C
as such, violent revolutions are not consistent with its purpose. ,+he dire$ti"n is rev"l!ti"nar'I the ste6s are
ref"rmat"r'.;84 BE aims at changing the dominant worldview and social structure of modernit'. The
reasons "ehind the alignment "etween BE and nonviolent change "ecome clearer upon consideration
of self1widening, e-6lained /el"..80 2e $an sa' f"r n". that the relationship "etween BE and nonviolence
mirrors the sym"iosis e$pressed through organic relations 2"etween "eings or "etween "eing and
environment3 within the total ecosystem. Naess and Sessi"ns f"rm!lated the /asi$ 6rin$i6les "f an' e$"s"6h'. +heir g"al
.as t" re6resent the :/asi$sI; .hi$h are :meant t" e-6ress im6"rtant 6"ints .hi$h the great maO"rit' "f s!66"rters a$$e6tI im6li$itl' "r
e-6li$itl'I at a high level "f generalit'.;81 +hese principles ,guide those who "elieve ecological pro"lems cannot
"e solved only "y technological Kquick1fi$& solutionsI; in achieving effective non1violent direct action in
the direction of fundamental change.87 +he generalit' "f the 6"ints all".s f"r s6e$ifi$s t" /e ."rked "!t "n individ!al
/ases? the 6"int is t" 6r"vide a t""l f"r reali7ing $"mm"nalit'I rather than a $al$!l!s "f differentiati"n. +his eight-6"int 6latf"rm is? 1.
The well1"eing and flourishing of human and non1human life on Earth have value in themselves
Bs'n"n'ms? intrinsi$ val!eI intrinsi$ ."rthC. These val!es are inde6endent "f the !sef!lness "f the n"n-h!man ."rld f"r
h!man 6!r6"ses. *. Gichness and diversity of life forms contri"ute to the realization of these values and are
also values in themselves. 3. 9umans have no right to reduce this richness e$cept to satisfy vital needs.
+.= Deep Eco is a "eligion
(olvency requires action spurred "y deep emotion
Gosenhek 7 BR!thI >ee6 e$"l"gist and >ire$t"r "f the Rainf"rest #nf"rmati"n CentreI 4/*8I
htt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-e$"/,earWt"W,reed"m.htmlC
#ndeedI there are a h!ge am"!nt "f $hallenges and itGs n" ."nder that an' 6ers"n might feel slightl'
"ver.helmed fa$ing these. 4e"rge 8"n/i"t sa'sI :To live in these times without striving to change them,
is like watching with serenity the oncoming truck in your path.- (o indeed we do need to make some
moves or this oncoming truck will "owl us right over. +he $lass .eGre d"ing n". is $alled EarthI S6irit
and &$ti"n and .eGve talk a l"t a/"!t $"m6assi"nI and sometimes it might seem that .&m saying that we
'ust need to feel .ithI that if "nl' .e $"!ld feel .ith .hat is ha66ening "n the 6lanetI then that might "e
enough. %ut t"night #Gm g"ing t" state clearly that this is not enough. .t&s not enough to 'ust "e
compassionate and to witness. ompassion is actually a "ehaviour. ompassion is an action. .f we do
feel with what&s happening on the planet, then we feel moved in some way to take some action. .nstead
we&re largely paralysed as # menti"ned /ef"reI and #Gd like t" l""k a /it at .hat are s"me "f the reas"ns
/esides the en"rm"!s threats .e fa$e that .e find "!rselves t" /e s" 6aral'sed and "ver.helmed and s" "n.
/ne reason for our social paralysis might "e found "y looking at these feelings that are so completely
overwhelming. !e have grief, we have anger, we have despair, we have hopelessness. ,"r e-am6leI our
hopelessness might lead us to "elieve that we are una"le to activate :2hat $an # d"N #Gm O!st "ne 6ers"n
am"ngst "ver si- /illi"nI after 13.7 /illi"n 'ears "f ev"l!ti"n h". $an # 6"ssi/l' have an'thing t" d" .ith
.hatGs g"ing t" ha66enN; !e&re pathologised for having these feelings, and there&s an a"solute ta"oo in
our society against anything or any kind of feeling that&s too strong, and so instead of the feelings "eing
affirmed as healthy reactions to the times 8 the natural reaction to the violence that plagues our planet,
our home and the suffering inflicted upon our "rothers and sisters 8 these feelings are denigrated and
as a result we develop a sophisticated defense mechanism to suppress these feelings. /ur outrage is
turned inwards as we look inside ourselves to see what is wrong with us for having these feelings, and
we try to find ways to fi$ ourselves, to "etter cope with a dysfunctional society. Sadl'I the feelings are
n"t seen as the gems the' tr!l' areR in fa$t the' are the fertile seeds of transformation that $an /e
transf"rmed int" L"ve and the Energ' "f the 2arri"r. The strength and the courage and the desire to work
for freedom and for 'ustice arises from these very emotionsC overwhelming anger and grief and despair
all "f them and if we 'ust allow them their natural course, then transformed they will "e, and moved
we will "e too.
:::ATC (hallow Ecology =ood Args:::
+2= 5(%an "igh o Li$e
The distinction "etween human ,life- and "iological ,"eing- doesn&t e$ist 8 individual
values cannot "e assigned
4o scholar1philosopher has yet "een a"le to adequately define ,life,- and 2endell 3err'Gs :Life is a
8ira$le; B*(((C ma' /e as $l"se t" the tr!th as h!mans .ill ever get. The word ,life- is a cover for human
ignorance, a term for an am"ience whose a"sence has "een named ,death.- ;inked with organic
,aliveness- are such functions and processes as meta"olism, development, growth, reproduction, and
evolution. .n studying these "iological phenomena, perceptive scientists acknowledge that they are not
studying ,life- per se. Ernst 8a'r n"ted that attempts to define life are futile "ecause ,there is no special
su"stance, o"'ect or force that can "e identified with lifeI; and Lan$el"t 5"g/en 6r"tested that :"iology is
not the science of Klife& >"ecause? science is not a"out the study of a"stract nouns.;* .f the vital non1
thing called ,life- is an a"stract concept, inaccessi"le "oth to the literary scholar and to the scientist,
what accounts for its unquestioned association only with organisms, as their special possession0
8"ris"n B1%71C 6r"vided "ne ans.erI referring t" !hitehead&s ,fallacy of misplaced concreteness-
where/' an a"straction is mistakenly accepted as a thing. !e o"serve an unusual set of o"'ects that
e$hi"it growth, production, and special ways of using energy, he wrote, and we elect to call them
,living things- as a separate class from ,dead things.- +he ne-t ste6 is t" invent a h'6"theti$al entit'
6"ssessed /' all living things that a$$"!nts f"r their differen$e fr"m n"nliving things. 2e des$ri/e this
attri/!te as :livingness; and then in$rease its s!/stantialit' /' sh"rtening it t" :life.; 3' making :life; a
sh"rtI sna66' n"!n and there/' $"nferring thingh""d "n itI the .a' is eased t".ard /elieving that :life; is a
kind "f m"/ile agent that vitali7es "rganisms fr"m .ithin and .h"se de6art!re marks their death. 3!t ,life-
is not a thing, nor is it the possession of organisms in an otherwise dead world. Ecological unawareness
is a second answer to why ,life- has only "een associated with organisms. ,r"m an$ient time t" the
6resentI h!manist thinkers have rarel' $"nsidered the Earth-$"nte-t as "f m"re than 6assing interest. The
impro"a"ility and indispensa"ility of the matri$ that surrounds organisms was not known. Today the
logic of ecology suggests that ,;ife,- though indefina"le e$cept as an organizing potential, is a
qualitative characteristic of Earth and its spatial segments named ,ecosystems.-
The spread of ecocentrism starts with the acknowledgement that humans aren&t the only
valua"le species
Ethi$al s'stems e-6ress h!man val!esI .hi$h is t" sa' that "nl' .hat is val!ed .ill /e treated ethi$all'I as
m"ral "/Oe$ts. !hen only people matter, then ethical concerns are limited to the human race.
Everything else is only valued if it serves humanity. As ecological awareness grows, things other1than1
human are perceived as valua"le, initially "ecause of utility. !ith greater sensitivity and empathy,
sentient organisms are recognized as valua"le in and for themselves. ;egislation may "e passed to
prevent cruelty to animals or to protect rare plants. Then, "eyond organisms, affection and ethical
concern may "e e$tended to special places, to the landscapes of home remem"ered from childhood, or
to ma'estic old1growth forests, to coral reefs with their dazzling tropical fish. This sequence illustrates
,ethics "y e$tension- as the individual&s moral sense grows from the egocentric to the homocentric to
the "iocentric to the ecocentric.
+2= 5(%an "igh o Li$e
A level playing field for all organisms is critical to fundamental thinking a"out the
ecosystem
+he 3ritish e$"l"gist +ansle' $"ined the ."rd :e$"s'stem; and O!stified it in these ."rds? :Though the
organisms may claim our primary interest, when we are trying to think fundamentally we cannot
separate them from their special environment with which they form one physical system.;1 &s he n"tedI
the ecological unity of organism@environment is not apparent without fundamental thought. The l"gi$
"f +ansle'Gs insight that any living organism and its immediate environment comprises a more realistic
system than either one alone, leads to the conclusion that every chunk of Earth space6air over
land@water with organisms sandwiched at or near the interface6 carries the ;ife potential, e$pressed
not only in its organisms "ut also in their unlikely matri$. The impro"a"le composition of air, of water,
of rocks, soils and sediments, shows them to "e integral parts of the marvel of ;ife rather than ,dead
environment.- 5". is it that .e have assigned the greater 6art "f the Earth s6a$es .here .e live t" the
$ateg"r' :dead envir"nmentN; 9umans interpret the world around them primarily "y the sense of sight,
and sight is not tuned to reveal ecological relationships. Sight inside the atm"s6here "6erates "n the
:fig!re-against-/a$kgr"!nd; 6rin$i6leI 6i$king "!t "/Oe$ts .hile ign"ring their eK!all' im6"rtant $"nte-ts.
;anguage follows sight, assigning names Bn"!nsC to the sight1 created fragments, falsely confirming
their stand1alone e$istence. (ight leads people to "elieve that the organic can "e disconnected from the
inorganic, that living fish can "e separated from water, living rooted plants separated from soil, living
human "odies separated from air. ,Thinking fundamentally- means thinking relationally, thinking
ecologically. .t means learning to perceive the world more truly than sight and language at first
suggest. ;earning to perceive organisms as situated in the conte$t of Earth places, as parts of
geoecosystems, gives meaning to their origins, evolution, maintenance6to their ,aliveness.- !hat it
means to "e human has roots in the geoecosystems within which people have lived and evolved. =6right
6"st!reI t."-legged l"$"m"ti"nI /if"$al visi"nI and "nl' a fe. strategi$ 6at$hes "f f!rI 6"int t" an an$estr' in
.arm &fri$an savannah-e$"s'stems. +he savannah 6attern is re6eated n"stalgi$all' in green-$ar6eted h"mes
.ith fl"ra de$"rati"nsI and in !r/an 6arks d"tted .ith trees .here 6e"6le g" f"r re-$reati"n.
+.= 5(%ans are Special
9umans do not occupy a special place, this thinking underlies env destruction
+asmaniaI Envir"nmentalism and )"liti$al +he"r'? +".ards and E$"$entri$ &66r"a$hI 6.4%-0(C
&$$"rding t" this 6i$t!re "f realit'I the world is an intrinsically dynam ic, interconnected we" of relations
in which there are no a"solutely discrete entities and no a"solute dividing lines "etween the living and
the nonliving, the animate and the inanimate, or the human and the nonhuman. This model of reality
undermines anthropocentrism insofar as whatever faculty we choose to underscore our own
uniqueness or specialness as the "asis of our moral superiorit' Be.g.I rati"nalit'I lang!ageI "r "!r t""l-
making $a6a/ilit'CI .e .ill invaria/l' find either that there are s"me h!mans .h" d" n"t 6"ssess s!$h a
fa$!lt' "r that there are s"me n"nh!mans .h" d".3 4onanthropocen tric ethical theorists have used this
a"sence of any rigid, a"solute dividing line "etween humans and nonhumans to point out the logical
inconsistency of conventional anthropocentric ethical and political theory that purports to 'ustify the
e$clusive moral considera"ility of humans on the "asis of our sep arateness from, say, the rest of the
animal world. #ndeedI .e sa. in the 6revi"!s $ha6ter h". Singer !sed this kind "f arg!ment t" $riti$i7e
h!man-$entered ethi$al the"r' and defend animal li/erati"n. 2hile there are !nd"!/tedl' man' im6"rtant
differen$es in degree Bas distin$t fr"m kindC /et.een all "r s"me h!mans and n"nh!mansI as ,"- 6"ints "!tI
this $!ts /"th .a'sR for e$ample, there are countless things that other animals do "et ter than us.4 B&nd
there are als" inn!mera/le differen$es in $a6a$ities that se6arate n"nh!man life-f"rms fr"m ea$h an"ther.C
,r"m an e$"$entri$ 6ers6e$tiveI to single out only our special attri"utes as the "asis of our e$clusive
moral considera"ility is simply human chauvinism that conveniently fails to recognize the special
attri"utes of other life1formsC it ass!mes that .hat is distin$tive a/"!t h!mans is m"re ."rth' thanI rather
than sim6l' different fr"mI the distin$tive feat!res "f "ther life-f"rms.0 9"hn R"dman has $alled this the
Tdifferential im6erativeIT that isI the sele$ti"n "f .hat h!mans d" /est Bas $"m6ared t" "ther s6e$iesC as the
meas!re "f h!man virt!e and s!6eri"rit' "ver "ther s6e$ies. R"dman tra$es this idea in 2estern th"!ght as
far /a$k as S"$ratesI .h" sa. the m"st virt!"!s h!man as Tthe "ne .h" m"st f!ll' trans$ends their animal
and vegetative nat!re.T1 +he !6sh"tI "f $"!rseI is that "ne /e$"mes a /etter h!man if "ne reinf"r$es the
differential im6erative /' ma-imi7ing "neUs Ts6e$ies-s6e$ifi$ differentia.T B8"re"verI as 3ent"n 6"ints "!tI
the 6!tative h!man/animal "66"siti"n ma' s"metimes /e seen as serving Tas a $"nvenient s'm/"li$ devi$e
.here/' .e have attri/!ted t" animals the dis6"siti"ns .e have n"t /een a/le t" $"ntem6late in "!rselves.T7C
+.= -ropery "s
The alt transition to a deeper ecocentric world will not collapse the glo"al market. Earth is
not our property6The aff effectually enslaves 4ature.
BiNerga *< B4!sI :>ee6 E$"l"g' and Li/eralism? +he 4reener #m6li$ati"ns "f Ev"l!ti"nar' Li/eral +he"r'; 6.
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
NeverthelessI not every relationship should "e made a prop erty right. (lavery has "een appropriately
"anned, even th"!gh at "ne time there .as a market 6ri$e f"r slaves andI in <irginiaI even a slave /reeding
ind!str'. !hen the right to own slaves was a"olished the market order did not collapseI alth"!gh the
market f"r slaves did. This limitation on what could "e legitimately "ought and sold within the market
was a net gain for human well1"eing, even if it did destroy a way of life thousands of years old. A
similar perspective holds for practices destructive to our wider natural community. S"me $"ntem6"rar'
6r"6ert' rights are als" illegitimate. The right to ruin oneIs soil or seriously reduce genetic diversity
within a species located on oneIs land are e$amples of inappropriate property rights.+I .n their a"sence
we would most definitely not see the demise of the market. 2e ."!ld n" m"re dist"rt the 6ri$e s'stem "r
red!$e entre6rene!rial "66"rt!nities than did eliminating slaver'. !e would return neither to the Diddle
Ages nor the #leistocene. The goals are in no way antithetical to li"eral modernity. Li/eralism has /een
the m"st 6".erf!l "66"nent "f 6"liti$al des6"tismI defined as the e-er$ise "f ar/itrar' 6".er .ithin a
$"mm!nit'. %ut "y equating the nonhuman world with prop erty, and "oth with property rights,
>li"eralism? has sheltered a realm where every person can act the despot. +" $laim land and .hat lives !6"n
it Tis m' 6r"6ert' and # $an d" .hat # .ant .ith itT t!rns "!t t" /e n" m"re defensi/le than similar $laims .ithin the
stateI neigh/"rh""dI "r famil'. +he linkage /et.een ev"l!ti"nar' li/eral and dee6 e$"l"gi$al insights m!t!all'
strengthens the !nder6innings "f /"th
+.= Deep Eco Desroys )n!i#i!(alis%
The politics of self1interest are dangerous. They lend the assumption that our part in the
larger ecosystem doesn&t matter
E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 1%1-1%8C
#olitics within the dominant culture are also influenced "y the widespread acceptance of the cultural
myth that leads people to think of themselves as autonomous individ uals. .n addition to "eing caught
up in cultural patterns of consumerism, this sense of "eing an autonomous self leads to the continual
quest for a deeper sense of self1e$pression, authenticity, and personal empowerment. As they attempt
to live this cultural metaphor, the surface patterns of critical thought are viewed as complementing the
quest to escape the constraints that e$ternal forms of authority place on their individuality. #ndeedI the
$!lt "f individ!alism B6arti$!larl' the e-6ressive and !tilitarian varieties des$ri/ed in 3ellahUs 5a/its "f the
5eartC reK!ires the relativi7ing 6r"$ess "f $riti$al inK!ir'. 3!t where the root metaphor of the autonomous
individual is dominant, politics are circumscri"ed "y what is of interest to the individual. +his as6e$t "f
the d"minant $!lt!re als" $"ntri/!tes t" 6"liti$i7ing m"re areas "f s"$ial lifeI .here individ!al O!dgment
takes "n in$reasing im6"rtan$e and .here $"ntin!al neg"tiati"n "ver the meaning "f ."rdsI a!th"rit' f"r
/eliefsI and .hat $"nstit!tes a66r"6riate /ehavi"r /e$"mes a never-ending treadmill. The energy put into
the politics of self1interestI as .ell as the "lder variet' "f interest gr"!6 6"liti$sI "ecomes important as it
erodes the sense of mem"ership in a larger community. !hen the metaphor of community is e$tended
to include the interde pendence of species and other natural systems that consti tute the "ioregion, we
can see the danger posed "y increas ing our reliance on the use of the political process. As people "egin
to recognize that the ecological crisis is more than a newspaper headline and a television Jsound "ite,J
and that it has to do with the growing incidence of can cer, as well as the rising prices of food, energy,
and dispos al of to$ic wastes 2not to mention increasing international competition for control of
increasingly scarce natural resources3, we are likely to witness an even deeper weak ness in the political
process, which has "een put out of focus "y the ideological lenses of li"eralism.
+.= 9Gise Se1ar!ship:
4ature has intrinsic value of itself for all species, conferring now such Kstewardship&
o"ligation on humans which would imply our e$ternal control.
)>, a$$essed 9!l' %I *((8I 6. 171-70C
+he 6rima$' "f .ilderness. !ilderness has a special value of its ownI n"t "nl' as a 6la$e .here h!mans
ma' !nderstand Tthe int!iti"ns "f "rgani$ .h"lenessT Bas Sessi"ns and his $"lleag!e 3ill >evlin have 6!t itCI
an essential and l"ng-negle$ted need f"r tr!e 6s'$h"l"gi$al healthI /!t als" where the intricate panoply of
other species may Jlive and "lossom for themselves,J unhindered and apart. #n the ."rds "f Earth ,trstQ
edit"r >ave ,"remanI T!ilderness is the real world >and? preservation of wildness and native diversity
is the most important issue.J & sense "f 6la$e. 3asi$ t" h!man .ell-/eing is r""tednessI a sense "f kn".ing
a 6arti$!lar stret$h "f earthI e-6erien$ing a h"me. /ne seeks to find, and learn to live in, a particular
place and to let it "e, as e$"l"gist )a!l She6ard has said "f the &!stralian a/"rigineI Tthe ar$hive .here the
individ!al m"ves sim!ltane"!sl' thr"!gh his 6ers"nal and tri/al 6ast, renewing contact with crucial points,
a 'ourney into time and space refreshing the meaning of his own "eing.T @66"siti"n t" ind!strial s"$iet'.
+he ver' /asis "f in-d!strial $ivili7ati"nI in /"th its state-$a6italist and $"r6"rate-$a6italist f"rmsI is the
se6arati"n fr"m and e-6l"itati"n "f the nat!ral ."rld. Beep ecology therefore op poses the industrial
system and the myths of progress and technological dominance that drive it, and offers itselfI as s$h"lar
and Earth ,irstQ mem/er Christ"6her 8anes sa'sI Tas an alternative to the whole of Technological
ulture, e$posing its irrationality within the larger conte$t of EarthIs natural cycles.T @66"siti"n t"
ste.ardshi6. The trou"le with the sup posedly "enign idea of the Jwise stewardshipJ of nature is that it
implies human decision1making, human intervention, human use and controlAas in the r""t sense "f
the ."rdI st'-.ardenI the master "f the 6igst'. &s Sessi"ns has saidI T.t still views the world as a $"lle$ti"n
"f nat!ral res"!r$es primarily for human use.J
+.= )nrinsic ;al(e DoesnE Gork
Their evidence assumes a different intrinsic value theory1 our alternative dissolves the
"arriers "etween the self and the other, allowing us to develop an intrinsic appreciation of
nature
Bissolving the "arriers "etween the self and the other and therefore the valuer and the valued, allows
deep ecologists to side1step the persistent pro"lem of finding value independent of a valuing su"'ect, a
pro"lem which has haunted intrinsic value theory. 3' a 6r"$ess "f identifi$ati"n we no longer perceive
the . and the not1. as separate things. +he im6li$ati"n "f thisI as &ndre. 3rennanB1%88? 43C 6"ints "!tI is
that \6r"vided # am val!a/leI then s" is m' e-tended selfI the nat!ral ."rldU. 2e need n" l"nger ."rr' a/"!t
finding "/Oe$tive val!e \"!t thereUI as there is n" "!t there. The defence of nature "ecomes a form of self1
defence5 it rests not on moral law or ethical o"ligation,"utis insteadintuitive, natural and automatic.
/ur actions "ecome part of the process of (elf1realization, where (elf is capitalised to indicate that the
development of the potentialities of all "eings is e$perienced as part of our own individual self1
development.
+.= Ecological "ealis%
#olitical processes cant solve for cultural differences that separate our ecosystems
E$"l"gi$al CrisisI 6. 14-11C
2illiam >. GuckelshausI .riting in the same iss!e "f S$ientifi$ &meri$anI urges that Ja clear set of values
consistent with the consciousness of sustaina"ilityJ "e articulated "y nation al leaders.* #rovide the
data, state the issues clearly, utilize government incentives, and people will have a rational "asis for
changing their life styles. &gainI .e find the ass!m6ti"n that h!mans are rati"nal /eings .hen the' have the
right dataI /!t n" a$kn".ledgement that 6e"6le are essentiall' $!lt!ral /eingsI that the world is made of
multiple cultures, and that culture makes the outcome of the political process far more pro"lematic
than is recognized "y people who hold a rationalistic point of view. (ince current approaches to
framing the ecological cri sis are conditioning us to accept the rationalist approach to pro"lem solving,
they help to insure that the human dimen sions of the crisis are never really understood at the deepest
levels. The argument here is not against "eing rational5 rather the main issue is an overly narrow view
of the well spring of human thought and "ehavior. +he "ther 6r"/lem .ith the rati"nalist a66r"a$h is that
it ignores how different cultural groups organize their way of understanding on fun damentally
different assumptions and root metaphors5 thus the human aspect of the ecological crisis is not simply
a matter of people, societies, and nation states6those mis leading metaphors of !estern colonialism6
"ut of cultural differences that cannot "e easily reconciled or changed "y using a political process
"ased on the !estern forms of rationalism so evident in environmental reports. +he $r"ss-$!lt!ral
dimensi"ns "f the e$"l"gi$al $risisI .hile e-$eedingl' im6"rtant and $"m6li$atedI are n"t h".ever the main
f"$!s "f this ."rk.
Ii%%er%an/>nology
%iocentrism doesn&t e$clude humanity from its environment "ut affirms us "eing wholly
contained within it.
Nimmerman *7 B8i$hael E. Jimmerman is )r"fess"r and Chair "f )hil"s"6h' at +!lane =niversit'.
:5!manit'Gs Relati"n t" 4aia? )art "f the 2h"leI "r 8em/er "f the C"mm!nit'N; +he +r!m6eter *(.1 6. 4-17.
htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./71/18 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 8I *((8C
Dodernity has also spawned anti1anthropocentric trendsI h".ever. ,"r e-am6leI ne"->ar.inism de6i$ts
h!mans as ev"lving /' nat!ral 6r"$essesI and e$"s'stem the"r' inter6rets h!mans Band "ther "rganismsC
6rimaril' in terms "f s'stemi$ and therm"d'nami$ 6r"$esses. &$$"rding t" these 6ers6e$tivesI far from
standing apart from the natural domain, humans are wholly contained within it. Environmentalists
have often turned to such scientific developments as a way of countering the anthropocentric trends in
modernity. &rne Naess has /een a seri"!s st!dent "f m"dernit'I in /"th its anthr"6"$entri$ and anti-
anthr"6"$entri$ g!ises. C"n$erned a/"!t anthr"6"geni$ envir"nmental 6r"/lemsI he has !rged 6e"6le t"
/egin asking dee6er K!esti"ns a/"!t the h!mankind-nat!re relati"nshi6. Bo humans stand a"ove and apart
from nature, as its lord and master0 Are people 2and other species3 parts of nature, strands in the we"
of life0 /r are people mem"ers of the "iospheric communityN +h"se deep ecologists .h" $"n$eive "f
h!mans as "ne strand am"ng man' in the /i"s6heri$ .e/I seek to displace the hierarchical notion that
humans stand atop a ladder of evolutionary development, "ecause such a hierarchical scheme has "een
used to 'ustify modernity&s e$ploitative treatment of non1human nature. Dany deep ecologists propose
a kind of naturalism, which denies any human e$ceptionalism and .hi$h asks that h!mans h!m/l'
re$"gni7e and a66re$iate their stat!s as "ne interesting s6e$ies am"ng milli"ns "f "thers.
The "iosphere is part of us as "eings therefore a planet1centered perspective must com"ine
"oth ecocentric health and world1centric criticism of "eing.
+aking the f"reg"ing int" a$$"!ntI .e $"n$l!de that val!e- $"nsiderati"ns hel6 t" ans.er the K!esti"nI :#s the /i"s6here "r the
n""s6here 6rimar'N; 2il/er maintains that there are three val!e d"mains? gr"!ndI e-trinsi$I and intrinsi$ val!e. #n terms "f gr"!nd
val!eI neither the /i"s6here n"r the n""s6here is 6rimar'. #nsteadI ea$h is "f eK!al val!e as a manifestati"n "f S6irit. S6irit refers /"th t"
the !ltimate s"!r$e "f all 6hen"mena and t" that .hi$h a$ts as the !ltimate l!re Battra$t"rC t" $"smi$ devel"6mentI .hi$h seems t"
inv"lve the emergen$e "f ever m"re in$l!sive .h"les. #n terms "f e-trinsi$ val!eI h".everI the /i"s6here is 6rimar' /e$a!se it is m"re
f!ndamental? if "ne .ere t" destr"' the /i"s6hereI "ne ."!ld als" destr"' the n""s6here B$"ns$i"!s d"main in$l!ding at least
mammalsC. @n the "ther handI all humans can "e destroyed at no cost to the "iosphere. +h!sI the /i"s6here
is 6rimar'I and this means that the "iosphere is part of us. Gemove it and we don&t e$ist. +he n""s6here is
n"t internal t" Ba 6art "fC the /i"s6hereI h".everI /e$a!se if it .ereI the /i"s6here ."!ldnGt ."rk .ith"!t !s.
%ut the opposite is trueC 9umans 2and other mammals3 don&t work without the "iosphere. 9ence, the
"iosphere is ,part of- us. 8an' envir"nmentalists int!it all thisI /!t the' "ften $"nf!se .hat is m"st
f!ndamental and th!s has greater s6an B4aia//i"s6hereC f"r .hat is m"st signifi$ant "r has greater de6th
Bn""s6hereCI that isI .hat has the m"st intrinsi$ val!e. &$$"rding t" 2il/erGs h"lar$h'I /e$a!se n""s6heri$
/eingsI in$l!ding h!mansI have s!$h en"rm"!s de6thI the' have greater intrinsi$ val!e than n"n- n""s6heri$
life f"rms. 2il/erGs vie.s here largel' "verla6 .ith th"se "f 5"lmes R"lst"n ###I "ne "f the ."rldGs leading
envir"nmental 6hil"s"6hers. =reater levels of interiority do not 'ustify heedless e$ploitation of levels
with less developed interiority. &$$"rding t" R".eI 2il/er :de6re$iates the 6h'si$al and nat!ral; and
:$ann"t $"n$eive an' "ther s"!r$e "f val!es; a6art fr"m h!mankind.3* #n fa$tI as .e sa. earlierI 2il/er
asserts that everything has some "asic ground value, quite apart from any interest humans may have in
it. 8"re"verI 2il/er affirms that all phenomena6living and non1living6 have a worldspace of their
own, however constricted it may "e. #eople should honour the perspectives afforded "y such
worldspaces. Mltimately this would require a measure of respect for all phenomena, from rocks to
humansI fr"m gala$ti$ $l!sters t" e$"s'stems. Dovement t".ard this dramati$all' n"n-anthr"6"$entri$
vie.I h".everI first requires devel"6ment "f ."rld-$entrismI that isI mutual understanding among
"einghumans. A genuinely planet1centred perspective, .hi$h ma' emerge in the distant f!t!reI ."!ld
eventually com"ine ecocentrism with world1centrism.
Ii%%er%an/>nology
9umans should "e descri"ed as component parts of the "iosphere, not superior organisms.
9umans ought to maintain the integrity of the "iosphere as organs of the earth.
2il/er ."!ld $ertainl' agree that humans, considered as organisms, are one species among many in the
"iosphere, are marvellous, and are not the "e1all and end1all of creation. 2il/er maintainsI h".everI that
h!mans are n"t "nl' "rganismsI /!t are als" n""s6heri$ "r $"ns$i"!s /eings. S!$h $"ns$i"!snessI h".everI .hether
h!man "r animalI has n" sim6le l"$ati"n in the sens"r'-m"t"r ."rld. 5en$eI neither $"ns$i"!sness n"r $!lt!re $an /e :$"ntained; .ithin
a three- dimensi"nal v"l!metri$ frame."rk. +r!e en"!ghI the /rain that $"rrelates .ith $"ns$i"!sness d"es have s!$h a l"$ati"nI and in
s"me res6e$ts the s"$ieties that $"rrelate .ith $!lt!res Bn"rmsI val!esI 6hil"s"6hiesI and s" "nC d" have l"$ati"ns. 3e$a!se h!man
interi"rs B/"th individ!al and $!lt!ralC are n"t s6atiall' l"$ata/leI h".everI and /e$a!se the n""s6here
B$"ns$i"!snessC /"th in$l!des and trans$ends the /i"s6hereI humans cannot "e adequately descri"ed as
,part of- the "iosphere. 9uman 2and other organic forms of3 awareness is founded on the "iosphere
and physiosphere, "ut cannot "e reduced to them. R".e /elieves that greater e-ternal $"m6le-it'
$"m/ined .ith greater si7e and greater s'stemi$ in$l!siveness O!stif' the asserti"n that Earth, the
ecosphere, includes humans as component parts. 5e $alls "n ,ei/lemanGs f"!rth :la. "f the levelsI;
a$$"rding t" .hi$h the me$hanism "f an' "rgani7ati"n lies at the level /el".I and its 6!r6"se at the level
a/"ve. &66arentl'I phenomena have no value in themselves, "ut only insofar as they serve the purpose
of what is higher, that isI .hat :$"ntains; them. S"me elements "f this $laim h"ld .ith regard t" the $ells
and "rgans "f an "rganismI /!t R".e and "thers g" astra' /' maintaining that organisms are nothing "ut
parts of ecosystems, rather than mem"ers thereof. .f the purpose and value of individual humans are
to serve the good of Earth&s all1containing ecosystems, humans6 like other organisms6are organs of
=aia. >T?he function of any given sectoral ecosystem of Earth can "e learned "y inspecting the
interactions of its 6artsI .hi$h are "rganisms Bin$l!ding 6e"6leCI landf"rmsI s"ilI airI .ater. &s$ending the
h"lar$h'I the 6!r6"se "f ea$h h"l"n is revealed in the $"nte-t "f that .hi$h en$l"ses it. +h!s the r"le "f the
heart is t" maintain the animal "rganism in health. +he ni$he "f the animal is t" 6la' its 6art in maintaining
the e$"s'stemGs integrit'. 9ere is a clue to the role, ni$heI "r 6!r6"se of the intelligent human animal in
the conte$t of Earth&s ecosystems and of Earth itself. 9umans, like all h"l"ns, ought to act in ways that
maintain the health and integrity of the higher-level h"l"nsAthe regional geographic ecosystems and
the ecosphere6in which they are encapsulated.3
Ii%%er%an/>nology
The aff compulsion to correct the Earth enslaves us to ego and "locks the authentic self1
realization of ourselves an the world that will "ridge the divide "etween humankind and
nature
,"ll".ing S6in"7aI f"r e-am6leI the dee6 e$"l"gist &rne Naess B1%84C arg!es that a humankind enslaved
"y the crav ing for control is not active at all "ut is instead passive, as if under a compul sion. 4en!inel'
to "e active would involve "eing freed from craving and "eing freed for the spontaneous affirma tion of
oneIs own "eing and the "eing of all other things. .nstead of "eing enslaved to the egoIs craving for
control, people should "e encouraged to cultivate Self-reali7ati"n. Sin$e dee6 e$"l"gists maintain that all
things are interrelatedI the TselfU in TSelf-reali7ati"nT m!st n"t /e $"nf!sed .ith the $"nstri$ted eg"-self. Self-
reali7ati"n is n"t a 6ers"nal "r 6rivate aim /!t a $"sm"l"gi$al "ne. ,"r NaessI (elf1realization must "e
understood in terms "f &tmanI the great SelfI .hi$h in$l!des all individ!al instan$es "f selfI atman.
2ar.i$k ,"- B1%%(C maintains that (elf1realization involves an increasingly wider identifi cation on the
part of humanity. &lth"!gh at first 6e"6le identif' themselves .ith selfI famil'I friendsI and tri/eI and ma'
later e-tend a meas!re "f identifi$ati"n t" in$l!de the nati"n and even h!manit' in generalI truly awak ened
people would e$tend identification to include nonhuman "eings as well. .n fact, (elf1realization
involves recogni tion that there is no core ego1self that is radically distinct from other entities. Self-
reali7ati"n is inv"lved .ith the dis$l"s!re "f the internal relatedness "f all thingsI that isI that 6arti$!lar
entities are /!t tem6"rar' kn"ts in an inter$"nne$ted $"smi$ .e/. JDyJ (elf1realization, then, cannot take
place apart from the (elf1realization of all "eings.U ,"- has re$"mmended $hanging the name Tdee6
e$"l"g'T t" Ttrans6ers"nal e$"l"g'T in "rder t" em6hasi7e .hat he takes t" /e deep ecologyIs core insightC
that since there is no Jcosmic divideJ that sepa rates humankind from the rest of nature, self1
realization is the goal of the inter nally related whole of life.
Ii%%er%an/>nology
/ur deep ecological stance encourages compassion, humility, and self1realization that opens
up self1disclosure of Earth and solve the mindless consumption that the aff identifies.
Like the dee6 e$"l"gist 4e"rge Sessi"nsI h".everI ,"- als" em6hasi7es the im6"rtan$e "f e$"$entrism. (elf1
realized humankind recognizes that it constitutes only one leaf on the tree of life, not the top rung of
the ladder of life. 2ith the n"ti"n "f .hat dee6 e$"l"gists have $alled Teg"$entri$ egalitarianism in 6rin-
$i6leIT dee6 e$"l"gists seek t" em6hasi7e that all living "eings should "e per mitted, whenever possi"le, to
pursuetheir own evolutionary destinies. .n con trast to anthropocentrism, in which things have value
only insofar as they are useful for promoting human ends B6rimaril' se$!rit'I $"mf"rtI and 6".erCI
e$"$entrism $alls "n 6e"6le t" res6e$t individ!al /eings and the e$"s'stem in .hi$h the' arise. The Earth is
not a machine and may, in fact, more closely resem"le an organism, =aia, within whose living
processes our em"odied awareness and language emerges.) .n view of the destruction wrought "y this
domineering, activist attitude toward nature, deep ecologists maintain that humankind must learn to
Jlet things "e.J +he 6ra$ti$e "f dee6 e$"l"g' inv"lves f"stering a n"nd!alisti$I n"n-d"mineeringI
a66re$iativeI and res6e$tf!l attit!de t".ard the $"m6le- and internall' related .h"le "f the e$"s6here. !hile
modernityIs activist stance plunges humankind into the fren zy of the constantly e$panding cycle of
production and consumption and dis closes nonhuman "eings solely in instrumental terms, the deep
ecological stance encourages compassion and "enevolence toward all "eings, con ceives of humankind
as an integral mem"er of the ecological community, calls on people to forego mindless con sumerism
and instead to satisfy only their vital material needs. 3' em6hasi7ing the need f"r s!$h transf"rmati"nI
dee6 e$"l"gists .arn against merely treating the symptoms of our ecological pro"lems instead of get ting
to their source. Addressing the symptoms amounts to an effort to reform the practice of
anthropocentric humanism so as to avoid outright species suicide while maintaining a high material
living standard for humankind B"r at least f"r .ealth' 6e"6le in ,irst 2"rld $"!ntriesQC. 2hile
a$kn".ledging the need f"r ref"rmism in the sh"rt r!nI dee6 e$"l"gists maintain that in the l"ng r!nI maO"r
e$"l"gi$al 6r"/lems .ill /e res"lved "nl' if h!mankind a/and"ns the anthr"6"$entri$ h!manism that s6a.ns
th"se 6r"/lems. An ecocentric humankind would spontaneously, though gradually, adopt practices that
are consistent with long term enhancement of all life on the planet. #eople necessarily would con tinue to
intervene in and to take the lives of nonhuman "eings, "ut they would do so with discrimination and
not for triv ial reasons. E$"$entrism re$"gni7es the fa$t that living things maintain themselves at the e-6ense
"f "ther living things. Learning t" Tlet things /eIT thenI ."!ld in$l!de letting h!manit' /e. Authentic (elf1
realizationI h".everI as .e have seenI ."!ld /e $"nsistent .ith 6ra$ti$es that would encourage the self1
realization of all life on Earth.
:::AFF A4(!EG(:::
+.= Link- Deep Eco +ppro#es +l Energy
Beep ecologists support movements towards alternative energy
4aess PE B&rneI )r"fess"r emerit!s 6hil"s"6h'I =niversit' "f @sl" >ee6 E$"l"g' f"r the *1st Cent!r'. Ed. 4e"rge
Sessi"nsI 6.441C
.t is appropriate to talk of the JdeepJ and the JshallowJ ecology movements as "eing characterized "y
marked differences in argumentation patterns. +he dee6 arg!mentati"n 6attern .as generall' reOe$ted /'
ind!str' and m"st "f the 6!/li$ as leading t" a /lind alle'I and as /eing 6erni$i"!s /e$a!se "f its alarmist and
even s!/versive $hara$ter. # refer t" this as an Targ!mentati"n 6atternT /e$a!se the differen$es /et.een the
Tdee6T and the Tshall".T m"vements are n"t al.a's dis$erni/le if .e f"$!s "nl' "n individ!al arg!ments.
,"r e-am6leI the supporters of the Beep Ecology movement support many of the arguments made "y
shallow ecology proponents for certain changes, such as the move toward technologically JgreenJ
products. 3e$a!se "f the m!lti6li$it' "f 6"liti$al 6artiesI and the relative ease .ith .hi$h 6"liti$al 6arties
$an /e initiated in 2estern E!r"6eI the 6"liti$i7ati"n "f the e$"l"g' m"vement has /een easier t" tra$e there
than in the =nited States. #t ."!ld /e .r"ng t" s!66"se h".everI that supporters of the Beep Ecology
movement in the =nited States have /een 6"liti$all' 6assive. +heir 6"liti$s have generall' taken the form
of infiltrating and influencing the t." maO"r 6"liti$al 6arties? the Bemocrats and the Gepu"licans. There
have also "een occasional political victories, such as passing laws requiring ma'or industries to choose
less ecologically sensitive areas in which to locate their new factories.
+.= Link - 9Dno1ing: No Deache!
The distinction we make "etween us and other species is one of speech, this distinction does
not appear under the evaluation of metaphysics
#arker PQ BFell'I )r"fess"r "f )hil"s"6h'I 4rand <alle' State =niversit'I Envir"nmental )ragmatism Ed. Light
and Fat7I 6.*3-*4C
Dind is not apart from the world5 it is a part of the world. JLnowing the worldJ is not a detached
activity. .t is, ratherI a mutual transaction "etween the organism and its surroundings. #n this transa$ti"n
an uncertain, dou"tful, indeterminate situation is reconstructed so as to make more sense, to "e more
intelligi"le.1 +he 6r"$ess "f re$"nstr!$ti"n transf"rms /"th the kn".ing s!/Oe$t and the kn".n "/Oe$t. +. S.
Eli"t des$ri/ed his 6"etr' as Ta raid "n the inarti$!late.T7 +he 6hrase a6tl' $hara$teri7es an' m"de "f
kn".ingI and it is $r!$ial t" n"te thatI in a raidI /"th sides are lia/le t" /e affe$ted in !nf"reseen .a's. #n
$reating a 6"eti$ visi"nI devel"6ing a s$ientifi$ the"r'I "r arti$!lating a $"n$e6ti"n "f ethi$sI .e literall'
transf"rm /"th "!rselves and the ."rld as it 6revi"!sl' st""d. (u"'ects and o"'ects are not a"solute
entities5 knower and known are ine$trica"ly twined together from the "eginning. (u"'ects and o"'ects
are ne$us of relations in an ever1shifting universe of comple$ relationships. The venera/le distinction
"etween su"'ect and o"'ect is thus a con venience of speech that does not "ear up under metaphysical
scrutiny. #t names an im6"rtant /!t "/Oe$tivel' vag!e distin$ti"n /et.een t." 6"les in a 6rim"rdiall'
$"ntin!"!s field "f e-6erien$e.8 &n' re$"n$iliati"n /et.een self and ."rld in the a$t "f kn".ing is tentative
and falli/le. +" sa' that kn".ledge is tr!e means "nl' that the re$"n$iliati"n is satisfa$t"r'. To say that it is
a"solutely true means that it will never stand in need of read'ustment 8 something we can perhaps
accomplish, "ut can never 'udge with certainty to "e the case. E$perience may shock us into dou"t
tomorrow.
+.= Link ' "e$or%s 4oo!
.t&s impossi"le for Beep Eco to work with human evolutionary potential without
recognizing the human aspects present in social ecology
>ee6 e$"l"gists s!$h as &rne Naess affirm the !niK!eness "f h!mankind and its 6"tential f"r $"ntri/!ting t"
the Self-reali7ati"n "f all /eings. Naess B1%84C dis$!sses humanityIs potentialities for evolving into a
species whose unique capacity involves appreciating the won der of creation? #t ma' s"!nd 6arad"-i$alI
/!t with a more lofty image of maturity in humans, the appeal to serve deep, specifically human
interests is in full harmony with the norms of deep ecology. 3!t this is evident "nl' if .e are $aref!l t"
make "!r termin"l"g' $lear. +his termin"l"g' is t"da' far fr"m $"mm"nI /!t it ma' have an ill!minating
im6a$t. #t 6r"$laims that essentiall' there is at 6resent a s"rr' !nderestimati"n "f the 6"tentialities "f the
h!man s6e$ies. /ur species is not destined to "e the scourge L"r $an$erA8.E.J.M of the earth. #f it is
/"!nd t" /e an'thingI per haps it is to "e the conscious 'oyful appre ciator of this planet as an even
greater whole of its immense richness. This may "e its Jevolutionary potentialT "r an ineradi$a/le 6art "f
it. B6. 8C #ns"far as Naess s6eaks "f the Tev"l!ti"nar' 6"tentialT "f h!manit' t" /e$"me a66re$iat"rs "f the
6lanetI he has s"mething in $"mm"n .ith the ev"l!ti"nar' vie.s "f 8!rra' 3""k$hin. 3""k$hin B1%%(C
arg!es even m"re em6hati$all' Bthan NaessC that humani tyIs evolutionary potential includes the capacity
for intervening in natural processes, even to the point of shaping aspects of evolution on Earth. learly,
there is room for negotiation and com promise in the hitherto somewhat unsa vory de"ate "etween deep
ecologists and social ecologists in that "oth hold to some version of a JprogressiveJ and JevolutionaryJ
view of humankind. Beep ecologists cannot reasona"ly hope for a move toward nondualisticI n"nan-
thr"6"$entri$ attit!des without simulta neously affirming the n"ti"n that humankind has the capacity for
evolu tion to a more mature stage of con sciousness. S"$ial e$"l"gists are K!ite right in 6"inting "!t the
dangers inv"lved in reOe$ting "!t "f hand the .h"le "f m"dernit'I es6e$iall' its eman$i6at"r' 6"liti$al
dimensi"ns.
+.= Link ' No 3righline $or 9;ial Nee!s:
Beep ecology is inconsistent. Although all species have intrinsic value, we are still allowed
to eat them. Beep ecology also advocates that the A.B( virus has the same right to e$ist as
us.
!il"er PE BFen USe-I E$"l"g'I S6irit!alit'. +he S6irit "f Ev"l!ti"nUI Sham/halaI 3"st"nI 1%%0C
&lth"!gh 3""k$hin ma' /e t"" dismissiveI there are inconsistencies in deep ecology. )rin$i6le ^3 "f U>ee6
E$"l"g' )latf"rmU "f dee6 e$"l"g' is that? T5!mans have n" right t" red!$e this ri$hness and diversit' e-$e6t
t" satisf' vital needs.T 3!t what count as Ivital needsI0 Beep ecologists generally count Ivital needsI as
those necessary for survival or that serve the goal of self1realization. #n 6ra$ti$e this can mean eating
meatI which Bevall and (essions 'ustify "ecause Imutual predation is a "iological fact of lifeI Bsee )a!l
She6herdI U+he +ender Carniv"re and the Sa$red 4ameUC. 8an' dee6 e$"l"gists adv"$ate h!nting as a means
"f sta'ing in t"!$h .ith the nat!ral ."rldI .hile Naess asserts that h!man e-isten$e Tne$essitates s"me
killingI e-6l"itati"n and "66ressi"nT BUShall". and >ee6 E$"l"g'UI 6.%0C. )rin$i6le ^3 is /ased "n the notion
of I"iocentric equalityI .hi$h is central to deep ecologyC All "eings have equal intrinsic value. 9uman
"eings have no greater value than any other creature, for we are 'ust ordinary citizens in the "iotic
community, with no more rights than amoe"ae or "acteria. 9umans, however, do have duties towards
other "eings, which requires us to engage with the natural world in practical ways. %ut how much
should we interfereN Naess leave this K!esti"n t" /e de$ided /' Ul"$alI regi"nal and nati"nal $ir$!mstan$es
and $!lt!ral differen$es.T +he +r!m6eterI 0I B1%88CI 13%. )eter 8arshall n"t !nreas"na/l' /elieves that T.f
that is the case, the very notion of I"iocentric equalityI has little content e$cept as a sloganIT. UNat!res
2e/UI 6 4*1. .f all organisms are equal, then the A.B( virus has as much right to e$ist as any human
"eing. The principle of Ivital needI would allow humans to destroy the virus, /!t it seems
$"!nterint!itive t" s!ggest that a sim6le "rganism like a vir!s has a m!$h right t" e-ist as a $"m6le- $reat!re
like a .hale "r an e$"s'stem like the &ma7"n Rainf"rest.
+nhropocenris% 4oo! ' 7oraliy
!e must separate ourselves from nature to make truly moral decisions.
Hamauchi B+"m"sa/!r". :&nimal Li/erati"nI Land Ethi$s and >ee6 E$"l"g'; )!/lished in 9"!rnal "f F'"t"
Seika =niv. N". *% 66. 44-1(. )>, a$$essed 9!l' 8I *((8C
The image of humans as part of nature tends to appear mainly in the literature on ecology as science,
metaphysics, religion, education or literary intuitions, not especially in practical ethics. .f we are only a
part of nature, then, there would not have arisen the moral question of Khow are we to restore natureNG
"r Ph". are .e t" live in the age "f a deteri"rated envir"nmentNG .f we are solely earth"ound natural
"eings in the centre of various relations, we could not much change the world. From such a view of
humans and nature, action or movement towards restoration of envi1 ronment would hardly emerge. #t
is "!r ver' a/ilit' t" /e a/le t" $hange the envir"nment f"r /etter "r f"r ."rseI .hi$h give rise t" m"ral
K!esti"ns. 2e are asking m"ral K!esti"ns and making de$isi"ns /e$a!se .e are inv"lved in a relati"nshi6
andI m"re"verI $an $hange the relati"nshi6. 5ereI in this sense, the questioning and decision1making self is
a "eing something apart from nature. +his as6e$t "f !s h!mansI as the s!/Oe$t .h" val!esI O!dgesI
$h""sesI and a$ts a$$"rdingl'I $"!ld /e $alled the m"ral agent. 5!mans th!s have t." as6e$tsI the m"ral
agent .h" $an $h""se freel'I and the m"ral 6atient interrelated .ith nat!re as a 6art "f nat!re.
+nhropocenris% 4oo! - En#iron%en
(olving environmental issues must "e done through an anthropocentric view1 only humans
have the a"ility to catalyze solutions
and Fat7I 6.3*-33C
The de"ate over anthropocentrism is especially tendentious. +he K!esti"n $"n$erns the 6rimar' l"$!s "f
val!e. &nthr"6"$entrism maintains that val!e is "f "r f"r h!man /eings. 3i"$entrism maintains that all f"rms
"f lifeI as s!$hI are val!a/le. E$"$entrism em6hasi7es the val!e "f e$"l"gi$al s'stems as a .h"leI in$l!ding
nat!ral 6r"$essesI relati"nshi6s and n"n-living 6arts "f the envir"nment. &n as6e$t "f this de/ate $"n$erns
.hether val!e atta$hes t" individ!al entities "r .hether val!e m!st /e seen h"listi$all'. +he pragmatist
would ask why we should "e e$pected to pledge allegiance to any of these flags a priori, and e$clude
the others. =enuine value emerges at all of these focal levels. #ndeed there .ill /e $"nfli$ts /e$a!se "f
thisI /!t the "$$!rren$e "f s!$h m"ral $"nfli$t is n"t 6e$!liar t" this a66r"a$h. &ntig"ne f"!nd that Tfamil'
val!es $an tragi$all' $"nfli$t .ith the val!es "f the stateR t"da'Us CE@ like.ise finds that /!siness val!es
$"nfli$t .ith the val!e "f an endangered ".lUs ha/itat. >en'ing that "ne "r the "ther s6here is ."rth' "f
$"nsiderati"n ma' a66ear t" 6revent 6"tential m"ral $"nfli$t fr"m arisingI /!t "nl' at the risk "f seri"!s
m"ral /lindness. 3lind anthr"6"$entrism has de6l"ra/le $"nseK!en$es f"r the n"n-h!man ."rldI /!t a
/lindl' misanthr"6i$ e$"$entrism is n" less de6l"ra/le. &gainI 6l!ralism is a fa$t en$"!ntered in e-6erien$e.
<al!e arises in a variet' "f relati"nshi6s am"ng differing 6arts "f the e-6erien$ed ."rld. Ea$h sit!ati"n m!st
/e a66raised "n its ".n distin$t terms. &s /ef"reI the t.in val!es "f s!staina/ilit' and diversit' 6r"vide
referen$e 6"ints. S"metimes .e rightl' f"$!s "n the s!staina/ilit' "f the .h"le s'stemR s"metimes "n Uthe
!niK!e val!e "f an individ!al. S"metimes the individual or the system is human and sometimes it is not.
,r"m this 6ers6e$tiveI environmental ethics can "e seen as continuous with other areas of ethics, a
distinct "ut integral part of value inquiry in general. # have s6"ken "f the e-6erien$e "f "rganisms-in-
envir"nments as $entrall' im6"rtant. )ragmatism is Tanthr"6"$entri$T B"r /etterI Tanthr"6"metri$TC*4 in "ne
res6e$t? the human organism is inevita"ly the one that discusses value. This is so "ecause human
e$perience, the human perspective on value, is the only thing we know as humans. 8an' "ther entities
indeed have e-6erien$e and d" val!e things. &gainI this is n"t t" sa' that h!man .him is the meas!re "f all
thingsI "nl' that h!mans are in fa$t the meas!rers. This must "e a factor in all our deli"erations a"out
environmental issues. !e can and should speak on the othersI "ehalf when appropriateI /!t .e $ann"t
s6eak fr"m their e-6erien$e. !e can in some sense hear their voicesI /!t .e $ann"t s6eak in their v"i$es. #
see n" .a' "!t "f "!r ".n distin$tivel' h!man /"dies. #n this senseI the h!man 'ardsti$k "f e-6erien$e
/e$"mesI /' defa!ltI the meas!re "f all things. Although the de"ate over environmental issues is thus
limited to human participants, this is not inappropriate 6 after all, the de"ate centers almost
e$clusively on human threats to the world. !olves, spotted owls, and old1growth forests are una"le to
enter the ethics de"ate e$cept through their human spokespersons, and that is perhaps regretta"le. Far
"etter that they should speak for themselves\ La$king thisI the' d" at least have s6"kes6ers"ns A and
these s6"kes6ers"nsI their adv"$atesI need t" $"mm!ni$ate their $"n$erns "nl' t" "ther h!mans. To do this
in anthropic value categories is not shameful. .t is, after all, the only way to go.
Anthro'o!entrism )oo* Environment
(ustaina"ility and survival are the only things that will spur action to solve our
environmental crisis
4orton PQ BNr'anI )r"fess"r "f )hil"s"6h' 4e"rgia +e$hI Envir"nmental )ragmatism. Ed. Light and Fat7I 6.1**-
1*3C
.n our search for an environmental ethic we will neverI # s!/mitI find any environmental values or goals
more defensi"le than the sustain1a"ility principle, which asserts that each generation has an o"ligation
to protect productive ecological and physical processes necessary to support options necessary for
future human freedom and welfare. +he n"rmative f"r$e s!66"rting the 6r"te$ti"n "f the envir"nment f"r
f!t!re generati"ns sh"!ld /e /ased "n a $"mmitment t" /!ilding O!stI .ell-ada6ted and s!staina/le h!man
$"mm!nities. Accepting responsi"ility for our e$panding num"ers and for the power of our
technologies follows simply from the recognition that we now affect the productivity of the human
ha"itat and the very survival of the human community. +his res6"nsi/ilit' /e$"mes less and less
es$a6a/le as .e learn the man' $"nseK!en$esI e-6e$ted and !ne-6e$tedI "f "!r in$reasingl' vi"lent and
6ervasive alterati"n "f nat!ral s'stems.38 This principle is consistent with a Barwinian emphasis on
survival and complements a pragmatic conception of truth. The acceptance of "oth the facts of human
impacts and the associated moral responsi"ility to protect the integrity of ecological communities as
repositories of many human options and values in the future is destinedI in the terms "f )eir$eI to "e
adopted as the conclusion of all rational inquirersI as the' str!ggle thr"!gh man' e-6eriments t" make
$"herent sense "f h!man e-6erien$e. # /elieve that /"th the des$ri6tive 6r"/lem "f !nderstanding the im6a$ts
"f "!r a$ti"ns "n f!t!re generati"ns and "!r res!lting res6"nsi/ilities as m"ral /eings m!st /e addressed
.ithin 6r"$esses "f inK!ir' $"nstit!tive "f the )eir$eian $"mm!nit' "f inK!irers/a$t"rs. ,"r e-am6leI
considering species threatened with e$tinction to represent J"ooksJ of information 8 information that
may "e essential to future generations in their struggle to understand and act within a changing
environment 8 seems to entail that the o"ligation to contri"ute to the process of inquiry requires
protection of the sources of information and knowledge for future inquirers.
Anthropocentric claims "eat out nonanthropocentric ethics6;aundry list
Dc(9A4E 7 BFatieI >e6t. "f )hil"s"6h' and Religi"n N"rth Car"lina State =niversit'I Envir"nmental <al!es
11 B*((7C? 11%-180 ( *((7 +he 2hite 5"rse )ressC
,!rtherm"reI anthr"6"$entrists $laimI anthropocentric approaches have a num"er of advantages
overnonanthropocentric approaches. ,irstI there are worries a"out whether nonanthropocentric ethics
can "e made philosophically via"le. +h"!gh # ."nUt rehearse these de/ates hereI the most well known
versions of nonanthropocentrism have "een charged with metaphysical, epistemological, and@or
normative inadequacy. 11 Anthropocentric ethics seems to have a "etter track record in this regard.
Se$"ndI most traditional ethical theories are roughly anthropocentric in nature, so adopting
anthropocentrism makes availa"le a wide variety of theoretical resources that have "een developed to
e$plain, defend, and apply these theories. This is not true for nonanthropocentrism. +hirdI as 3r'an
N"rt"n has 6"inted "!tI most policy1makers and social scientists are anthropocentrists, and
anthropocentric assumptions underlie most of the work that they do. %y granting their assumption of
anthropocentrism, environmental ethicists open the door for more productive colla"orative
relationships with people who have a significant impact on shaping environmental policies 1* &nd
finall'I anthropocentrism might offer hope as a strategy for re'ecting the people vs. natureI formulation
that so many environmentalists find frustrating. .f whatIs good in nature is ultimately a matter of
whatIs good for people, then B.e might thinkC there canIt really "e any deep conflict here. From the
point of view of the anthropocentrist, then, our theory choice looks like thisC !e have on the one hand
nonanthropocentrism, which recommends environmentally responsi"le "ehaviours, "ut is fairly
radical, unpopular, and theoretically pro"lematic. /n the other hand we have anthropocentrism,
which recommends the same environmentally responsi"le "ehaviours, "ut requires only minor changes
in ethical "eliefs that are already widely accepted, and is theoretically well worked out. #f this is .hat
.eUre de$iding /et.eenI the $h"i$e l""ks "/vi"!s only a fool would choose the nonanthropocentric
route.
.echnical Sol(ions 4oo! '
The aff is key1 Darket incentives and technological GVB are the /4;H way to fi$ the
environment.
;ewis P) B8artinI le$t!rer in internati"nal hist"r'I Stanf"rdI 4reen >el!si"ns? &n Envir"nmentalist CritiK!e "f
Radi$al Envir"nmentalismI K!estiaC
N"r sh"!ld this ."rk /e $"nstr!ed as an"ther manifest" f"r Tte$hn"l"gi$al "6timismIT a naive $reed that
envir"nmentalists .isel' dis6arage. 2e $ann"t /lithel' ass!me that !ng!ided gr".th .ill s"lve "!r
e$"n"mi$ and envir"nmental 6r"/lems. 3!t if we fail it will "e in devoting too few of our resources to
technology, not too many. 8"re f!nds m!st /e $hanneled int" ed!$ati"nI /asi$ s$ien$eI and l"ng-term
resear$h and devel"6ment if .e are t" find an envir"nmentall' s!staina/le m"de "f e-isten$e. !hile it is
essential to guide technology into ecologically "enign pathways, it is equally imperative that we
consistently support the "ases of technological progress itself. & health' s"$iet'I # ."!ld arg!eI is "ne
$hara$teri7ed /' sim!ltane"!s in$reases in general 6r"s6erit'I s"$ial eK!it'I and envir"nmental sta/ilit'. +he
6resent trends are n"t en$"!ragingR "nl' a fe. s"$ieties are gr".ing m"re 6r"s6er"!sI the ga6 /et.een the
ri$h and the 6""r is in$reasing /"th in the =nited States and in the ."rld at largeI and envir"nmental s'stems
thr"!gh"!t the 6lanet are deteri"rating. Eet we can devise ways to "egin to even out social discrepancies
and restore ecological health without sacrificing economic growth. # am $"nvin$ed that s!$h g"als ma'
/e reali7ed through Jguided capitalismJ11a corporate and market system in which the state mandates
pu"lic goods, in which ta$es are set "oth to level social disparities and to penalize environmental
damage, and in which fiscal policies are manipulated to encourage long1term investments in "oth
human and industrial capital Bsee R"se$ran$e 1%%(C. 3!t these s"$ial and envir"nmental g"als .illI in the
endI /e attaina/le only if we nurture and guide rather than strangle the rather truculent capitalist goose
that lays the golden eggs.
Technology .s The /nly !ay To (olve For The Earth&s #ro"lems
Delle PE 2Mlrich, #rofessor of #hilosophy at atholic Mniversity of ;euven, Environmental
#hilosophy V Environmental Activism, ed Darietta and Em"ree, p. <*<3
+his 6rin$i6le "f s!staina/le devel"6ment st""d in the $enter "f the re6"rt Our Common Future,
6!/lished in 1%87. #t .as the re6"rt "f the s"-$alled 3r!ndlandt C"mmissi"nI the ."rld $"mmissi"n "n
envir"nment and devel"6mentI $haired /' the N"r.egian 6"liti$ian ,r" 5arlem 3r!ndlandt. +his re6"rt
res"l!tel' fav"rs an "6timisti$ a66r"a$h t" gl"/al 6r"/lems. !e should not let ourselves "e
paralyzed "y thoughts of doom and apocalyptic an$ieties. 9umanity is undenia"ly facing grave threats
"ut a more prosperous, more 'ust, and more secure future for all of humankind is still possi"le. A
solution to the glo"al pro"lems of environmental degradation, resource depletion, overpopulation, and
underdevelopment and poverty requires a purposeful and concentrated strat1 collective effort of the
international community and an integrated strategy regarding political, economic, social,
demographic, and scientific1 technological aspects. +he re6"rt g"es "n t" f"rm!late a n!m/er
6rin$i6les f"r s!$h a strateg'. 5ighest 6ri"rit' is given t" the need t" stim!late e$"n"mi$ gr".thI
es6e$iall' in the devel"6ing $"!ntries. 2ith"!t e$"n"mi$ gr".thI it reas"nsI there .ill /e n" s"l!ti"n t" the
6r"/lem "f 6"vert'. 2ith"!t the s"l!ti"n "f this 6r"/lemI there $an /e n" s"l!ti"n t" all "ther 6r"/lems. +he
$"nseK!en$es "f f!rther e$"n"mi$ gr".th f"r the envir"nment have t" /e minimali7ed thr"!gh m"re effi$ient
te$hn"l"gies and thr"!gh a /etter management "f envir"nmental res"!r$es. +he $"nseK!en$es "f 6"vert'
f"r the envir"nment are in an' $ase m!$h ."rseI even if .e leave aside the gr"ss imm"ralit' .hi$h
."!ld /e im6lied in saving the envir"nment Bt"gether .ith "!r .ealthC at the 6ri$e "f the miser' "f !6
t" t."-fifths "f h!manit'.
+.= )%pac - En#iron%en
Anthropocentrism only solves in instances with huge human success, no matter what the
success of nature
=niversit'I 3"!ndaries? & Case/""k in Envir"nmental Ethi$sI 6. 0-1C
,"r man' envir"nmental 6hil"s"6hersI the anthr"6"$entri$ 6ers6e$tive is s!ffi$ientl' str"ng t" address an'
envir"nmental 6r"/lemI and n" f!rther the"reti$al ."rk is reK!ired. #n fa$tI one can reasona"ly hold to an
anthropocen tric philosophy and "e environmentally concerned. The trick lies in appreciating the
importance of a clean, healthy, "eautiful environment for human well1"eing. 9"hn )assm"re .as an
earl' envir"nmental 6hil"s"6her .h" t""k this 6"siti"n.4 5e arg!edI f"r e-am6leI that ind!strial 6"ll!ti"n is
sim6l' a $ase in .hi$h s"me 6e"6le .ere harming the health "f their neigh/"rs /' degrading the air the'
/reathe. &lth"!gh .e have n" res6"nsi/ilities f"r the envir"nment in its ".n rightI .e d" have
res6"nsi/ilities t" "ther 6ers"ns .h" $an /e harmed /' the damage .e $a!se t" the envir"nment. 5en$eI the
natural world is not valued directly, for its own sake, "ut indi rectly6for the sake of humans who find
it valua"le for the "enefits it "rings to them. )assm"reUs anthropocentrism works well when it is applied
to environmental pro"lems, such as industrial pollution, that have clear conse quences for persons. .t
falls short of providing guidance, however, when the "enefits to "e derived from a particular action
toward nature are minimal. ,"r e-am6leI the h!man /enefits "f 6reserving the &r$ti$ Nati"nal 2ildlife
Ref!ge fr"m "il e-6l"rati"n seem t" /e fe.? 6rimaril' the h!nting $!lt!re "f l"$al indigen"!s 6e"6lesI the
6ristine /ea!t' "f a rem"te 6la$e enO"'ed /' a small n!m/er "f visit"rs ea$h 'earI and 6erha6s the 6ers"nal
satisfa$ti"n .e derive sim6l' in kn".ing that s!$h a !niK!e 6la$e e-ists.
Turn1 The alt is a huge threat to future support for environmental reform, deepening
geosocial divides
;ewis P) B8artin 2.I 4reen >el!si"ns? &n Envir"nmentalist CritiK!e "f Radi$al Envir"nmentalism )!/lished
1%%*C
The ruralization of the American populace would also appear to threaten nature insofar as it might
undermine electoral support for environmental reform. &meri$an ur"anites consistently support
environmental measures to a far greater e$tent than do rural dwellers. &s 5enning and 8ang!n B 1%8%?
8 C arg!eI r!ral val!es are sim6l' m"re !tilitarian than !r/an val!es. Neither d"es this seem t" /e merel' a
meas!re "f the resid!al $"nservatism "f traditi"nal small-t".n life. Even ur"an refugees show a marked
propensity to ignore environmental pro"lems as soon as they leave the polluted, traffic1snarled city.
Calaveras C"!nt'I Calif"rniaI a ra6idl' gr".ing green ref!ge "n the .est sl"6e "f the $entral Sierra Nevada
8"!ntainsI 6r"vides a g""d e-am6le "f s!$h tenden$ies.
+.= )%pac ' Se1ar!ship sol#es
The L uses the similarly destructive rhetoric which sees nature as purely a resource6
growth is 4/T "ad and can "e "ased off the non1consupmtive practices and environmental
stewardship we develop.
;ewis P) B8artinI le$t!rer in internati"nal hist"r'I Stanf"rdI 4reen >el!si"ns? &n Envir"nmentalist CritiK!e "f
Radi$al Envir"nmentalismI K!estiaC
The ultimate irony of the late t.entieth-$ent!r' m"vement f"r envir"nmental 6r"te$ti"nI h".everI is the
fact that "oth the most strident greens and the most committed anti1environmentalists espouse a
fundamentally similar11and thoroughly outdated11view of economic development. %oth si tdes seem to
"elieve that economic growth rests fundamentally on the e$ploitation of natural resources. +he the"r' is
the sameI "nl' the ethi$al 6"siti"ning is reversed. ,"rt!natel'I the moral dilemma thus presented Bsh"!ld
.e "6t f"r e$"n"mi$ gr".th "r envir"nmental healthNC is falseI sin$e the $"n$e6t!al str!$t!re "n .hi$h it
rests is de$re6it. Technologies, not natural resources, provide the essential motor of economic progress.
.f large segments of the American electorate continue to see forests and ore "odies, rather than
research la"s and product engineering centers, as the main repositories and wellsprings of national
wealth, then we will seriously undercut our own well1"eing, and perhaps destroy the natural world in
the very process. 2hile the $laims "f e$"n"mi$ gr".th and envir"nmental 6r"te$ti"n "ften d" $"nfli$tI
ineffi$ien$' in e$"n"mi$ endeav"rs leads t" its ".n severe f"rms "f .aste and degradati"n. Event!all' .e
m!st reali7eI as e$"n"mi$all' "riented envir"nmentalists are n". telling !sI that .hile the freedom to
discharge wastes without cost into the environment may "e a great "oon to a given firm, it is
remarka"ly destructive to the economy as a whole. Economic efficiencyI at the m"st a/stra$t levelI is
positively rather than negatively linked to most forms of environmental stewardship.
Mr"an development and continuing modernization have empirically worked wonders for
the environment
1%%*C
Mr"anismIs environmental "enefits are most easily visi"le in the realm of transportation. )!/li$
trans6"rtI .hi$h is alm"st al.a's less 6"ll!ting than travel /' 6rivate a!t"m"/ileI is feasi/le "nl' in and
/et.een $ities. The denser a cityIs population "ecomes, the more efficiently its pu"lic transport system
can operate. 8"re"verI in !r/an $"re areasI walking is often the most convenient mode of travel. .n
AmericaIs countryside, in contrast, the automo"ile is generally the sole feasi"le means of transport. &t
6resentI r!ral &meri$ans seem .illing t" drive ever greater distan$es t" seek m"dern $"nvenien$esR small
towns everywhere are decaying as their erstwhile shoppers cruise to the regional centers large enough
to support shopping malls or, at least, discount stores. The intrinsic energy efficiency of cities is evident
in other aspects of life as well. >eta$hed d.ellings reK!ire far m"re energ' t" heat than d" r".h"!sesI let
al"ne a6artments. ogenerationI a 6r"$ess /' .hi$h ind!stries !se .hat ."!ld "ther.ise /e .aste heatI is
most feasi"le in areas of high density. Dore significant is the reduced energy costs of trucking goods
fr"m /!siness t" /!siness and fr"m /!siness t" $"ns!mer in the !r/an envir"nment. Sim6l' "y virtue of its
energy efficiency, the city pollutes far less on a per capita "asis than does the countryside, given the
same living standards. N"-i"!s /'-6r"d!$ts ma' /e m"re K!i$kl' dil!ted in r!ral envir"nsI /!t the t"tal "!t6!t 6er
6ers"n is generall' m!$h greater. EK!all' revealing is a $"m6aris"n "f a$t!al land !se in the t." envir"nments. =r/an
d.ellers t'6i$all' reK!ire a small fra$ti"n "f the s6a$e reK!ired /' $"!ntr' 6e"6le. +his is readil' a66arent /"th in
h"!sing Bm!ltist"r' a6artments vers!s deta$hedI single-famil' d.ellingsC and in infrastr!$t!re Bthe m"re s$attered the
6"6!lati"nI the greater the e-6anse "f r"ad.a'C. .f AmericaIs present ur"an population were to "e dispersed
over the countryside, vast tracts of land would have to "e converted to housing and transporting them,
tremendously reducing wildlife ha"itat. Gadical greens may argue that if only city dwellers would
move to underpopulated "ut overcultivated agricultural zones, wildlife ha"itat would not significantly
diminish. +his ma' /e valid in the"r'I "ut one sees few "ack1to1the1land environmentalists relocating in
northern .owa. 2hen &meri$ans find themselves e-ha!sted /' !r/an living and ins6ired /' the 6aneg'ri$s
"f e$"-radi$alsI the' generall' seek s"la$e in f"restsI m"!ntainsI and sea $"asts rather than in regi"ns n"ted
f"r their h"g farms. As ur"an refugees stream into scenic landscapes, roads and su"divisions follow in
pace.
+.= )%pac - Ehics
.t .s Ethical To Act .n Favor /f Environmental Gesponsi"ility
Flynn P< 2Eileen, professor at (aint #eter&s ollege, Fersey ity, radled in 9uman 9ands,
p. QT3
An ethical case for environmental responsi"ility can "e made on the traditional grounds that humans
should not harm the earth so that an undamaged planet will continue to sustain human life. @r the .a'
h!mans relate t" the 6lanet $an /e e-amined in a m"re radi$al .a' .ith the intenti"n "f $alling int" K!esti"n
the ass!m6ti"n "f h!man s!6eri"rit'I and $"ndemning greed'I e-6l"itative and ign"rant h!mans f"r the
harms the' have visited "n the earth. 2hi$hever a66r"a$h is ad"6tedI there is a crucial urgency to act to
halt environmental degradation and restore damaged ecosystems. )erha6s a promising path to this end
consists in challenging hu mans to live up to their potential "y "eing persons of conscience and "y
cultivating and attending to their aesthetic sense. >ial"g!e and $"m6r"mise sh"!ld /e en$"!raged in
"rder t" attain a neg"tiated envir"nmental ethi$s .hi$h is m"re interested in the integrit' "f the earth than
the starting 6"ints fr"m .hi$h the ethi$al s'stem 6r"$eeds.
ATC Alternative 8 4o (olvency
The Lritik an&t %e Applied To the #olitical !orld
Eco Bharma enter + 2,Gadical Ecology-, Eco Bharma enter, Fune +, )**+,
httpC@@www.ecodharma.com@our1influences1ideas@radical1ecology3
>ee6 e$"l"g' asks ever dee6er K!esti"ns a/"!t the ver' f"!ndati"ns "f "!r m"dernI s$ientifi$I ind!strialI
gr".th-"rientedI materialisti$ ."rldvie. and .a' "f life. #t $hallenges this 6aradigm fr"m an e$"l"gi$al
6ers6e$tive? fr"m the 6ers6e$tive "f "!r 6r"f"!nd inter$"nne$tedness .ith "ne an"therI .ith f!t!re
generati"nsI and t" the .e/ "f life. Although deep ecology has provided a valua"le philosophical and
spiritual "asis for the emergence of an ecological consciousness, and a revealing critique of the
anthropocentric paradigms of our current civilisation, it has sometimes failed to offer much "y way of
political critique. At times proponents of deep ecology have tended to indiscriminately lump humanity
together into an undifferentiated anti1ecological entity, sometimes even falling into misanthropy. >ee6
e$"l"gists have "ften failed t" re$"gnise h".I .hat Raine Eisler has $alledI the Ud"minat"r s'stemU "f s"$ial
"rganisati"n has /een at $"re "f the e$"l"gi$all' destr!$tive s"$i"-e$"n"mi$ s'stems "f "!r time. +he
a66arent la$k "f a 6"liti$al $ritiK!e and !nderstanding "f the r"le "f s"$i"-e$"n"mi$ s'stems in e$"l"gi$al
destr!$ti"n led t" a variet' "f $riti$isms fr"m s"$ial e$"l"gists.
+.= +lernai#e ' No Sol#ency
The Lritik links to itself6we&re still humans making this value 'udgement upon the
environment. Advocating the natural alone is useless to activism
,!rtherm"reI however right the "iotic community might "e in preserving the integrity, sta"ility, and
"eauty, who actually 'udges it as right0 .f the "iotic community or ecosystems do not contain any
sentient "eing, then who is going to 'udge something right or wrong, good or evilN Apart from the
moral agent who values 2a val!erC nothing is valua"le, inherent, or instrumental. .f our ultimate
purpose of doing ethics is to restore the natural environment, this is "ecause it is the natural
environment that will make our e$istence via"le. #f there .ere n" m"ral agent sentient en"!gh t" /e
s'm6atheti$ t" "ther /eingsI there ."!ld /e n" attem6t t" rest"re the envir"nment. A natural "iotic
community "y itself would not "e useful.
Beep ecologists work in the modern frame of thought, guaranteeing that deep ecology will
never succeed
#ivnik P7 B9anetI +he +r!m6eterLhtt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie.,ile/183/*33M
S6eaking ,r"m the >ee6? +he )r"/lem "f Lang!age in >ee6 E$"l"g' Ed!$ati"n/ 1%%7C
#Gll $"n$l!de /' straightening "!t the meanders "f this 6a6er. Educating from a deep ecology approach
poses difficulties "ecause iC teacher and students are speaking from different assumptions a"out the
worldR iiC deep ecology movement educators are themselves part of the dominant, modern culture and
are not always a"le to see the different assumptions at play and iiiC accepting the principles of deep
ecology requires a faith or a sense of already -"eing there.; &s a res!lt "f these diffi$!ltiesI dee6 e$"l"g'
m"vement ed!$at"rs fa$e 6r"/lems "f $"m6rehensi/ilit' and $redi/ilit'. ;These halts and difficulties do
not ask for immediate remedy5 we fail them "y making emergencies of them. +he' askI ratherI f"r
6atien$eI f"r/earan$eI ins6irati"n - the gifts and gra$es "f timeI $ir- $!mstan$eI and faith.;** Het they also
ask that we, as educators, continue to confront the difficulties and gently prod them as we search for a
way through.
A passive stance will not solve the alt1 only reactive activism will solve for anthropocentric
humanism
Nimmerman P+ B8i$hael Lhtt6?//*(%.80.141.1(4/sear$hN
KH$a$he?)K97)mki4r#9?..../6f."rg/tsangha/tsO/7immerman.6df_S**dee6_e$"l"g'
S**_$a!ses_e$"fas$ismXhlHenX$tH$lnkX$dH1(XglH!sM >ee6 E$"l"g'I E$"a$tivismI and 5!man Ev"l!ti"n/
S!mmer %8C
Bespite increasing recognition that an action1oriented stance is deeply implicated in ecological
pro"lems, most people conclude that the only alternative to an active, interventionist, control1oriented
posture must "e one of passive su"mission. From the ecoactivist perspective, such a passive stance
"orders on suicidal cowardice. 9ence ecoactivists maintain that we must take decisive steps to counter
the actions of industrialists "ent on turning the planet into a giant factory. >ee6 e$"l"gists O"in in the
$riti$ism "f the "ften-ra6a$i"!s ind!strial a$tivism m"tivated /' anthr"6"$entri$I nat!ralisti$ h!manismI that
isI the d"$trine that h!mans are the "rigin "f all val!eI 6!r6"seI and meaning. Eet deep ecologists do not
concede that the only alternatives to anthropocentric humanism are either reactive activism or
passivity.
A$ Alternative No Solven!y
The modern frame of thought in which deep ecologists must work in ensures that their
movement will not succeed
9"el !einsheimer, in s6eaking "f 4adamerGs +r!th and 8eth"d, articulates the se$"nd 6ro"lem with
-speaking from the deep.; &$$"rding t" 2einsheimerI 4adamerGs ideas -cannot "e proved, not "ecause of
their intrinsic irrationalityI still less /e$a!se the' are falseI /!t ratherI precisely "ecause they call into
question the "elief that proof is our sole means of access to truth.;1 2ithin the confines of modernity,
ideas that cannot "e proved d" n"t a66ear t" /e /ased "n a differing vie. "f kn".ledge? the' appear to "e
irrational. +he tenets "f m"dernit' and its s$ientifi$ ."rldvie.I seem t" render ke' ideas "f dee6 e$"l"g'
im6"ssi/le. ,"r instan$eI deep ecology supporters strive to encourage a sense of knowledge that is
conte$tual, em"odied and intuitive. +he' strive t" m"ve a.a' fr"m a mind-/"d' d!alit' and t" dis6la$e
the intelle$t as the s"le l"$!s f"r !nderstanding. .n a school system where rational thought and critical
thinking are the hallmarks of knowledge, deep ecology is "ound to "e marginalized. !ithin modern
rational discourse, conte$tual knowledge has no valid $laim.`+a The negative reaction to a "elief system
that eschews enlightenment views of knowledge has /een n"ted /' 2endell 3err'. 5e $laims that his
a66r"a$hes7 are ;n"t"ri"!sl' s!/Oe$t t" the $harge "f sentimentalit' "r n"stalgia. )e"6le ... ask if BheC
G.antBsC t" t!rn /a$k the $l"$k.;8 Else.here he s6e$!lates that he ;.ill /e 6er$eived t" have $r"ssed "ver
int" G!t"6ianismG "r fantas'.;% S!$h $"mments are familiar t" dee6 e$"l"g' s!66"rters. +he 6r"/lem here is
n"t that 3err' is /eing sentimental. +he diffi$!lt' is m!$h larger. +he $harges 3err' des$ri/es f"ll". fr"m
the m"dern ."rldvie.. 5is ."rk is /ased "n ass!m6ti"ns that h"ld n" $redi/ilit' fr"m a ;val!e-free;
s$ientifi$ 6ers6e$tive. Beep ecology educators must speak within a culture whose very mode of
understanding does not admit what supporters of the deep ecology movement need to say.
The alt will never solve1 the cultural "elief system in which we are em"edded in prevent the
a priori thought necessary for the movement from shallow ecology
Even given the o"vious attempt in the deep ecology movement to question modern perspectives, the
cultural "elief system in which supporters are em"edded has, t" a $ertain e-tentI lost the possi"ility of
seeing life differently. ,inding the lang!age t" s6eak "ther.ise 6"ses a $hallenge f"r s!66"rters "f the dee6
e$"l"g' m"vement raised in s!$h a $!lt!re. #f dee6 e$"l"g' m"vement ed!$at"rs $an see and arti$!late the
differing ass!m6ti"ns at 6la'I the' en$"!nter 'et an"ther 6r"/lem in $"mm!ni$ating .ith st!dents. .n order
for the ideas of the deep ecology approach to make sense, they need to have already made sense. Beep
ecology rings true "ut only to those who already hear its calling. ;3el"nging $"ntains the a$t!al 6resen$e
"f the .a'; t".ards !nderstanding.1% +hat isI "elonging is an a priori requirement of understanding.
This parado$ lies "ehind the "elief that supporters of the deep ecology movement are -preaching to the
converted.;
A$ Alternative No Solven!y
Beep ecology is rooted in mysticism, hypocrisy and anti1anthropocentric approach which
ensures its failure
Am"rosius E B2end' Lhtt6?//....!.la-.ed!/!r$/O!r-"nline/6df/*((0/am/r"si!s.6dfM >ee6 E$"l"g'? & >e/ate "n
the R"le "f 5!mans in the Envir"nment/ *((0C
& main $ritiK!e $"mes fr"m Ri$hard &. !atson, who has read thoroughly into deep ecology and has
made several arguments against the movement in his article, :& CritiK!e "f &nti-&nthr"6"$entri$
3i"$entrism;. ,"r "neI 2ats"n finds deep ecology to "e hypocritical in its desire for man to "e treated
equally with nature, when all other nature is allowed to live out its ,evolutionary potential in
interaction with one another B3rennanI 110CI; while man is supposed to not do so. ,!rtherm"reI !atson
dislikes the return to religious or mystical grounds, "ecause he feels that it will not "e effective.
5".everI !atson&s "iggest pro"lem with deep ecology is he thinks that it will "e ineffective in its anti1
anthropocentric approach. 2ats"n /elieves that h!mans will only care a"out the environment if they see
its usefulness for humansC ,There is a very good reason for thinking ecologically, and for encouraging
human "eings to act in such a way as to preserve a rich and "alanced planetary ecologyC human
survival depends on it B3rennanI 118C.; Doving "eyond anthropocentrism has the risk of losing the
ma'ority of the population in the environmental movement, and this is .here 2ats"n feels Naess and
Sessi"ns have failed m"st "f all.
A$ Alternative - No Solven!y
The Lritik links to itself6we&re still humans making this value 'udgement upon the
environment. Advocating the natural alone is useless to activism
,!rtherm"reI however right the "iotic community might "e in preserving the integrity, sta"ility, and
"eauty, who actually 'udges it as right0 .f the "iotic community or ecosystems do not contain any
sentient "eing, then who is going to 'udge something right or wrong, good or evilN Apart from the
moral agent who values 2a val!erC nothing is valua"le, inherent, or instrumental. .f our ultimate
purpose of doing ethics is to restore the natural environment, this is "ecause it is the natural
environment that will make our e$istence via"le. #f there .ere n" m"ral agent sentient en"!gh t" /e
s'm6atheti$ t" "ther /eingsI there ."!ld /e n" attem6t t" rest"re the envir"nment. A natural "iotic
community "y itself would not "e useful.
The L uses the similarly destructive rhetoric which sees nature as purely a resource6
growth is 4/T "ad and can "e "ased off the non1consupmtive practices and environmental
stewardship we develop.
1%%*C
The ultimate irony of the late t.entieth-$ent!r' m"vement f"r envir"nmental 6r"te$ti"nI h".everI is the
fact that "oth the most strident greens and the most committed anti1environmentalists espouse a
fundamentally similar11and thoroughly outdated11view of economic development. %oth si tdes seem to
"elieve that economic growth rests fundamentally on the e$ploitation of natural resources. +he the"r' is
the sameI "nl' the ethi$al 6"siti"ning is reversed. ,"rt!natel'I the moral dilemma thus presented Bsh"!ld
.e "6t f"r e$"n"mi$ gr".th "r envir"nmental healthNC is falseI sin$e the $"n$e6t!al str!$t!re "n .hi$h it
rests is de$re6it. Technologies, not natural resources, provide the essential motor of economic progress.
.f large segments of the American electorate continue to see forests and ore "odies, rather than
research la"s and product engineering centers, as the main repositories and wellsprings of national
wealth, then we will seriously undercut our own well1"eing, and perhaps destroy the natural world in
the very process. 2hile the $laims "f e$"n"mi$ gr".th and envir"nmental 6r"te$ti"n "ften d" $"nfli$tI
ineffi$ien$' in e$"n"mi$ endeav"rs leads t" its ".n severe f"rms "f .aste and degradati"n. Event!all' .e
m!st reali7eI as e$"n"mi$all' "riented envir"nmentalists are n". telling !sI that .hile the freedom to
discharge wastes without cost into the environment may "e a great "oon to a given firm, it is
remarka"ly destructive to the economy as a whole. Economic efficiencyI at the m"st a/stra$t levelI is
positively rather than negatively linked to most forms of environmental stewardship.
+.= +lernai#e - Ecoopian
Beep ecology is set in an ecotopian world
3"th deep and s"$ialBistC ecologists present detailed pictures of an ecotopian world, and the generally
anarchistic principles underlying it. +he f"rmer stress integration of mind and "ody around ecological
philosophy, and environmen tally "enign technologies ena"ling people to Zlive simplyI in a material
sense "ut to e$perience spiritual richness B>evall and Sessi"ns 1%80C. (everal utopian traits have "een
recognised in the s"$ial visi"ns "f dee6 green s!/$!lt!res in n"rth&meri$an envir"nmental m"vementsI
including "iocentric egalitarianism, nature worship, nonmaterialist communitarianism,
nonhierarchical egalitari anism, the suppression of physical violence and the elimination of structural
violence BFassmann 1%%7C. Sale B1%80I 1%%1CI 3erg and >asmann B1%%(C and 8"llis"n B1%%(C are dee6
e$"l"g' .riters .h" envisage \/i"regi"nalU s !t"6ias .here 6e"6le .ith str"ng $"mmitment t" l"$alit' and
6la$e and shared gr"!6 ethi$s live in self-reliant $"mm!nesI villages and small t".ns. (uch envision ing,
unrestrained "y the political1economic constraints of present society, is an important practical tool in
ecotopian1style neigh"ourhood planningI e.g. /' the \E$"t"6ia )r"Oe$tU in &meri$aUs )a$ifi$ N"rth.est
\/i"regi"nU . #t als" a/"!nds in 3""k$hinUs B1%%(a and /C seminal ."rks "f s"$ial e$"l"g'I .hi$h em/"d'
earlier !t"6ias /' Fr"6"tkin and 2illiam 8"rris. %ookchin details a social and ecological utopia that has
a"olished capitalism and hierarchy and turned to ecology for principles of social organisation, "ased
on decentralised face1to1face direct dem"$ra$' Bsee als" ,"t"6"!l"s 1%%8/CI and featuring organic
cultivation, soft energy, small scale living and collective transportation.
Beep ecology retreats from the modern world to one of ecotopianism
&s # have s!ggestedI the tr!th seems t" /e that ecotopianism swings from one side to another of this
materialist1idealist duality. # have sh".n else.here B)e66er *((0C that /i"regi"nalismI and deep ecology in
particularI s"metimes retreats from the material struggles of the modern world, instead falling "ack on
a romantic future primitivism. Sale B1%80? 478CI f"r instan$eI urges a return to premodernity on
grounds that old peoples Zknow the way of nature "estI, .hile %owers B*((3C $"mpiles a list of
prerequisites for a sustaina"le future "y looking at the Zmorally coherent and ecologically responsi"leI
communities "f the &6a$heI D!e$h!aI #n!itI &/"riginal et$. +he )lanet >r!m ,"!ndati"nI initiated in 1%73I
h"lds /i"regi"nal $"ngresses feat!ring \earth $"nne$ting native &meri$an $erem"niesUI e$h"ing the tree
."rshi6 and .ar game rit!als in Callen/a$hUs n"velI and dee6 e$"l"g' inv"$ati"ns t" \seek ins6irati"n fr"m
6rimal traditi"nsU B>evall and Sessi"ns 1%80? %7C and \dan$e ... .ith the rh'thms "f "!r /"diesI the rh'thms
"f fl".ing .aterI $hanges in the .eather and seas"ns and the "verall 6r"$esses "f life "n earthU B6. 7C needing
fe.er desires and sim6ler 6leas!res.
A$ Alternative - E!oto'ian
Attempts at ecotopianism ultimately fail and will "ring us "ack to the status quo
.n the name of creating a dynamic of social changeI 6r"gressing t".ards a radi$all' alternative f!t!reI
Ecotopianism s"metimes produces rigid social "lueprints "ased on principles of Zequili"riumI and
stasis. 3!t since these implicitly call for no further evolution, such principles are ultimately regressiveI
es6e$iall' .hen gr"!nded in idealisti$ 'earnings f"r an imagined 6ast "f s"$iet'-nat!re harm"n'I rather than
in 6resent material realities. Ecotopians may respond to this dilemma "y endeavouring to esta"lish
progressive, ZanticipatoryI and transformative material practices in the here and now, "ut these are
often prone to assimilation within e$isting social arrangements, so may lead us "ack to the status quo.
Ecotopian alternatives prevent innovation and change, turning the alternative
A ma'or pro"lem of utopia as the Zperfect placeI is that it leaves little room for innovation, change and
evolution. 4""d.in and +a'l"r B1%8*C s!ggest that 6re-eighteenth $ent!r' !t"6ias .ere stati$ /e$a!se then
there .as n" $"n$e6t "f 6r"gress. 3!t in our age a society without developmental capacity is seen as
undesira"le, /e$a!seI as F!mar B1%87C sa'sI \There is no intelligence where there is no change and no
need of changeI. F!mar refers t" h". the El"i "f 5.4. 2ellsUs +ime 8a$hine live 6erfe$tl' in harm"n' .ith
their envir"nment /!t have l"st all intelle$t!al endeav"!r. #n similar veinI C""6erUs B1%73C fi$ti"nal
inha/itants "f an e$"t"6ia esta/lished "n a \tenth 6lanetUI es$a6ing e$"l"gi$al disaster "n earthI have
s!$$essf!ll' eliminated aggressive instin$tsI /!t "nl' /' $reating a \sta/leU s"$iet' .hi$h is n"t ev"lving.
This pro"lem of utopias in general can "e compounded in ecotopianism through a predilection for
holism, where the Zview that everything is indissolu"ly connected has the unaccepta"ly fatalistic
consequence that nothing can ever "e changed without changing the whole given universeI B4""d.in
and +a'l"r 1%8*? *11C. &dditi"nall'I radical environmentalism a"ounds with pro"lematical notions of
human well"eing founded on a natural order that has sta"ilised around an equili"rium state A a
\h"me"stasisU I meaning t" \kee6 the sameU BR!ssell 1%%1C. ,r"m the 3l!e6rint f"r S!rvival t" 4aia the"r'I
there is concern a"out important ecological ZlawsI apparently requiring sta"ility and steady state for
ecosystems health Bsee Sale 1%80I >evall and Sessi"ns 1%80CI .hi$h /' e-tensi"n demand \/alan$eU and
harm"n' .ith nat!re f"r s"$ial .ell/eing B3""k$hin 1%%(aC. 8il/rath et al. B1%%4? 4*0C e6it"mise the
envir"nmentalist vie. that it is \6eril"!s f"r !s t" 6ert!r/ th"se s'stemsUI .hile >evall and Sessi"ns infer that
\n"t d"U sh"!ld /e$"me a g!iding s"$ial 6rin$i6le. =nf"rt!natel' s!$h sentiments $an $reate .hat isI f"r a
s"$ial $hange m"vementI the 6arad"- "f \dee6 dislike "f d'namismI !n$ertaint' and $hange...U B3ram.ell
1%%4? 177I *(0C. #ndeedI )r!gh et al. B*(((CI am"ng "thersI have a$$!sed ecotopias of demonstrating static,
frozen social structures, as well as lacking ZpoliticsI and the emergent properties of real human
societies. Associated with these accusations are fears of how "lueprints of a ZperfectI steady state may
encourage unhealthy totalitarian repression of deviation and dissent\
A$ Alternative - E!oto'ian
Ecotopia not only fails "ecause it lacks a sustaina"le framework, "ut it constructs illusory
freedoms and dystopia
... the attempt to pursue a unified conception of the good life, in a society where individuals have a
plurality of conceptions of what is actually good, risks impos ing on them moral values against their will
... the dilemma is h". t" 6!rs!e 6l!ralism /!t .ith"!t relativism. ,"r li/eralsI "f $"!rseI this is n"t a diffi$!lt
6r"/lem? given the variety amongst people there can "e no one kind of life "est for allR s" \!t"6iaU $an
"nl' $"nsist "f different and divergent !t"6iasI .here n"/"d' $an im6"se their ideal "n "thers. N"7i$k B1%74C
$alls this \meta-!t"6iaU? the envir"nment in .hi$h 6e"6le $an tr' "!t !t"6ian ideas /!t .here trade"ffs m!st
/e made .ith 6e"6le "f ver' different ideals. C"n$eived th!sI !t"6ia is n" m"re than a frame."rk ena/ling
6e"6le t" e-6erimentI and !t"6ians .ith different visi"ns ."!ld need t" $""6erate "nl' t" the e-tent "f
maintaining the li/ertarian frame."rk. +his red!$es the need f"r t"talising dis$"!rses only the universal
rights that would sustain the framework would "e required, overseen "y a minimal state. %ut this is
pro"lematic for radical environmentalists, since it smacks of the kind of laissez1faire thinking that
underpins economic and social "ehaviour of the type which causes the pro"lems, rather than solving
them. &nd ecotopians are likely to share Fnights and 2illm"ttUs B*(((C view that li/eral notions of
sovereignty and ownership over self in reality constitute illusory freedoms with dystopian potential. ,"r
in $"ntem6"rar' s"$iet' these \freed"msU are em/edded in6".er dis$"!rses s!$hthat individ!als are
transf"rmedI in the manner des$ri/ed /' ,"!$a!ltI int" s!/Oe$ts .h"se sense "f meaningI 6!r6"se and
identit' $"mes fr"m 6arti$i6ating in dis$!rsive 6ra$ti$es refle$ting re6ressive 6".er relati"ns. S"I f"r
e-am6le \a!t"n"m'U at work "ecomes self policing with reference to management o"'ectives rather than
oneIs own. This is s!/tle Bself13 regulation, and part of the same assimilation discourse in which, say,
producer coops or ZalternativeI communities "ecome vehicles for self1e$ploitation Bsee a/"veC.
Ecotopianism will ultimately fail1 its lack of tolerance and adoption of polarized stances
prevent the alt from solving
En"!gh has /een saidI h".everI t" s!ggest that s!$h tensions and dilemmas might "lunt ecotopianismIs
transgressiveness. #f ecotopia sh"!ld /e$"me a stati$ /l!e6rintI "r a missi"n t" ret!rn m"dern s"$ieties t"
6rimitivismI it will not fa cilitate progressive social change. #f it fails to tolerate competing discourses it
will likely encourage the o$ymoron of ZgreenI dictatorships. Eet unconstrained moral relativism could
undermine support for universally o"served ecologi cal principles. &gainI if ecotopianism adopts a
polarised stance on localism it could neglect the glo"al institutions and technologies which may "e vital
in creating strong sustaina"ility. &nd sim6listi$ s$alar e-6lanati"nsI s!$h as th"se .hi$h attri/!te all
e$"l"gi$al-s"$ial 6r"/lems t" U/ignessUI $an militate against transgressiveness /' sim6l' missing the 6"int?
negle$ting the $"m6le- "f s"$ial-e$"n"mi$ 6r"$esses that $reate 6lanetar' envir"nmental risks.
+.= +lernai#e ' Ecoopian F Na6i
An ecotopian world su"'ects itself to fascist forces similar to that of 4azi =erman
\@f $"!rse the entire moral structure of an ecologically conscious society would rest on =aean
principlesII Sale B1%80? 1*(CI f"r instan$eI assertsI adding that ignorance of the phrases Zcarrying
capacityI and Z"iotic communityI would "e a crime in this society. #n similar veinI 8il/rath et al. B1%%4?
4*1I 4*8C .ant t" \f"r/id "ehaviour that may irreversi"ly in'ure natural systems, encouraging social
freedom so long as it serves ... ecological imperatives. 4"ldsmithUs B1%7*C 3l!e6rint darkl' refers t" the
6"ssi/le need t" \restrainU 6e"6le d!ring the transiti"n t" e$"l"gi$al s"$iet'I if the' d" n"t sh". self-restraint.
&nd .hile Callen/a$hUs E$"t"6ia is seemingl' $"mmitted t" $iti7ensU 6".er and "6en dis$!ssi"nI at the same
time 6"tentiall' fascistic forces e$ist, such as powerful charismatic leaders, marginalisation of
opposition, and a secret police force. .ndeed, incipient totalitarianism can surface quite starkly in
ecotopian thinking. For instance a long1esta"lished communard and =reen #arty activist asserts that
in his ecotopia an a"solute ecological code would "e enforced "y green police, with heavy restraints on
what we now regard as rights and freedoms B)e66er 1%%1? 131C
+.= +lernai#e ' Ecoopian - -er%
Ecotopia can only "e achieved when derived from science and technology
@n the "ther handI the case for ecotopia su"stantially rests on an authority claimed for ZscientificI
principles, derived particularly from "iology, ecology, ZnewI physics etc. &dditi"nall'I $"nsidera/le faith
may "e invested in techno logical developments of the ZradicalI type B3"'le and 5ar6er 1%71C to
transform society. 5en$e ecotopianism calls not for the Zwholesale discarding of advanced
technologiesI, "ut in particular for further development of technology compati"le with ecological
principles, which will contri"ute to harmonisation of society and the natural world.
+.= +lernai#e ' -ri%ii#is%
#rimitivism and attacks on modernity are 4/T the way to create real change, "ut rather
simply "elief in evolutionary change
!estern voluntarism has "een linked to an anthropocentrism which is n". /eing $alled int" K!esti"n.
4iven the de6th "f the v"l!ntaristI a$tivist s6irit in the 2estI we should not "e surprised if ecological
activists display the same spirit in their struggles against senseless destruction of nature. The way out
of such activism does not involve a destructive attack "n the 6r"gressive hist"r' "f the 2estI nor a call
for regressing to earlier stages B)ale"lithi$I 6rimitiveI $"lle$tiveCR "ut rather, a call for humankind to
continue its evolution ary movement toward maturity, toward a way of "eing which does indeed Jlet
things "e.J +he str!ggle t".ard mat!rit' is diffi$!lt f"r individ!als and eK!all' s" f"r a .h"le s6e$ies. 8!$h
s!ffering has /een inv"lved in h!man ev"l!ti"nI and .e $an hardl' e-6e$t t" m"ve f"r.ard .ith"!t m"re "f
the same. Geasona"le hope that genuine evolutionary change can take place, however, will "e a crucial
factor in sus1 taining the efforts of ecological thinkers 1 and a$tivists in the 'ears ahead.
Beep Eco&s primitivism masks a destructive, Kpredatory& living ethic, ultimately destroying
the environment.
1%%*C
+he 6hil"s"6h' "f deep ecology, especially the primitivist variant, is threatening to wildlife in a more
direct manner. (ince predation is an inescapa"le aspect of nature, these self1styled protectors of the
wild "elieve that human "eings should feel no qualms a"out living a predatory e$istence. .n fact, a
glorification of hunting runs deeply through their own literature. @ne "f the m"vementUs her"esI &ld"
Le"6"ld B 1%4% L 1%11M? 1*% CI f"!nd n" greater O"' than in sla!ghtering .aterf".l "n fr"st' a!t!mn m"rnings? T# $ann"t
remem/er the sh"tR # remem/er "nl' m' !ns6eaka/le delight .hen m' first d!$k hit the sn".' i$e .ith a th!d and la'
thereI /ell' !6I red legs ki$king.T &s a n"nradi$al envir"nmentalistI # d" n"t ne$essaril' "66"se h!nting. 2here 6redat"rs
are a/sentI it is "ften ne$essar' t" $!ll fe$!nd her/iv"res lest the' degrade their ".n ha/itats. 8"re im6"rtantl'I a
$"aliti"n /et.een h!nters and envir"nmentalists is a/s"l!tel' vital if ha/itat is t" /e 6reserved. Eet . can only
shudder on hearing an avowed environmentalist "oast of Junspeaka"le delightJ in the petty act of
slaughtering another living "eing. Mnless either human num"ers are e$tremely small or some form of
wildlife management B.hether te$hni$al "r traditi"nal3 is instituted, hunting is inherently destructive.
The close1to1nature American pioneers eliminated virtually every large mammal remaining in most
parts of this country. /nly when scientific game management was developed near the turn of the
twentieth century did certain game speciesI s!$h as the .hitetail deerI "egin to re"ound. Het many deep
ecologists denounce the concept of professional wildlife management as an arrogant affront against the
natural world. 7 4ature will manage itself, they "elieve, and if only we would "ecome a part of the
natural world we would never have to fear the consequences of our own acts. Dany seem to "elieve
that if hunters Jask forgivenessJ of the animals they kill, all will "e well. This did not work f"r the R"$k
CreeI n"r .ill it ."rk f"r "!r ".n ne"-tri/als. 2ildlife management as 6resentl' 6ra$ti$ed d"es deserve
$riti$ism f"r its f"$!s "n game s6e$iesI /!t "nl' $aref!l .ildlife "versight $an make h!nting a t"lera/le
a$tivit'. @ther.iseI the more Earth First\ !arrior hunters we have prowling our forests, the more
wildlife will suffer.
A$ Alternative - #rimitivism
#rimitivism and attacks on modernity are 4/T the way to create real change, "ut rather
simply "elief in evolutionary change
!estern voluntarism has "een linked to an anthropocentrism which is n". /eing $alled int" K!esti"n.
4iven the de6th "f the v"l!ntaristI a$tivist s6irit in the 2estI we should not "e surprised if ecological
activists display the same spirit in their struggles against senseless destruction of nature. The way out
of such activism does not involve a destructive attack "n the 6r"gressive hist"r' "f the 2estI nor a call
for regressing to earlier stages B)ale"lithi$I 6rimitiveI $"lle$tiveCR "ut rather, a call for humankind to
continue its evolution ary movement toward maturity, toward a way of "eing which does indeed Jlet
things "e.J +he str!ggle t".ard mat!rit' is diffi$!lt f"r individ!als and eK!all' s" f"r a .h"le s6e$ies. 8!$h
s!ffering has /een inv"lved in h!man ev"l!ti"nI and .e $an hardl' e-6e$t t" m"ve f"r.ard .ith"!t m"re "f
the same. Geasona"le hope that genuine evolutionary change can take place, however, will "e a crucial
factor in sus1 taining the efforts of ecological thinkers 1 and a$tivists in the 'ears ahead.
+.= +lernai#e - 3ioregionalis%
%ioregionalism restricts natural resources, destroying economic growth
S!$h a disconnection is necessary for a growth economyI as it all".s f"r the trans$enden$e "f nat!ral
limits. !ere the towns, cities and indeed nation1states of the developed world restricted to producing
and using resources only within theirimmediate surroundings,.hile maintaining $!rrent$"ns!m6ti"n
ratesI their resources would "e e$hausted within a short space of time. +he trans$enden$e "f l"$alised
natural limits requires the market to cast its net over an ever1increas ing geographical area, providing
access to an ever1greater resource "ase, until it has come to engulf the glo"e as a whole. &t this gl"/al
level "!r relati"nshi6 .ith nat!re is at its m"st indire$t and distant. +he gl"/al market serves t" mask the
"rigins "f 6r"d!$tsI the manner in .hi$h the' are 6r"d!$edI the im6a$t this 6r"d!$ti"n has "n nat!reI and
indeed the e-tent "f "!r de6enden$e !6"n nat!re as a .h"le. The impression that local adaptive fitness has
"een replaced "y glo"al adaptive fitness is achieved through the e$porting of production and pollution
to either uninha"ited areas or developing countries.
%ioregionalism is not restricted to deep ecology1 it can "e em"raced "y anthropocentrists
@f $"!rseI deep ecologists could rightly point to the argument outlined in the overview of
"ioregionalism, to the effect that feed"ack loops "etween society and nature are improved when
political and natural "oundaries are matched. +" em/ed a 6"lit' in this way could undou"tedly help
offset the epistemic disconnection $a!sed /' the se6arati"n "f ."rkers fr"m the $"nditi"ns "f 6r"d!$ti"nI
and there is nothing which precludes deep ecologists from su"scri"ing to "ioregionalism on the "asis of
this rationale rather than via some form of connection with the process of identification. 5".everI the
important point to "e made here is that such a rationale is not e$clusively availa"le to deep ecologists5
on the contrary, it is e$ternal to any particular ethical or moral doctrine, in that it can "e em"raced "y
e$"$entrists and enlightened anthropocentrists alike. #n "ther ."rdsI there is nothing specific to the logic
of deep ecology which provides us with a rationale for decentralisation taking a specifically "ioregional
form. The link "etween the two theories is most coherent when at its most contingent.
+.= +lernai#e ' <opian
Alt Fails1 Gesults in Mtopia
4ewton ) 2Tim, #rofessor of #hilosophy at Mniversity of E$eter, Academy of Danagement Geview, )**),
Aol. )7, 4o. 73
+he main f"$!s "f this arti$le is "n the feasi/ilit' "f the Te$"-"rderingT 6r"Oe$t. The realization of a new
eco1order is unlikely to occur 'ust "ecause people perceive an impending ecological crisis. &s &ndre.
>"/s"n n"tes? The general political1ecological position that the environmental crisis will eventually "e
suffered "y every"ody on the planet, and that therefore the ideologyIs appeal is universal, has "een
perceived as a source of strength for the =reen movement.... LEetM this may "e the movementIs "asic
strategic political error "ecause the universality appeal, is properly speaking, Mtopian. #t is sim6l'
!ntr!e t" sa' thatI given 6resent $"nditi"nsI it is in ever'/"d'Us interest t" /ring a/"!t a s!staina/le and
egalitarian s"$iet'. A significant and influential proportion of society, for e$ample, has a material
interest in prolonging the environmental crisis "ecause there is money to "e made from administering
it B1%%(? 10*C. The difficulties of the eco1ordering pro'ect "ecome even more pronounced once we view
it from a glo"al perspective. Steven Eearle' n"tes? &s >"/s"n $"rre$tl' 6"ints "!tI it is utopian to suppose
that there will "e consensus on environmentally far reaching reforms even within the conte$t of an
industrial nation. 9ow much more unrealistic then is the assumption that glo"al pro"lems will call
forth a unified international response, across all the disparities of wealth, geography, religion and
ethnicity of the glo"e B1%%1? 7%C. (uch highlighting of the pro"lems of creating a new green Jpromised
landJ may "e seen as negative "y some in relation to the Jgreen cause,J "ecause underlining the
difficulties may encourage pessimism rather than optimism. # arg!eI h".everI that s!$h a 6"siti"n is 6refera/le t"
that "f a Tfeel g""dT "6timism /ased "n shall". arg!ment. N"t all e$"$entri$ .riters ass!me that there is a single 6ath t" a green
redem6ti"n. @n the "ne handI there are .ritersI in$l!ding th"se .riting a/"!t "rgani7ati"nsI .h" $ham6i"n t"tal s"l!ti"ns that h!man
/eings m!st f"ll". if the' are t" save the 6lanet. +he' /ase their arg!ment "n a 6er$e6ti"n that Tneeds m!stT that is t" sa'I given a
s!66"sedl' imminent envir"nmental &rmagedd"n, a total and totalizing strategy toward a new eco1order is
required wherein all mem"ers of organizations Jmust "e motivated to changeT B2elf"rdI 1%%0? 147R
em6hasis addedC. @n the "ther handI some deep ecologists argue that a more pluralistic view is required,
"ecause it is unlikely that we can arrive at uniform agreement on the Jgreen agendaT BNaessI 1%%*I 1%%0aC.
@thers s'm6atheti$ t" dee6 e$"l"g' tr' t" re$"n$ile the m"dernist thinking "f dee6 e$"l"g' .ith 6"stm"dernism and 6"ststr!$t!ralism
BJimmermanI 1%%4C. EetI .hether t"talisti$I 6l!ralisti$I "r even 6"stm"dernistI dee6 e$"l"gists seek variants "f ne. e$"-"rders .here
the envir"nmentall' degrading 6atterns "f 6ast ind!strial s"$iet' are re6la$ed /' a$tivities that 6r"te$t rather than destr"' the 6lanet. +he
K!esti"n remainsI h".everI as t" h". s!$h 6r"Oe$ts $an /e a$hieved. &s La. B1%%4C n"tesI "ther ne. "rdersI .hether fas$ismI
$"mm!nismI "r free market li/eralismI have fl"!nderedI and their desire t" deliver s!66"sed Tg""dsT Be.g.I ra$ial 6!rit'I eK!alit'I en-
ter6riseC have "$$asi"ned a variet' "f T/adsT Be.g.I gen"$ideI ineK!alit'I "lig"6"l'C. Similarl'I K!esti"ns arise .ith the 6r"Oe$t "f a ne.
e$"- "rder. 9!st as the 6r"mised g""ds "f ind!strial s"$iet' Be.g.I material 6r"s6erit'C have "$$asi"ned a variet' "f /ads Be.g.I
envir"nmental degradati"n L&damI 1%%8R 3e$kI 1%%*MCI s" the e$"$entri$ dreams "f dee6 e$"l"gists have /een seen /' s"me as the st!ff
"f nightmares Be.g.I Te$"fas$ismIT misanthr"6'I "r a 6essimisti$ risk-averse s"$iet'C. &lth"!gh s!$h a $ritiK!e $an /e K!esti"nedI .e
need t" e-amine t" .hat ends e$"$entri$s T!seT nat!reI and .hether th"se ends are a$hieva/le. 8' 6arti$!lar $"n$ern in this arti$le is
.ith "rgani7ati"nal literat!re "n greening and e$"l"g'. &lth"!gh s'm6atheti$ t" the green $a!seI # /elieve that there are a n!m/er "f
limitati"ns .ith e-isting ."rk in this field. # f"$!s "n "rgani7ati"nal .riters .h" es6"!se Tdee6 greenT val!es and .h" ad"6t an
e$"$entri$ a66r"a$h /e$a!se B1C the' re6resent a $hallenge t" traditi"nal management a66r"a$hes t" "rgani7ati"ns and t" ref"rm
envir"nmentalismI B*C the' have generated in$reasing interest .ithin green "rgani7ati"n st!diesI and B3C the' "ften envisage a radi$al
re"rdering "f ind!strial s"$iet' thr"!gh the 6r"m"ti"n "f e$"$entri$ val!es. # arg!e that s!$h .ritersI h".everI have failed t" a66re$iate
the immense diffi$!lties "f shifting t" a ne. green 6aradigm-a fail!re that is 6artl' $"nditi"ned /' the 6r"/lems inherent in $reating an'
ne. "rder. &s a .riter s'm6atheti$ t" dee6 e$"l"g' n"tesI JBeep ecologists..,. have not e$amined sufficiently the
enormity of the o"stacle impeding such a >paradigm? shiftT BJimmermanI 1%%4? 04C. *((*
A$ Alternative - "to'ian
The Alt Fails1 .t&s Mtopian
;uke ) 2Timothy, #rofessor of #olitical (cience at Airginia Tech, ,Beep EcologyC ;iving As
.f 4ature Dattered-, /rganization and Environment, Aol. <E, .ssue ), pg <7+, Fune )**)3
=ltimatel'I this s6"rts6ers"nism BL!keI 1%%7C is danger"!s. %ecause of its qualities, deep ecology tends to
ring up politically as a form of utopian ecologism. As a utopia, the imagination articulated in Beep
Ecology presents some alluring moral prospects for what might "e. At the same time, they fail to
outline practica"le means for realizing these moral visions. Beep ecologists are trapped "y endorsing
new images for new Jecotopias,J "ut they do not have a very practical program for anything their
visions of future primitive reinha"itation or "ioregional community "uilding. )"liti$al a$ti"n is 6!shed
"ff int" the realm "f ethi$al idealsI making it ever' individ!alUs m"ral d!t' t" $hange himself "r herself in
advan$ing $!lt!ral $hange. 2ith"!t real "66"rt!nities t" $hange $"lle$tive a$tivit'-in the e$"n"m'I ide"l"g'I
te$hn"l"g'I "r 6"lit'-this individ!al m"ral regenerati"n might /eI at /estI a green K!ietismI s!ita/le "nl' f"r
finding a 6ers"nal 6ath in an evil s"$iet'. 4aess B1%84I 66. *(1-*(4CI f"r e-am6leI s!ggested his vision of
deep ecology is virtually idiosyncratic5 others are strongly en'oined to concoct their own ecological
omelettes.
+.= +lernai#e - Links o he D
Beep eco lacks the capacity to distinguish itself from a human perspective.
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
This $"n$l!si"n allows us to "egin "ringing together the li"eral !estern regard for the integrity of the
individual and the deep ecological concern for the integrity of the nonhuman world. Those deep
ecologists who cannot find a qualitative distinction "etween human "eings and animals and their
anthropocentric critics are "oth wrong. The strongest evidence for human unique ness in the world
requires at least a "iocentric ethic in order for it to manifest as our a"ility to care for "eings who are of
no use to ourselves, and whom we may never even see. Naess arg!es that Tthe e$"l"gi$al self is that .ith
.hi$h the 6ers"n identifiesIT shifting Tthe /!rden "f $larifi$ati"n fr"m the term UselfU t" that "f Uidentifi$ati"nIU
"r rather U6r"$ess "f identifi$ati"n.UT7P As a person sympathetically e$pands his or her awareness of the
relationships comprising not only themselves, "ut other selves as well, they see themselves as mem"ers
of ever larger and more diverse communities. The result of such identifi cation is increasing respect for
nonhuman as well as human life. @ther /eings matter. #n the a/sen$e "f $"m6elling reas"ns .e sh"!ld n"t
interfere .ith them. 2e n". ret!rn t" 5argr"veUs $hallenge t" deep ecologists that their position depends
upon going J"eyond valuing "ased on the human perspective, which seems impossi"le.T0] +he Th!man
6ers6e$tiveT t!rns "!t t" in$l!de an "6en-ended $a6a$it' f"r s'm6atheti$ identifi$ati"n .ith the n"nh!man as
an essential 6art "f .hat it is t" /e h!man. +he TselfT in its $"mm"nsense meaning is at /est a .a' stati"n.
Those failing to develop this capacity simply operate with a diminished level of human attainment.
They deserve our sympathy, "ut scarcely qualify as role models. 3!t the m"re .e devel"6 this $a6a$it'I
the less "!r 6ers6e$tive $an /e identified .ith the m"dern rather $ra//ed n"ti"n "f selfI and the less im6a$t
5argr"veUs $riti$ism retains.
The .solation of 9umans As %eing Anthropocentric .s An Anthropocentric .dea That
Assigns Dorality !hich Deans The Alt an 4ever (olve
!atson PP 2Gichard A., #rofessor of Ecology at %rown Mniversity, )hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es?
&rne Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I )gI 110C
/nly if we are thinking anthropocentrically will we set the human species apart as the species that is to
"e thwarted in its natural "ehavior. Anti1anthropo centric "io1centrists suggest that other species are to
"e allowed to manifest themselves naturally. They are to "e allowed to live out their evolutionary po 1
tential in interaction with one another. 3!t man is different. 8an is t"" 6".erf!lI t"" destr!$tive "f the
envir"nment and "ther s6e$iesI t"" s!$$essf!l in re6r"d!$ingI and s" "n. 2hat a 6hen"men"n is manQ
8an is s" ."nderf!ll' /ad that he is n"t t" /e all".ed t" live "!t his ev"l!ti"nar' 6"tential in egalitarian
intera$ti"n .ith all "ther s6e$ies. 2h' n"tN +he "nl' reas"n is anthr"6"$entri$. !e are not treating man
as a plain mem"er of the "iotic community. !e are not treating the human species as an equal among
other species. 2e think "f man as /eing /etter than "ther animalsI "r ."rseI as the $ase ma' /eI
/e$a!se man is s" 6".erf!l. /ne reason we think this is that we think in terms of an anthropocentric
moral community. All other species are viewed as morally neutral5 their "ehav ior is neither good nor
"ad. %ut we evaluate human "ehavior morally. And this sets man apart. .f we are to treat man as a
part of nature on egalitarian terms with other species, then manIs "ehavior must "e treated as morally
neutral, too. #t is a/s!rdI "f $"!rseI t" s!ggest the "66"site alternativeI that .e eval!ate the /ehavi"r "f
n"nh!man animals m"rall'. %luntly, if we think there is nothing morally wrong with one species
taking over the ha"itat of another and eventually causing the e$tinction of the dispos sessed species6as
has happened millions of times in the history of the earth6then we should not think that there is
anything morally or ecosophically wrong with the human species dispossessing and causing the
e$tinction of other spe cies.
A$ Alternative Links to the +
The ethics of deep ecology are fundamentally flawed1 to assign nonhuman values must "e
conducted through ethical reasoning, which is anthropogenic
B&Aeth < B+"n' 5!ghesI =niversit' "f 2estern &!stralia
Lhtt6?//....nla.g"v.a!/"6en6!/lish/inde-.6h6/Oasal/arti$le/vie.)>,#nterstitial/14/1*M &!stralian 2ritingI >ee6
E$"l"g' and 9!lia LeighGs +he 5!nter/ *((1-last date $ited
Beep ecologists take the view that only "y a change of values and thinking of a radical order, one which
demotes humans to an equivalence with other organisms, can current destructive trends "e reversed. 0
2hile 8Gs destr!$tiveness 6r"f"!ndl' vi"lates these $riteriaI his ".n deh!manisati"n all".s a $"nte-t in
.hi$h these val!es $an /e taken seri"!sl'. #t is im6"rtant t" 6"int "!tI f"r instan$e, that human redemption
is not an element of the formal theory of deep ecology. =iven its full radical effect, rather than its
.atered-d".n Ne.-&ge "r li/eral h!manist ada6tati"ns, deep ecology is de1 void of consolation in these
terms. The ethical imperative that emerges from the premises of deep ecology is one of deferen$e
Bindeed disengagementC not preservationI as 6reservati"n tends t" resit!ate val!e in h!man terms /'
making the n"n-h!man ."rld a res"!r$e that sh"!ld /e :s!staina/l' managed; f"r "!r enO"'ment. ;eigh&s
novel sim!ltane"!sl' interrogates "oth the preservationist impulse and the deep ecological response. .n
the final 6hase "f the ,hunt- there is little moral distinction "etween D who seeks to kill the tiger and
harvest its genetic information and the !ildlife service which seeks to preserve the tiger as a cherished
em"lem of the false hope that species loss is not final. +he hi66ies he had 6revi"!sl' met at L!$'Gs h"!se
re$iting the tea$hings "f 9arrah &rmstr"ng are n". armed .ith satellite tele6h"nes and a!t"mated infrared
$ameras and have /e$"me $r!saders in the K!est t" save the tiger.This race creates a fa"ric of ine$ora"ility
around the ,hunt- that disrupts ready distinctions "etween those who seek to kill and those who seek
to preserve.#erverselyI 8Gs 6ers"nal K!est t" meet the th'la$ineI .ith .h"m he has entered a kind "f fatal dan$e and dial"g!eI
seems t" have a terri/le n"/ilit'. +he effe$t "f these reversals is t" $ast d"!/t "n anthr"6"$entri$ ethi$al s'stems 6er se. 2hat makes +he
5!nter intrig!ing is that it !ses the h!manist ma$hiner' "f the n"vel f"rm t" e-6"se the limits "f h!man-$entred val!es. +he 6la'
/et.een h!man and n"n-h!man $an /e seen in the tenden$' "f 8 and the th'la$ine t" inter6enetrate at vari"!s 6"ints .ithin the n"vel.
D pro'ects human qualities onto the animal that he is hunting and speculates upon its ,thoughts-.
onversely, there is, particularly in the final phase of the novel, a tendency toward D "eing marked "y
the qualities of the animal he is hunting. +hese t." /"!ndar' fig!resI the notionally human B8C and the
phantasmatically non1human Bth'la$ineCI "leed into one another. +he /"!ndar' O!m6ing that the narrative engages
inI e$h"ing similar devi$es in the .riting "f 3arr' L"6e7I attem6ts t" /"th arti$!late a 6s'$h"l"g' and designate a n"n- h!man
s!/Oe$tivit'. #t isI ne$essaril'I an am/ivalent O"ining. 3' h!manising the th'la$ineI 8 grants a n"/ilit' t" the n"n-h!man and t" s"me
e-tent es$a6es the instr!mentalism "f his ".n task BharvestingC and that "f the 2ildlife servi$e B6reservati"nC. 5".everI the fa$t that he
kills the th'la$ine in s6ite "f his reveren$e f"r it leaves the narrative !nres"lved. +his is entirel' a66r"6riate? the $!lt!ral narrative "f
irrev"$a/le l"ss generated /' the $"ns$i"!sness "f e-tin$ti"n defies res"l!ti"n. +he n"vel $"n$l!des .ith t." f"rms "f a6"$al'6se that
are /"th interrelated and in$"mmens!ra/le. +he first is the destr!$ti"n "f the famil' that 8 has $"meI at lastI t" val!e. &fter a tri6 t" the
mainlandI 8 ret!rns t" +asmania t" find the h"!se a/and"ned. #t trans6ired that "ne eveningI .hilst L!$' la' dr!gged in her r""mI her
da!ghter Sass had /een $"ns!med /' fire andI th"!gh she s!rvivedI fa$ed l"ng-term h"s6italisati"n and 6ermanent inO!r'. L!$'Gs fragile
6s'$he $"lla6sed $"m6letel' f"ll".ing this event and she /e$ame instit!ti"nalised. 3ikeI her s"nI is sent t" a f"ster h"me. +he h"6e that
8 ."!ld /e ref"rmed /' d"mesti$ and r"manti$ means is th!s in the m"st /r!tal terms disall".ed and ens!res that 8Gs redem6ti"n
de6ends entirel' !6"n the "!t$"me "f his K!est f"r the th'la$ine. 8I "f $"!rseI d"es kill the th'la$ineI s!rgi$all' rem"ving its
re6r"d!$tive "rgans f"r !se /' the /i"te$hn"l"g' $"m6an' and s" re- mainsI as it .ereI /e'"nd redem6ti"n. The pairing of the
two cataclysms, the demise "f a famil' and the e-tin$ti"n "f a s6e$iesI can "e seen as a response to a central pro"lem
within the ethical pro'ect of deep ecology. This pro"lem relates to the fact that attempts to ascri"e non1
human values must necessarily "e conducted through ethical reasoning 8 which is inescapa"ly human.
(omething of this dilemma can "e seen in the dual1holocaust of The 9unter, in which non1human loss
is made emotionally intelligi"le "y a corresponding scenario of human loss. The two forms of
desolation are ontologically separate "ut affectively paired. C"nsistent .ith this em"ti"nal linkage is the fa$t that 8
is identified m"st f!ll' .ith the th'la$ine at the ver' m"ment .hen he learns "f the l"ss "f L!$'I Sass and 3ike? :8 has had his $hest
s$""6ed "!t. 5is skin has /een 6eeled fr"m his /"d'. 5e $an disl"$ate his Oa. and fill the !niverse .ith a st"ne- gre' r"ar; B130C.
The Alternative ;inks .nto the Lritik Through .ts Anthropocentric Foundations
!atson PP 2Gichard A., #rofessor of Ecology at %rown Mniversity, )hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es?
&rne Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I )gI 118C
There are anthropocentric foundations in most environmental and ecosophical literature. .n particular,
most ecosophers say outright or openly imply that hu man individuals and the human species would "e
"etter off if we were required to live in ecological "alance with nature. ,e. e$"s"6hers reall' think that man
is O!st "ne 6art "f nat!re am"ng "thers. 8an is 6rivilegedA"r $!rsedAat least /' having a m"ral sensi/ilit' that as far
as .e $an tell n" "ther entities have. 3!t it is 6rett' $lear Bas # arg!e in TSelf-C"ns$i"!sness and the Rights "f N"nh!man
&nimals and Nat!reT
31
C that "n this 6lanet at least "nl' h!man /eings are Bs" farC f!ll mem/ers "f a m"ral
$"mm!nit'. !e ought to "e kinder to nonhuman animals, "ut . do not think that this is "ecause they
have any intrinsic rights. As far as that goes, human "eings have no intrinsic rights either 2as 4aess
and (pi noza agree3. !e have to earn our rights as cooperating citizens in a moral com munity.
Alt Fails1 Ganking (till E$ists And Therefore ;inks To The Lritik
French PP 2!illiam ., Birector of the enter for Ethics, )hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es? &rne
Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I )g 14*-43C
%iospherical egalitarianism, even in the hands of its most consistent proponents, "reaks down when
dealing with the necessary choices that must "e made under the conditions of life. #n m' anal'sisI # have
tried t" $hart a 6attern "f arg!mentI $"mm"n t" man' egalitariansI in .hi$h the' initiall' en!n$iate a /r"ad
6rin$i6le "f s6e$ies eK!alit'I /!t later /a$k a.a' fr"m it as the' str!ggle t" a$$"!nt f"r "!r m"ral
res6"nsi/ilities in $"nfli$t-"f-interest $ases. !hen those who most consistently re'ect notions of human
superiority over nonhumans later reach for the functional equivalent of species1ranking procedures,
one must conclude that no ecological ethic that attempts to "e comprehensive can dispense with some
sort of hierarchical ranking of moral priorities "ased, at least in part, on critical evaluations of the
different capacities, needs, and vulnera"ilities of different individuals, species, and ecosystems. &n
e$"l"gi$al ethi$al s$heme that makes this 6"int $lear fr"m the start av"ids m!$h meth"d"l"gi$al $"nf!si"n.
S"meI # s!s6e$tI are attra$ted t" the s6e$ies-egalitarian 6"siti"n /e$a!se "f the sheer f"r$e and s.ee6 "f its
indi$tment "f anthr"6"$entri$ traditi"ns "f ethi$s. #ts a/s"l!tism 6r"vides a str"ng 6latf"rm f"r radi$al
6r"6heti$ indi$tment. NeverthelessI .e m!st /e mindf!l "f the $"sts "f this m"ral strateg'. +h"se .h" .ave
the /anner "f /i"s6heri$al egalitarianism ma' .ell s$"re 6"ints .ith an alread' $"nvertedI radi$al fe.R 'etI
the' ma' als" /e leading a /r"ad segment "f the general 6!/li$ t" $"n$l!de that the radi$al .ing "f the
e$"l"g' m"vement isI at /estI !nrealisti$I "f ."rseI anti-h!man. 4aess and other deep ecologists have
made many important and timely points that deserve a "road hearing, particularly, their emphasis on
the need for a radical identification with nature, their advocacy of appropriate technologies and
sustaina"ility, and their potent critiques of consumerism, high1growth eco nomics, and population
e$pansion. +a'l"rI t""I makes im6"rtant $"ntri/!ti"ns .ith his anal'sis "f .hat the attit!de "f Tres6e$t f"r
nat!reT entails. 5".everI the insisten$e "f +a'l"r and the dee6 e$"l"gists "n /i"s6heri$al egalitarianismI #
fearI dra.s attenti"n a.a' fr"m their "ther m"re s"lid and servi$ea/le $"ntri/!ti"ns. Their insistence on a
principle that does not finally seem intended to gov ern moral 'udgment a"out concrete duty and
practice purchases little normative work at high cost in conceptual contortion. #fI as # have tried t" sh".I
/"th Naess and +a'l"rAt." "f the str"ngest adv"$ates "f /i"s6heri$al egalitarianismAm"ve a.a' fr"m that
6rin$i6le .hen adO!di$ating $"nfli$t-"f-interest $asesI then /"th the $"heren$' and !sef!lness "f that
6rin$i6le are $alled shar6l' int" K!esti"n. #t ."!ld /e a shame if the stress on "iospherical
egalitarianism led people to dismiss deep ecology as deeply confused, for many of deep ecologys other
affirmations are significant and deserve a "road hearing. =ntil m"re $"nsistent and str"nger defenses "f
/i"s6heri$al egalitarianism $an /e marshaledI # /elieveI dee6 e$"l"gists and "ther e$"l"gi$al the"rists
."!ld d" .ell t" dr"6 this 6rin$i6le fr"m their 6"rtf"li" "f affirmati"ns.
Bon&t let the hippies fool you6Beep ecology is "ased in the very essentialist, dualist
thinking they seek to kritik. .t&s futile to try and escape this legacy with the "allot.
1%%*C
+his visi"n str"ngl' inf"rms the $ritiK!e 6resented here. The dominant school of radical environmentalism
retains, despite its own intentions, a rationalist epistemology and a reductionistic mode of analysis. .ts
entire edifice rests on a few postulates, from which are generated a series of simple polaritiesC the
wicked !est versus the virtuous East, the evil industrials versus the peaceful primitives, and so on.
Ca6italism is red!$ed t" a self-$an$eling im6!lse t" a$$!m!late f"r the sake "f a$$!m!lati"nI .hile
technical advance is assumed to "e ine$trica"ly linked to an incessant concentration of power into ever
fewer hands. Mnfortunately for the greens, such rationalist figments vanish quickly in the light of
empirical scrutiny. Even if the' l"ng f"r a 6rem"dern ."rld .hile t"!ting the 6hil"s"6hies "f
6"stm"dernismI most eco1radicals remain stu""ornly modernist, at least in the "road sense of the term.
#n "ther ."rdsI the' adhere t" a 6hil"s"6hi$al traditi"n "riginating in the seventeenth $ent!r' that seeks
n"thing less than a/s"l!te $ertaint' Bsee +"!lmin 1%%(C. This unacknowledged philosophical
foundationalism underlying the radical green critique of modern civilization is most tellingly e$posed
in the ."rk "f &rne NaessI f"!nder "f the deep ecology m"vement. 4aess e-6ressl' traces his
philosophical lineage to the seventeenth-$ent!r' thinker S6in"7a--a 6antheistI 'esI /!t eK!all' a E!$lidean
rati"nalist in the same vein as BescartesI .h"m m"st greens regard as the 6remier villain "f intelle$t!al
hist"r'. 2hile the t." thinkersU vie.s "f nat!re ma' have /een 6r"f"!ndl' differentI their m"des "f inK!ir'
.ere del!ded in e-a$tl' the same manner. Ecoradicalism, as presently constituted in its dominant school,
has yet to escape this legacy
L links to itself1 Beep Ecology&s conception of the ecological (elf is only e$panding self1
interest, not accounting all of nature as they claim
Biehm *7 BChristianI :#dentifi$ati"n .ith Nat!re? 2hat it is and 2h' it 8atters;. )!/lished in Ethi$s X +he
Envir"nment 1*.* /' #ndiana =niv. )ress *((7. )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1(I *((8C
& se$"ndIrelated $ritiK!e "f dee6 e$"l"g' the"ristsG em6hasis "n the e-6ansi"n "f the self thr"!gh
identifi$ati"n-as-/el"nging is that from this viewpoint the protection of nature appears to stem not from
a desire to protect others who are worthy of moral concern,"ut from a desire to pro1 tect ourselves.
@ften referen$ing the idea that for the ecological (elf the defense of nature does not involve self1
sacrificing altruism "ut is instead a form of self1defenseI $riti$s have said that this line of thinking
remains an argument from self1interest, even if f"r dee6 e$"l"g' s!66"rters the meaning "f the term
:self;has $hanged Eri$ Fat7 e-6resses the /asi$ $rit- i$ism here .hen he sa's that alth"!gh :the interests "f
the individ!al fr"m .ithin the dee6 e$"l"gi$al 6ers6e$tive .ill n"t /e the narr". eg"isti$ interests "f
"rdinar' h!man lifeI; it is still the $ase that in this perspective nature&s preservation comes a"out
,through our e$panded notion of self1interest...;B*(((I 3334C. Sim6l' 6!tI the $harge is that
identifi$ati"n f!n$ti"ns t" 6r"vide an e$"l"gi$all' enlightened $"n$e6ti"n "f "!r selvesI designed t" iss!e in
a similarl' enlightened self-interest. .nstead of urging for an e$pansion of our capacity to care for others
who are genuinely other, "r "thers .h" are re$"gni7ed as having intrinsi$ val!eI deep ecology theorists
have urged only an e$pansion of our self1concern, via an e-6anded sense "f self.
+.= +lernai#e - 5ypocrisy
The alt will never solve1 deep ecology is fundamentally flawed, only with an
anthropocentric approach will humans care a"out the environment. Also allowing nature to
live out to its full potential while man is not supposed to is hypocritical
Am"rosius E B2end'I >e6artment "f )s'$h"l"g' Lhtt6?//*(%.80.141.1(4/sear$hN
KH$a$he?841@$=98<'89?....!.la-.ed!/!r$/O!r-"nline/6df/*((0/am/r"si!s.6df_S**shall"._e$"l"g'S**_
S**dee6_e$"l"g'S**_$"in$ideXhlHenX$tH$lnkX$dH4XglH!sM >ee6 E$"l"g'? & >e/ate "n the R"le "f
5!mans in the Envir"nment/ *((0
& main $ritiK!e $"mes fr"m Ri$hard &. !atsonI .h" has read thoroughly into deep ecology and has made
several arg!ments against the m"vement in his arti$leI :& CritiK!e "f &nti-&nthr"6"$entri$ 3i"$entrism;.
,"r "neI !atson finds deep ecology to "e hypocritical in its desire for man to "e treated equally with
nature, when all other nature is allowed to live out its ,evolutionary potential in interaction with one
another B3rennanI 110CI; while man is supposed to not do so. ,!rtherm"reI 2ats"n dislikes the return to
religious or mystical groundsI /e$a!se he feels that it will not "e effective. 5".everI 2ats"nGs /iggest
6r"/lem .ith deep ecology is he thinks that it will "e ineffective in its anti1anthropocentric approach.
2ats"n /elieves that humans will only care a"out the environment if they see its usefulness for humansC
,There is a very good reason for thinking ecologically, and for encouraging human "eings to act in
such a way as to preserve a rich and "alanced planetary ecologyC human survival depends on it
B3rennanI 118C.; Doving "eyond anthropocentrism has the risk of losing the ma'ority of the population
in the environmental movementI and this is .here 2ats"n feels Naess and Sessi"ns have failed m"st "f all.
+.= +lernai#e - -araly6es +cion
.nsisting on a monistic viewpoint of either inherent or intrinsic value paralyzes action
4orton PQ BNr'anI )r"fess"r "f )hil"s"6h' 4e"rgia +e$hI Envir"nmental )ragmatism. Ed. Light and Fat7I 6.1(1C
2hat is $!ri"!s is that this a$iological approach rests on an assumption that is common to "oth sides in
what has "ecome a polarized de"ateC "oth ne"$lassi$al .elfare e$"n"mists who "elieve that all value is
e$pressi"le in units of individual, human welfare 8and advocates of attri"uting inherent value to non1
humans .h" arg!e that the m"ral f"r$e "f envir"nmental 6rin$i6les derive fr"m the m"ral $"nsidera/ilit'
"f nat!ral "/Oe$ts are !n'ieldingl' m"nisti$ in their a66r"a$hes. The adoption of the monistic view point
and the associated goal of developing a universal moral theory applica"le in all cases is inevita"ly
Jreductionistic.T 3e$a!se all val!esI .hi$h are e-6erien$ed in m!lti6le m"des and $"nte-tsI m!st "n the
m"nisti$ a66r"a$h /e a$$"!nted f"r !nder a single the"r'I the /asi$ strateg' m!st /e t" red!$e all m"ral
$"n$erns t" a !nified anal'ti$ verna$!lar in .hi$h s"l!ti"ns t" s6e$ifi$ m"ral K!andaries are generatedI /'
!nav"ida/le inferen$esI fr"m a single the"r'. This shared assumption of monism has, # /elieveI locked
environ mental ethicists into a paralyzing dilemma, a dilemma that lies at the heart "f m"st dis$!ssi"ns "f
envir"nmental val!es. Dost participants in these discussions have su"scri"ed to a crucial alternation in
the theory of environmental valuationC either the value of nature is entirely instrumental to human
o"'ectives, or elements of nature have a Jgood of their ownJ 8 value not dependent on human
valuations.3 ould it "e that the polarized thinking that paralyzes environmental policy today results
from false alternatives forced upon us "y the assumption, !nK!esti"ned /' ne"$lassi$al e$"n"mists and
/' m"st "f their "66"nents am"ng envir"nmental ethi$ists alikeI that whatever the units of environmental
value turn out to "e, there will "e only one kind of them0
-er%(aion - )nrinsic/)nsr(%enal No 7((ally E0cl(si#e
.ntrinsic and instrumental value are not mutually e$clusive, when an o"'ect is
instrumentally valua"le it holds intrinsic value
and Fat7I 6.34-30C
#ragmatism cuts this =ordian knot "y denying that instrumental value and intrinsic value are ever
mutually e$clusive. +he /eing "f an' e-istent thingI h!man "r n"n-h!manI is $"nstit!ted in its relati"ns .ith
"ther things in a $"nte-t "f meaningf!l $"nne$ti"ns. +h!s anything that is good is "oth instrumentally
valua"le Bit affe$ts s"me g""ds /e'"nd itselfC and intrinsically valua"le Bit is g""d f"r .hat it isI a
signifi$ant entit' essential t" the $"nstit!ti"n "f these relati"ns3. !e can indeed distinguish the two kinds
of value, "ut nothing can ever "e instrumentally valua"le without at the same time possessing intrinsic
value. +h!s even the Tlast manT "n earthI in Ri$hard R"!tle'Us $lassi$ s$enari"I ."!ld /e d"ing s"mething
m"rall' .r"ng in .ant"nl' destr"'ing 6arts "f the nat!ral ."rld.*0 5e ."!ld /e annihilating intrinsi$all'
g""d 6arts "f the field "f e-6erien$e. 5e ."!ld /e needlessl' damaging n"t O!st th"se s!66"sedl' dis$rete
thingsI /!t intrinsi$all' g""d 6arts "f himself and "f all "ther /eings 6"tentiall' "r a$t!all' in the e-6eriential
.e/. )e"6le ma' mean s"mething else /' Tintrinsi$ val!eIT h".ever. Calli$"tt reserves the term Tintrinsi$
val!eT f"r the g""dness "f s"mething inde6endent "f an' $"ns$i"!sness that might val!e it.*1 +his is
s"metimes $alled the Tinherent val!eT "r Tinherent ."rthT "f nat!ral "/Oe$ts. N".I 6ragmatism ."!ld 6"int
"!t that where there is and could in principle "e no valuing agent, there is no conceiva"le e$peri ence 8
and hence no aesthetic or moral value at all. .n a universe of mere o"'ects a"sent a valuing
consciousness, things may have "eing "ut not value. #erhaps intrinsic@inherent value is the
contemporary equivalent of the medieval concept of Jontological goodnessT then in so far as it e$ists,
everything is good in =odIs eyes. @r 6erha6s .hatever isI is g""d f"r s"me n"n-h!man $"ns$i"!sness "ther
than 4"d. B+hese latter t." $ases $"nf"rm t" .hat Calli$"tt identifies as inherent val!e.C # res6e$t /"th "f
these 6"ssi/ilitiesI /!t as a h!man 6hil"s"6her # $ann"tI and need n"tI $"m6rehend them fr"m the inside. #f
there .ere n" h!man agent there ."!ld after all /e n" 6"ssi/ilit' Band n" needC f"r the kind "f envir"nmental
ethi$ .e seek. # d" n"t kn". .hat it is like t" /e 4"dI n"r d" # kn". .hat it is like t" /e a /at. +he $"n$e6t
"f intrinsi$/inherent val!e is th!s either meaninglessI "r else it red!$es t" the val!e "f s"mething that enters
int" e$"l"gi$al relati"ns that d" n"t immediatel' affe$t an' h!man agent. All that is, however, does
eventually, mediately, affect some human agent. .ts value can thus "e cognized "y humans, and its
moral considera"ility can "e acknowledged and respected. The lesson here, that we are connected at all
points to our environments, and they to us, is the Alpha and the /mega of pragmatic thought a"out the
environment.
-er%(aion ' No 7((ally E0cl(si#e
A #olicy /ption .n om"ination !ith The Alternative .s 4ecessary For A %etter !ay /f
;iving !ith The 4atural !orld
Eco Bharma enter + B:Radi$al E$"l"g';I E$" >harma CenterI 9!ne 8I *((8I
htt6?//....e$"dharma.$"m/"!r-infl!en$es-ideas/radi$al-e$"l"g'C
S"$ial e$"l"g' a!gments dee6 e$"l"g' .ith itGs anal'sis "f the .a' in .hi$h 6atterns "f s"$ial "rganisati"n s!$h as 6atriar$h'I
$a6italism and im6erialism are $entral t" the $!rrent e$"l"gi$al $risis. S"$ial e$"l"gists and e$"feminists have 6"inted "!t h". the
e-6l"itati"n "f nat!re has g"ne hand in hand .ith the e-6l"itati"n "f "ther h!mans in vari"!s hierar$hi$alI militaristi$I $a6italist and
ind!strialist f"rms. +he' 6"int "!t that s"$ial transf"rmati"n d"es n"t sim6l' lead fr"m a $hange "f $"ns$i"!snessI /!t als" reK!ires
radi$al restr!$t!ring "f the s"$i"-e$"n"mi$ s'stem. +he ."rk "f man' s"$ial e$"l"gists like 8!rrra' 3""k$hinI ,ran$is 8""re La66bI 9.
3aird Calli$"ttI al"ng .ith $"ntri/!ti"ns fr"m 4e"rge 3radf"rdI &riel Fa' SallehI 9anet 3iehlI and Car"l'n 8er$hant have "ffered a
val!a/le $ritiK!e and $"rre$tive t" dee6 e$"l"g'Gs limitati"ns in this res6e$t. >ee6 e$"l"gists have in t!rn made $"!nter arg!ments. &nd
an "ng"ing de/ate $"ntin!es /et.een dee6 and s"$ial e$"l"gists .hi$h has $reated a fertile and val!a/le range "f anal'sis fr"m .hi$h
man' radi$al e$"l"gists dra. insights and ins6irati"n. Darrying a political critique with a recognition of the
psychological and spiritual dimensions of our condition, radical ecology has grown into a diverse and
creative movement. Gadical ecology is not a monolithic movement, nor does it suggest a fi$ed
ideological position. Gadical ecology is a critical encounter, a working out through thought and pra$is,
of how we can really envision, em"ody and realise "oth methods to resist the destructive march of the
industrial growth socio1economic system and effect the changes necessary for a new way of living in
full partnership with the rest of the natural world. #t in$l!des ."rk and e-6eriments in n"n-hierar$hi$al s"$ial f"rmsI
ne. e$"n"mi$sI 6r"$ess "riented s$ien$eI and a revitalised s6irit!alit'. #ts visi"nar' nat!re ins6ires man' 6e"6le f"rming the anti-
gl"/alisati"n m"vement and 6ra$titi"ners "f dire$t a$ti"nI as .ell as man' ."rking in mainstream 6"liti$al fieldsI e$"l"gi$al
$"nservati"nI the "rgani$ agri$!lt!re and 6erma$!lt!re m"vements and man' fighting f"r the rights "f indigen"!s 6e"6le.
.t is possi"le to view nature with "oth a intrinsic and instrumental value and still address
environmental issues
allicott PP B9. 3airdI )r"fess"r )hil"s"6h' =niversit' "f N"rth +e-asI 3e'"nd the Land Ethi$I ).374-370C
Ecological sustaina"ility and its associated norm, ecosystem health, have "oth anthropocentric and
ecocentric value dimensions. 9umanly inha"ited and economically e$ploited ecosystems produce not
only in strumentally valua"le goods Bf""dI f"dderI that$hI f!el.""dI et$.CI /!tI if health'I they may also
afford instrumentally valua"le services 2clean air, pota"le water, flood control, crop pollination,
various amenities3. #n shar6 $"ntrast t" Lele and N"rgaard B1%%1CI .h" dismiss the idea that TEarthUs nat!ral
6r"$esses and /i"diversit' LareM inherentl' g""dI even if there .ere n" h!man /eings "n the 6lanet t" /enefit
fr"m these 6hen"menaT as /eing Ta/s!rd .hen 6resented s" /aldl'IT we assert that ecosystems and their
component processes are intrinsically as well as instrumentally valua"le. &s N"ss B1%%0I *1C n"tes
TS!staina/ilit' need n"t /e inter6reted anthr"6"$entri$all' . . . & /i"$entri$ "r h"listi$ $"n$e6t "f
s!staina/ilit' f"$!ses "n s!staining nat!ral e$"s'stems and all their $"m6"nents f"r their ".n sakeI .ith
h!man !ses in$l!ded "nl' .hen the' are entirel' $"m6ati/le .ith $"nservati"n "f the native /i"ta and nat!ral
6r"$esses.T !e agree with this statement, with one proviso6that the JcomponentsJ of ecosystems are
understood to "e ecological processes, not the several sets of species that compose various "iotic
communities. .n our account of ecological sustaina"ility, the components of "iotic communities and the
native "iota may "e intrinsically valued, "ut only su"ordinately or secondarily6to the e$tent that they
are functional moments in ecosystems6while in our account of ecological integrityI as in that "f
&ngermeier and Farr B1%%4CI 2estra B1%%4CI and N"ss B1%%0CI the components of "iotic communities and
the native "iota have primary, unqualified intrinsic value. This ecocentric valuation6from the
perspective of the ecological sustaina"ility@ ecosystem health conceptual comple$6principally of
ecosystems and eco logical processes is not ar"itrary. .t devolves from a hierarchical ecosystem
worldview, in which ecological entities are defined and delimited in terms of trophic1dynamic processes
and functions, such as nutrient cycling, not in terms of interacting populations of organisms B&llen and
Starr 1%8*R @UNeill et al. 1%81R &llen and 5"ekstra 1%%*C. &llen and 5"ekstra B1%%*I %*C 6r"vide a dramati$
ill!strati"n "f the differen$e /et.een the 6"6!lati"n-$"mm!nit' and e$"s'stem 6ers6e$tives in e$"l"g'?
-er%(aion ' +l alone canE sol#e
ritical attitude must "e com"ined with policy proposals
)5EN@8EN@L@4EM
A critical attitude towards technology seems to involve a suggestion towards the necessity of action and
change. 3!t !6"n .hat /asisN +here are t." iss!es? 1C (uch change is possi"leR *C (uch change should
occur. 3"th "f these are entailed /' NaessGs statement that :ontrary to e$pectation, ur"anized life has
not killed human fascination with free nature, "ut only made the access more difficult and promoted
mass tourism.;1*( +he sit!ati"n is n"t h"6eless. 3!t an "/Oe$ti"n t" the vag!eness "r la$k "f 6res$ri6ti"ns
$"!ld /e raised? P.hat e-a$tl' are .e t" d" a/"!t thisNG 2hat demand is the dee6 e$"l"gist e-6e$ted t"
satisf' .ith this K!esti"nN S"me demands are $"nsistent .ith nat!reI and $an th!s /e metR "thers are n"t.
Naess .rites? The Future in /ur 9ands is actively associating consciousness and lifestyle change with
direct action. Attempts at a change in lifestyle cannot wait for the implementation of policies which
render such change more or less required. The demand for a Knew system& first is misguided and can
lead to passivity. +he same a66lies t" 6ers"nal lifest'le $hange firstI and $"nseK!ent is"lati"n fr"m 6"liti$al
a$ti"n. +hese t." $hanges m!st 6r"$eed sim!ltane"!sl'. Changes have t" /e made fr"m the inside and fr"m
the "!tsideI all in "ne.1*1 ,ine? /!t f"r the seeker "f m"re e-6li$it ans.ersI s"me statements $an still /e
"ffered. (ociety ,cannot adopt different aims and values unless the way of production is altered.-1**
@ne "/vi"!s .a' t" a$hieve 6r"d!$ti"n shift in an "riginall' demand-driven e$"n"m' is thr"!gh demand
shift. The power of "oycotts and product information campaigns derives from the original rootedness
of market progress in demand. #r"ni$all'I s" t"" d"es the advertising ind!str'. 3!t there are many ways to
achieve such a shift. The ne$t section investigates more in depth the common qualities the any deep
ecological activism will share insofar as it qualifies as an Kecosophy&.
The only way the alt will solve is through valuing "oth the intrinsic value of nature along
with our knowledge of it
;ee E B2end' L'nneI >e6artment "f )hil"s"6h'I 3l""ms/!rg =niversit' "f )enns'lvaniaI Ethi$s )la$e and Envir"nmentI <"l. 8I N". *I *30
*0(I +he &estheti$ &66re$iati"n "f Nat!reI S$ientifi$ @/Oe$tivit'I and the Stand6"int "f the S!/O!gated? &nthr"6"$entrism Reimagined/9!ne *((0
Dy view is that a more realistic appraisal of the epistemic conditions under which we make claims and
'udgments can ground a view of aesthetic appreciation that avoids Carls"nGs dilemma, and that neither
requires an e$pert as the sole su"'ect of aesthetic e$perience nor e$cludes the possi"ility that scientific
knowledge may deepen and enhance that e$perience. &s # s!ggested earlierI # take these $"nditi"ns t" /e indigen"!sl'
anthr"6"$entri$ in the $aref!ll' K!alified sense that the' are inf"rmed /' the 6er$e6t!alI $"gnitiveI and s"mati$ sit!atedness .hi$h
defines "!r s6e$ifi$ and ev"lving s6e$ies mem/ershi6. +" reiterate, this is not to imply that human knowing is merely
su"'ective5 it is to suggest that it is permeated and limited "y the particular perceptual, cognitive, and
somatic features which characterize us as a species of interdependent animal. To take our epistemic
situatedness seriously, . suggest, offers us the uniquely moral opportunity to take responsi"ility for not
only what we say we know Bthat .hales are n"t fishesCI "ut how we say we come to know Bin virt!e "f the
/est s$ientifi$ eviden$e availa/leC. .t offers us the opportunity to engage in critical self1reflection upon
our epistemic conditions in light of the identities we claim as knowers. &m"ng the virt!es "f s!$h an a66r"a$h is
that /' inviting !s t" refle$t !6"n "!r e6istemi$ $"nditi"nsI it makes 6"ssi/le the f!rther eval!ati"n "f fa$t"rs .hi$h &nthr"6"$entrism
Reimagined *41 im/!e themI f"r e-am6leI the e-tent t" .hi$hI as feminist the"rists like R"nnie 5a.kins 6ers!asivel' arg!eI kn".ing is
n"t "nl' anthr"6"$entri$I /!t ethn"$entri$I andr"$entri$I and heter"$entri$. C"ntrar'I h".everI t" s"me feminist and n"nfeminist
a$$"!ntsI . suggest that these Kisms& do not necessarily follow from human1centerednessC however natural
they may appear, they are the product of a comple$ set of human interactions with human and
nonhuman nature which could have "een otherwise. 2hat d"es f"ll". is that human institutions,
including those we rightly su"'ect to criticism, are as much dependent on our relationship with
nonhuman nature as are the epistemic conditions .hi$h give rise t" them B/!t $"!ld !nder different s"$ialI $!lt!ralI and
6"liti$al $"nditi"ns give rise t" "thersC. 5en$e the $entral a-i"l"gi$al K!esti"ns? 5". $an taking e6istemi$ res6"nsi/ilit' f"r the
6er$e6t!alI s"mati$I $"gnitiveI and em"tive feat!res "f "!r s6e$ies mem/ershi6I feat!res that serve t" remind !s "f "!r interde6endent
relati"nshi6 .ith n"nh!man nat!reI hel6 !s t" arti$!late a vie. "f the aestheti$ a66re$iati"n "f nat!ral "/Oe$ts and 6hen"menaN Can s!$h
a vie. "f aestheti$ a66re$iati"n gr"!nd a m"re e$"l"gi$all' res6"nsi/le eth"sN
-er%(aion ' +.= Coopion
A non1radical, cooperative political solution is the only way to "uild a "roader, deeper
environmental consensus, not the L alone.
1%%*C
.f we are to preserve the earth, environmentalists must forge the "roadest possi"le coalition. Da'or
changes need to "e made in pu"lic policy, changes that will require massive pu"lic support. +hat
s!66"rt $an "nl' /e "/tained /' a66ealing t" a $entrist $"aliti"n. Eet at 6resentI the large $enter gr"!nd "f
&meri$an v"tersI th"se .h" find merit in a66eals /"th t" e$"n"mi$ effi$ien$' and t" s"$ial O!sti$e and
envir"nmental 6r"te$ti"nI is largel' .ith"!t an arti$!lated 6latf"rm. )art' stal.artsI let al"ne radicals, often
regard moderates with contempt, viewing them as ideological weaklings unwilling to take a stand. #
."!ld arg!e the "66"site. #f .e are t" take seri"!sl' the task "f devising a s!staina/le f!t!reI it is essential
to admit that worthwhile ideas may "e found on "oth sides of this overdrawn political divide. &s E. 9.
>i"nne B 1%%1?*7C s" /rilliantl' arg!esI .hat is ne$essar' is the $reati"n "f a ne. 6"liti$al $enter that av"ids T/land
$entrismT and instead seeks t" /!ild a gen!ine T$"aliti"n f"r s"$ial ref"rm.T Sin$e $riti$al the"rists rightl' 6"int "!t that
all .riting is inf"rmed /' a 6"liti$al 6ers6e$tiveI it is desira/le t" s6e$if' 6re$isel' the 6"liti$al stan$e fr"m .hi$h this
."rk is $"m6"sed. #n sim6lest termsI # ."!ld identif' m'self as a li/eral m"derate. +he m"difier Tli/eralT is a66"site
/e$a!se the great maO"rit' "f the 6"siti"ns taken hereI /"th e-6li$itl' and im6li$itl'I ."!ld /e $"mm"nl' $lassified as
left "f $enter. 8"re"verI # f!ll' $"n$!r .ith >avid 3arash B 1%%*C that the fundamental need is to humanize
capitalism, a 6r"Oe$t that he defines as the core of contemporary li"eralism. 3!t the essential term remains
Tm"derateT /e$a!se "f m' insisten$e that dial"g!e and neg"tiati"n m!st /e $arried "!t a$r"ss the $entral
divide "f &meri$an ide"l"g'. .n order to "uild an adequately "road environmental consensus, we should
endeavor to make that divide as permea"le to ideas as we possi"ly can. .t is especially important that
environmentalists work with the leaders of the largest corporations. !ithout corporate consent, a far1
reaching environmental reform program will prove chimerical. &s .ill /e dis$!ssed in $ha6ter f"!rI
s"me $"m6anies have alread' made signifi$ant envir"nmental strides. S!$h firms are now working with
moderate environmental groups, a process that has great potential if it is not undermined "y eco1
e$tremists.
-er% ' -olicy/4o#ern%en +cion Dey
#olicy actions are essential to solving for deep ecology
Gevington PE B9"hnI Lhtt6?//....rainf"restinf"."rg.a!/dee6-e$"/dee6.htmM >ee6 E$"l"g' is n"t En"!gh/ date last
$ited in arti$leC
+r!eI h!manit'Us !nderl'ing 6r"/lems are n"t 6"liti$al. +r!eI working on a purely political level is futile in
the long run. 3!t that does not mean that looking for political solutions is futile5 in fa$tI it is essential in
the short run. .f we fail to find political solutions in the short run, there isnIt going to "e any long run.
The Terania reek rainforests are a fe. kil"metres fr"m .here # live. +he' wouldnIt "e there, had it n"t
/een for the h!ndreds "f people who protested their planned logging in the earl' 1%8(s. +hose protests
were clearly political, and they resulted in a political solution to the threat posed /' the tim/er ind!str'
t" NS2 rainf"rests. #nterestingl'I this 6"liti$al a$ti"n .as f"r man' "f the 6r"testers a dee6l' s6irit!al
e-6erien$e .hi$h has 6r"vided the im6et!s f"r f!rther 6"liti$al a$ti"n in defen$e "f f"rests. There are
countless e$amples of natural places all over the world that would no longer e$ist, had human "eings
not engaged in political action to save them from other human "eings. !ithout political actionI there
would "e no m"re natural world to "e Ecologically Beep a"out. &nd the e-am6le "f +erania Creek sh".s
that 6"liti$al a$ti"n and a sense "f reveren$e f"r the nat!ral ."rld $an g" t"gether. +he' d"nUt e-$l!de ea$h
"therR the' $"m6lement ea$h "ther. #olitical action is essential, and in many cases, it is the insights of
Beep Ecology which inspire political action.
The perm solves1 deep ecology recognizes that shallow environmentalism and policy actions
are necessary to solve the alternative
van !yck P7 B)eterI &ss"$iate )r"fess"r C"mm!ni$ati"n St!diesI C"n$"rdia =niversit'I )rimitives in the
2ildernessI 6. 4(C
.n their introduction to deep ecological thinking, they descri"e deep ecology as a way of developing a
new "alance and harmony "etween individual, communities and all of nature. #t $an 6"tentiall' satisf'
"!r dee6est 'earnings? faith and tr!st in "!r m"st /asi$ int!iti"nsR $"!rage t" take dire$t a$ti"nR O"'"!s $"nfi-
den$e t" dan$e .ith the sens!"!s harm"nies dis$"vered thr"!gh the s6"ntane"!sI 6la'f!l inter$"!rse .ith the
rh'thm "f "!r /"diesI the rh'thms "f fl".ing .aterI $hanges in the .eather and the seas"nsI and the "verall
6r"$ess "f life "n Earth.0% Beep ecology acknowledges that the policies and positions of Jshal lowJ
environmentalism are "oth necessary and useful, "ut involves itself with another more inclusive
program to alter human conscious ness. Beveloping a deep ecological consciousness involves work on
the self, cultivating the sense that Jeverything is connected.JJ
#erm1 Derely providing information will not solve, government action will "e key to
address the issues of environmental philosophy1 this is as solvency deficit to the alt
5".everI environmental policy research has shown clearly that the mere provision of information will
never "e sufficient to realise decisive changes. The governments will have to initiate refle$ive and
"road social de"ates in which they critically address their citizens on their roles as Kresponsi"le&
consumers. #t ma' /e e-6e$ted that when the citizens are actively involved in these open and multi1level
social discussions "n the "verall red!$ti"n "f $"ns!m6ti"n levels and the val!e "f earth-friendl' lifest'lesI
they will recognise the advantages of a different attitude a"out wasting less resources and treating
nature with greater care.
-er% - -oliical Dey
.nstitutional engagement is a prerequisite to the alternative.
=ough *) BSte6hen 4"!gh is a mem/er "f the Centre f"r Resear$h in Ed!$ati"n and the Envir"nment "f the
=niversit' "f 3ath. :Right ans.ers "r .r"ng 6r"/lemsN +".ards a the"r' "f $hange f"r envir"nmental learning;
+he +r!m6eter 18.1 B*((*C htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./1**/133 a$$essed 9!l' 7I
*((8C
+" ill!strateI $"nsider the e-am6le "f a hypothetical stretch of tropical coast1 line that has hithert" /een
little visited /' "!tsiders and that s!66"rts a small l"$al 6"6!lati"n. +his 6la$eI $"nsidered as a te-tI will "e
read quite differ1 ently "y an economist, a "iologist, an engineer, a !estern travel writer, and a local
poet and songwriter. +he first three menti"nedI at leastI .ill have /een trained B/' an "rgani7ati"nal
instit!ti"nC t" read envir"nments in 6arti$!lar .a's. Each will "e influenced in the form of their reading
"y the organizational institutions to which they "elong Bsa'I in the $ase "f the e$"n"mistI a 6rivate firm "r
a g"vernment de6artmentC and the $!lt!ral instit!ti"ns /' .hi$h the' are infl!en$ed Bt" take the e-am6le "f
the e$"n"mist again? val!e-f"r-m"ne'I "r 4>) gr".thC. Their readings may "e in conflict. !hich of them
su"sequently, through their practices, influences events the most and so has the greatest input into the
rewriting of the environment is likely to "e decided not "y the force of their respective arguments "ut
"y the power of their respective organizational institutions B"f .hi$h their arg!ments are /!t "ne
res"!r$eC. 5".everI it is their different arg!mentsI and different f"rms "f arg!mentI that are likel' t" seem a
6r"6er f"$!s f"r the design "f an' ed!$ati"nal "r 6"li$' interventi"ns. .f, su"sequently, the economist&s
cost1"enefit analysis is influencial in a decision to "uild a tourist hotel comple$, this will constitute a
ma 'or re1writing of the environment. 5".everI the res!lting te-t .ill /e different fr"m that "riginall'
envisaged in an' 6lan. +his is /e$a!se the environment will unquestiona"ly change in ways that have not
"een fully predicted "y anyone. ;ike life itself, environmental issues are characterized not only "y
uncertainty "ut also "y ,ir1 reduci"le ignorance and the related concepts of surprise and novelty.;11
+hese $hanges .ill themselves then /e read /' ea$h "f "!r five a$t"rs in .a's .hi$hI "n$e m"reI refle$t the
6arti$!lar litera$' the' /ring t" /ear in $"nO!n$ti"n .ith their instit!ti"nal affiliati"ns. &s /ef"reI none of
them will "e wrong. A learning or policy initiative focused e$clusively on any one of their literacies
would not "e useless. .t would merely "e incomplete in two waysC "ecause it ignored the other literacies
and "ecause it failed to engage with the influence of institutions.
!e must use the self1motivating social li"eral system in order to incorporate more creative
approaches to the environment
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
+he advantage "f any self8organizing system, social or natu ralI is that it can effectively integrate far
more information than could "e grasped "y any participant. ,!rtherI it can allow a great variety of
individual pro'ects to "e pursued, each in a way which, on "alance, generates information and
resources useful for other people to pursue their plans. The more a system incorporates self8organizing
processes the more creative and intelligent it will "ecome in its interactions with its wider environment.
#t is here that the evolutionary li"erals can teach ecocentric thinkers. ,"r "/vi"!s reas"nsI deep ecologists
have "een very critical of li"eral market society. As a result, deep ecologists often take positions which
ignore the evolutionary li"eral criticisms of political direction, and insights on how to approach
pro"lemsI even .hen these arg!ments ."!ld $"ntri/!te mightil' t" their ".n !nderstanding "f .h' 6"liti$al
$"ntr"l has s!$h a darkl' $he$kered re$"rd .hen a66lied t" envir"nmental iss!es.71
-er%(aion ' Shallo1 Ecology
.t .s Essential To om"ine Ecophilosophy !ith (hallow Environmentalism
Reed %% 2#eter, Beep Ecology Author and #rofessor at Mniversity of Dinnesota,
)hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es? &rne Naess and the )r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I 6g 1%*C
#n an' $ase, the idea that ecophilosophy should mesh with the intuitions of envi ronmentalists is a"solutely
essential. #f environmental philosophy is going to "e useful in the environmental movement, it has to make
sense to activists5 it must give them conceptual tools and arguments with which to fight ecological degra 1
dation. .t has to "e $"mm"n-sensi$al en"!gh that it is easil' gras6a/leI and at the same time revolutionary
enough that it points to reasons for changing our "ehavior. Even if Bas is d"!/tf!lC 6e"6le d" .r"ng "nl'
/e$a!se the' d"nUt !nderstand nat!reUs val!esI h". is ever'"ne g"ing t" /e 6ers!aded t" !nderstand th"se
val!es the .a' envir"nmentalists d"N Academic philosophy can and should "e a start at persuasion, "ut it
cannot do the 'o" without hel6.
-er%(aion - Sol#ency
.nstitutional engagement is a prerequisite to the alternative.
=niversit' "f 3ath. :Right ans.ers "r .r"ng 6r"/lemsN +".ards a the"r' "f $hange f"r envir"nmental learning;
+he +r!m6eter 18.1 B*((*C htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./1**/133 a$$essed 9!l' 7I
*((8C
+" ill!strateI $"nsider the e-am6le "f a hypothetical stretch of tropical coast1 line that has hithert" /een
little visited /' "!tsiders and that s!66"rts a small l"$al 6"6!lati"n. +his 6la$eI $"nsidered as a te-tI will "e
read quite differ1 ently "y an economist, a "iologist, an engineer, a !estern travel writer, and a local
poet and songwriter. +he first three menti"nedI at leastI .ill have /een trained B/' an "rgani7ati"nal
instit!ti"nC t" read envir"nments in 6arti$!lar .a's. Each will "e influenced in the form of their reading
"y the organizational institutions to which they "elong Bsa'I in the $ase "f the e$"n"mistI a 6rivate firm "r
a g"vernment de6artmentC and the $!lt!ral instit!ti"ns /' .hi$h the' are infl!en$ed Bt" take the e-am6le "f
the e$"n"mist again? val!e-f"r-m"ne'I "r 4>) gr".thC. Their readings may "e in conflict. !hich of them
su"sequently, through their practices, influences events the most and so has the greatest input into the
rewriting of the environment is likely to "e decided not "y the force of their respective arguments "ut
"y the power of their respective organizational institutions B"f .hi$h their arg!ments are /!t "ne
res"!r$eC. 5".everI it is their different arg!mentsI and different f"rms "f arg!mentI that are likel' t" seem a
6r"6er f"$!s f"r the design "f an' ed!$ati"nal "r 6"li$' interventi"ns. .f, su"sequently, the economist&s
cost1"enefit analysis is influencial in a decision to "uild a tourist hotel comple$, this will constitute a
ma 'or re1writing of the environment. 5".everI the res!lting te-t .ill /e different fr"m that "riginall'
envisaged in an' 6lan. +his is /e$a!se the environment will unquestiona"ly change in ways that have not
"een fully predicted "y anyone. ;ike life itself, environmental issues are characterized not only "y
uncertainty "ut also "y ,ir1 reduci"le ignorance and the related concepts of surprise and novelty.;11
+hese $hanges .ill themselves then /e read /' ea$h "f "!r five a$t"rs in .a's .hi$hI "n$e m"reI refle$t the
6arti$!lar litera$' the' /ring t" /ear in $"nO!n$ti"n .ith their instit!ti"nal affiliati"ns. &s /ef"reI none of
them will "e wrong. A learning or policy initiative focused e$clusively on any one of their literacies
would not "e useless. .t would merely "e incomplete in two waysC "ecause it ignored the other literacies
and "ecause it failed to engage with the influence of institutions.
.nstitutionalized activism not enough, we must include "oth the aff and neg competing
meta1literacies.
=niversit' "f 3ath. 5e is als" >ire$t"r "f St!dies f"r &dvan$ed C"!rses in the >e6artment "f Ed!$ati"n. :Right
ans.ers "r .r"ng 6r"/lemsN +".ards a the"r' "f $hange f"r envir"nmental learning; +he +r!m6eter 18.1 B*((*C
htt6?//tr!m6eter.atha/as$a!.$a/inde-.6h6/tr!m6et/arti$le/vie./1**/133 a$$essed 9!l' 7I *((8C
NeverthelessI in relati"n t" e$"n"m' and s"$iet'I it is the struggle "etween competitive and cooperative
approaches that dominates most accounts of recent history. 8ean.hile, in our conceptualization of the
environment, the tension "etween competition and cooperation continues to loom large. R"ss*1
identifies Dalthusian and Gomantic views of 4ature which are at the same time "oth contradictory and
socially pervasive. +he first sees the envir"nment as a site "f s$ar$it'I 6redati"nI and .arfare. +he se$"nd
sees it as a 6la$e "f diversit' and interde6enden$e. +" 6"int this "!t is n"t t" sa' that the se6arati"n "f
$"m6le- "/ Oe$ts "f th"!ght a$$"rding t" .hether the' a66ear t" /e $"m6etitive "r $""6erative is .r"ng in
itself. #t is a 6"tentiall' !sef!l anal'ti$al devi$e. !hat has happened, however, is that this distinction has
"ecome, in !estern thought, the "asis of two competing, overarching meta1literacies. These have
sometimes "een referred to as worldviews)) and are "ften ass"$iated .ith the s"rts "f $laims made a/"!t
6aradigms n"ted earlier. Those literacies and practices which favour policies such as the promotion of
social learning and sustaina"le development, and those institutional conte$ts which provide them with
a home tend, at present, to "e those that are most disposed to favour cooperative solutions as a matter
of principle. At a meta1level they lie "roadly within what we might now term the ,cooperative
worldview.; +his sh"!ld n"t /e s!r6risingI sin$e s!staina/le devel"6ment and s"$ial learning are res6"nses
t" 6r"/lem-definiti"ns that th"se 6ers"ns and gr"!6s dis6"sed t" val!e $"m6etiti"n-/ased s"l!ti"ns are less
likel' t" a$kn".ledge. To propose "alanced solutions from this starting point is perhaps not entirely
unhelpful, "ut on all sides there is a need to consider alternative ways of defining the pro"lems if
effective social learning is to occur.
#ermutation - Solven!y
As our capacity to care for nature grows, we "reak from the enslavement of modern ethics
to a freer spirituality
7710-34 )>, a$$essed 9!l' 1I *((8C
,ar fr"m gl"rif'ing the rati"nal $al$!lat"rI fr"m this vantage li"eralism urges us to develop our uniquely
human potential for empathy as widely and deeply as possi"le. +he $"mm"n $"mm!nitarian $harge that
li/eralism denies the 6"ssi/ilit' "f a m"ral $"mm!nit' is falseI ins"far as it is a66lied t" the ev"l!ti"nar'
traditi"n.0* !e are led to a inspiring standard for human e$cellence, one largely harmonious with the
worldIs dominant spiritual traditions. +" the e-tent a 6ers"n agrees .ith the arg!ment # am makingI he "r
she .ill .ant t" a$t in a s'm6atheti$ manner t".ard all their relati"ns. Ethics in its traditional gar" as a set
of commands and prohi"itions su"stitutes for gaps and failures in our understanding. As such it is
important for ine$perienced or ignorant people. &nd all "f !s are ine-6erien$ed and ign"rant t" s"me
degree. 9owever, sympathetic relationships with others are e$pansions, not limitations upon our selves.
#n this sense as our capacity to care for others grows, we "ecome more free.03
Deep Ecology F Eco ' /ascis%
Beep ecology is rooted in ecofascism
Negers ) B)eterI +he #nstit!te f"r S"$ial E$"l"g' L htt6?//$"mm!nalism."rg/&r$hive/3/ds6e.htmlM +he >ark Side
"f )"liti$al E$"l"g'/ >e$em/er *((*C
Beep ecology is a vague and formless concept and one can find all kinds of mi$tures of reactionary
and seemingly progressive ideas in it. >ee6 e$"l"gists $laim ver' different thinkers as 6i"neers "f dee6 e$"l"g'I "ne $an f"r
e-am6le find 5eidegger al"ngside S6in"7a. N" eff"rt is made t" e-6lain h". these ver' different thinkers $an /e r!/ri$ated in the same
$ateg"r'. C"mmenting "n this la$k "f $"heren$e &rne Ncss .r"te? :2h' 4lei$hs$halt!ngN 2h' m"n"lithi$ ide"l"giesN 2e have had
en"!gh "f th"se in /"th E!r"6ean and ."rld hist"r'.; B3C T o put a demand for coherence on a par with a 4azi
operation is telling enough and reveals his limited understanding of fascism. 4]ss continues in the
same arti$le? :#t would, in my view, "e a cultural disaster for humankind if one philosophy or one
religion were to "ecome esta"lished on earth. .t would "e a disaster if future =reen societies were so
similar that they "locked the development of deep cultural differences.; B4C >"es this als" a66l' t" h!man rights
and dem"$ra$'N #n an"ther intervie. he stated? :>iversit' in ever' as6e$t "f "!r e-isten$e sh"!ld /e a n"rmI .hether it is /i"diversit'I
$!lt!ral diversit' "r e$"n"mi$ diversit'. >iversit' "f ideas is als" ver' im6"rtant. #f .e th"!ght that there is "ne $"rre$t ideaI "ne
a/s"l!te tr!thI "ne right .a' t" s!staina/ilit'I then .e might end !6 $reating a kind "f e$"-fas$ism. #t is "nl' thr"!gh m!lti6li$it'I
6l!ralit'I diversit' and in$l!sivit' that .e $an find self-reali7ati"n. +here is n" "ne final definiti"n "f self-reali7ati"n. Ever'"ne .ill find
their ".n meaning in this ."rd. +hr"!gh dee6 K!esti"ning .e $"me t" dee6 e$"l"g' and thr"!gh dee6 e$"l"g' .e $"me t" self-
reali7ati"nI /!t all this means n"thing. #t remains a kind "f the"r'. #t is thr"!gh 6ra$ti$e that .e find reali7ati"n. &s ea$h "ne "f !s has
"!r ".n /"d'I .e have "!r ".n Preali7ati"nG.; B0C Day"e "ecause of this limited understanding of eco1fascism
4]ss does not mind "eing pu"lished "y e$treme right wing pu"lications in ,ran$e and #tal'. #ndeed his ideas
/ear a $l"se resem/lan$e t" the Uethn"-6l!ralismU adv"$ated /' &lain de 3en"ist and "thers in the N"!velle >r"ite. &meri$an a!th"r
Firk6atri$k SaleI .h" is ver' $l"se t" dee6 e$"l"g'I is ver' $lear a/"!t the fa$t that democracy and human rights need not
"e respected, "ut that we instead should respect the denial of democracy and human rightsQ Firk6atri$k
Sale .r"te? :>%ioregional diversity? does not mean that every community in a "ioregion, every
su"region within an ecoregion, every ecoregion on a continent, would construct itself along the same
lines, evolve the same political forms. Dost particularly it does not mean that every "ioregion would "e
likely to heed the values of democracy, equality, li"erty, freedom, 'ustice and the like, the sort that the
li"eral American tradition proclaims. +r!l' a!t"n"m"!s /i"regi"ns ."!ld inevita/l' g" in se6arate and n"t ne$essaril'
$"m6lementar' .a'sI $reating their ".n 6"liti$al s'stems a$$"rding t" their ".n envir"nmental settings and their ".n e$"l"gi$al needs.
Eco$ascis% F 4enoci!e
Ecofascism is genocide hiding under the cloak of environmentalism.
(taudenmaier PQ B)eter Lhtt6?//....s6!nk."rg/te-ts/6la$es/german'/s6((113(/6eter.htmlM ,as$ist E$"l"g'?
+he T4reen 2ingT "f the Na7i )art' and its 5ist"ri$al &nte$edents
+" make this disma'ing and dis$"mf"rting anal'sis m"re 6alata/leI it is tem6ting t" dra. 6re$isel' the .r"ng $"n$l!si"n --namel'I that
even the m"st re6rehensi/le 6"liti$al !ndertakings s"metimes 6r"d!$e la!da/le res!lts. 3!t the real less"n here is O!st the "66"site?
Even the most lauda"le of causes can "e perverted and instrumentalized in the service of criminal
savagery. The Jgreen wingJ of the 4(BA# was not a group of innocents, confused and manipulated
idealists, "r ref"rmers fr"m .ithinR they were conscious promoters and e$ecutors of a vile program
e$plicitly dedicated to inhuman racist violence, massive political repression and worldwide military
domination. Their IecologicalI involvementsI far fr"m "ffsetting these f!ndamental $"mmitmentsI
deepened and radicalized them. #n the endI their configuration of environmental politics was directly
and su"stantially responsi"le for organized mass murder. 4o aspect of the 4azi pro'ect can "e
properly understood without e$amining its implication in the holocaust. 9ere, too, ecological
arguments played a crucially malevolent role. 4ot only did the Jgreen wingJ refur"ish the sanguine
antisemitism of traditional reactionary ecology5 it $atal'7ed a .h"le ne. "!t/!rst "f l!rid ra$ist fantasies "f "rgani$
invi"la/ilit' and 6"liti$al revenge. The confluence of anti1humanist dogma with a fetishization of natural
IpurityI provided not merely a rationale "ut an incentive for the Third GeichIs most heinous crimes. #ts
insidi"!s a66eal !nleashed m!rder"!s energies 6revi"!sl' !nta66ed. ,inall'I the displacement of any social
analysis of environmental destruction in favor of mystical ecology served as an integral component in
the preparation of the final solutionC To e$plain the destruction of the countryside and environmental
damage, without questioning the =erman peopleIs "ond to nature, could only "e done "y not analysing
environmental damage in a societal conte$t and "y refusing to understand them as an e$pression of
conflicting social interest s. 5ad this /een d"neI it ."!ld have led t" $riti$ism "f Nati"nal S"$ialism itself sin$e that .as n"t
imm!ne t" s!$h f"r$es. @ne s"l!ti"n .as t" ass"$iate s!$h envir"nmental 6r"/lems .ith the destr!$tive infl!en$e "f "ther ra$es.
Nati"nal S"$ialism $"!ld then /e seen t" strive f"r the eliminati"n "f "ther ra$es in "rder t" all". the 4erman 6e"6leUs innate
!nderstanding and feeling "f nat!re t" assert itselfI hen$e se$!ring a harm"ni$ life $l"se t" nat!re f"r the f!t!re.14 This is the true
legacy of ecofascism in powerC Jgenocide developed into a necessity under the cloak of environment
protection.T10
Deep Ecology F Na6i
Beep Ecological .deals Are The %asis For 4azi ;egislation
%ratton PP 2(usan #ower, #rofessor at !hitworth ollege, ,;uc Ferry&s ritique of Beep
Ecology, 4azi 4ature #rotection ;aws, and Environmental Anti1(emitism-, Ethics and the
Environment, Aol. 7, 4o. <, <PPP, #g <E3
!erry "ccuses the #erm"ns of re$ecting the hum"ni%ed l"ndsc"&e of the !rench Enlightenment "nd the
geometric g"rdens of !rench cl"ssicism. !erry (1''(. &. ')) cl"ims th"t Jthe philosophical
underpinnings of 4azi legislation often overlap with those developed "y deep ecology, and for this
reason can not he underestimated* +n ,oth c"ses, -e "re de"ling -ith " s"me romantic and/or sentimental
re&resent"tion of the rel"tionshi& ,et-een n"ture "nd culture, com,ined -ith " sh"red rev"lori%"tion of
the primitive st"te "g"inst th"t of ("lleged) civili%"tion." .iefenst"hl/s Olympiad ,egins, ho-ever, -ith
" #reek runner c"rrying the torch of civili%"tion to #erm"ny. 0he 0hird .eich cl"imed to he the true
heir of -estern culture, not its "ntithesis, "nd "rgued th"t #erm"n "rt, &hiloso&hy, "nd music -ere
su&erior to th"t of "ny other n"tion. !erry infers th"t tod"y/s interest in &rotecting the environment"l
rights of indigenous &eo&les is sus&ect, ,ec"use it suggests th"t "&rimitive" or "n"tur"l" &eo&les "re in
h"rmony -ith their surroundings, r"ther th"n f"lling to the curse of u&rooted modernity. Ferry (1''(. &.
11(3 suggests that the deep ecologists "elieve that JTheir >primitive peoplesI? culture, similar to animal
ways of life, is a prolongation of nature5 it is this ideal conciliation that modernity issued from the
French Gevolution has destroyed and which it is now a matter of restoring." 0he ide"li%"tion of "
&rimitive or "golden "ge" or of nonindustri"l environments is common&l"ce in -estern "rt "nd
&hiloso&hy "nd is "t le"st "s old "s .om"n conce&ts of Arc"di". !erry/s c"su"l "ssoci"tion of 2"%i
"dmir"tion for "ncient forests ("n "d"&t"tion of rom"nticism) -ith dee& ecology/s concerns for
indigenous &eo&les does not m"ke the t-o "&&ro"ches ethic"l "n"logs ("l though they "lmost cert"inly
sh"re some historic roots). A dedic"ted 2"%i -ould, in contr"st to the dee& ecologist, ,elieve th"t
environment"l m"n"gement ,y Afric"n tri,es or ,y 3outh Americ"n "first &eo&les" is v"stly
inferior to th"t of "civili%ed Ary"ns."
Beep Ecologists Dake laims (imilar To 4azi .deologies
Aol. )7, 4o. 7, F(T/G3
5". 6e"6le in the 2est have seen nat!re has varied $"nsidera/l' "ver re$ent $ent!riesI fr"m the medieval
de6i$ti"n "f nat!re in the T4reat Chain "f 3eingT t" Enlightenment distan$ing and T6r"gressT "ver nat!reI t"
r"manti$ist desires f"r h!man reintegrati"n .ith nat!reI t" $"!nterr"manti$ist Tden!n$iati"ns "f the K!est f"r
h!manist redem6ti"n thr"!gh Unat!reTU BS"6erI 1%%0? 3*CI ranging fr"m 3a!delaire and @s$ar 2ilde t"
,"!$a!lt. 2ith this ver' /r"ad dis$!rsive heritage BO!st in the 2estCI it d"es seem remarka/le h".
simplistically notions of nature are sometimes treated within green literature, ecocentric or otherwise.
There is a tendency to fall "ack on romanticist "eliefs, idealizing the JinnocenceJ of preindustrial
hunter1gatherer societies where life was supposedly Jshared with the "ird, "ear, insects, plants,
mountains, clouds, star, sunJ BSteinerI 1%71? 113R K!"ted in Sessi"nsI 1%%0? 108R $f. 4len- dinningI 1%%0C.
Eet as Eri$ >arier n"tesI TFustifying human actions in the name of InatureI leaves the unresolved
pro"lem of whose 2human3 voice will "e legitimate to speak for InatureTU B1%%%? *4C. &s S"6er $"mmentsI
TGomantic conceptions of InatureI as wholesale salvation from cultural decadence and racial
degeneration were crucial to the construction of 4azi ideologyT B1%%0? 3*C. &nd as Jimmerman "/servesI
alth"!gh dee6 e$"l"g' ma' n"t lead t" e$"fas$ismI there are Ts"me distur"ing parallels "etween 4azi
rhetoric and the claims made "y deep ecologistsT BJimmermanI 1%%4? 173-174C. #n s!mI ."rk s!$h as that
"f S"6erI >arierI and Jimmerman s!ggests that "!r n"ti"ns "f nat!re are "6en t" $"ntestati"n and dis6!te.U
Deep EcoF >ppressi#e -oliics
Beep ecology undermines political equality, allowing for coercion. These social forces will
make destruction of the "iosphere inevita"le
Beep ecology has little to say a"out political equalityI tending t".ards a $"nservative 6"siti"n that
s!66"rts the e-isting s"$ial and e$"n"mi$ stat!s K!". Ed.ard &//e' is in fav"r "f st"66ing all immigrati"n
int" the =S /' strengthening /"rder f"r$es and >ave ,"reman has $alled f"r $!r/ing immigrati"n fr"m
8e-i$" and Central &meri$a. S!$h 6ra$ti$al $"mments raise im6"rtant iss!es. .f the population in a
particular area "ecomes too large according to the principles of deep ecology, who decides who must
leave and who may stay0 Boes the decision come from within, from a sense of environmental altruism
or from outside "y coercion0 JThe flourishing of human life and cultures is compati"le with a
su"stantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non1human life requires such a
decrease.J >ee6 E$"l"g' )latf"rm 6rin$i6le ^0 3ill Bevall is more specific. A reduction in the "irthrate
must take place, Iespecially in third world nationsI. BUSim6le in 8eansI Ri$h in Ends? )ra$ti$ing >ee6
E$"l"g'UI 4reen )rint 1%%(C 5is choice is very odd given that the ecological impact of one American
child over the course of their lifetimes is equivalent to some E* "a"ies in %angladesh or 4ami"ia.
&meri$a is the first 6la$e that needs t" de6"6!late and >evallUs $"mments are ign"rant at /est and ra$ist at
."rst. Bevall and (essions do not question the distri"ution or ownership of land. +heir first 6rin$i6le "f
land management is t" Ten$"!rage agen$iesI legislat"rsI 6r"6ert' ".ners and managersT t" fl". .ith nat!ral
6r"$esses. U>ee6 E$"l"g'? Living as if Nat!re 8atteredU 6.140 Beep ecology is not concerned with who
should own land or whether land ownership is legitimate, "ut only with how it is treated. &t /est deep
ecology is a6"liti$alI and th"!gh it $laims t" /e /e'"nd s!$h distin$ti"nsI man' feel dee6 e$"l"g' tends
towards a right1wing perspective. S"$ial e$"l"gists and e$"feminists agree that not enough analysis is
done "y deep ecology of the social forces at work in the destruction of the "iosphere.
Deep Eco F +ni 5(%an
Beep Ecology is Disanthropic
Aol. )7, 4o. 7, F(T/G3
@ther .ritersI in$l!ding &l 4"re B1%%*CI have K!esti"ned .hether ecocentrism is fundamentally
misanthropic "ecause of the desire to remove Jthe privileged position of humans as the sole locus of
valueJ B)!rser et al.I 1%%0? 1(73C and live in Jharmony with natureT BShrivastavaI 1%%0? 131I +a/le 1R
Srikantia X 3ilim"riaI 1%%7? 3%0I +a/le 4C. Criti$s arg!e that s!$h ecocentrism tends toward an idealized
view of nature, which assumes that we can somehow give equality to Jpathogenic micro"es, animal
vectors of lethal diseasesT B3""k$hinI 1%%4? **C. +im L!ke arg!es that an e$"$entri$ ."!ld T/e /"!nd
ethi$all' t" save a Calif"rnia $"nd"r hat$hling "ver a h!man $hildI /e$a!se the f"rmer-given its rarit'-is
m!$h m"re val!a/leT B1%88? 87C.
Beep ecologists are "arely disguised racists and survivalists who compare to 9itler1 they
advocate nuclear war, starvation of entire countries and that A.B( is the solution to
overpopulation.
>ave Foreman, founder of Earth First\ which claims to draw inspiration from deep ecology, has made
several deeply misanthropic comments. T#t is rather 6ainf!l t" read a/"!t s"me "f the 6"siti"ns taken /'
the ,"reman fa$ti"n in the E.,Q 9"!rnal? f"r e-am6leI ,"reman arguing that even a nuclear war would not
"e that damaging to the Earth and would hasten the end of industrial society... and his remarks
elsewhere that we should Jallow Ethiopians to starveTR Christ"6her 8anes suggesting that one solution
to overpopulation would "e to dismantle the medical technology designed to save lives, and of A.B( as
4atureIs solution to overpopulationR and Reed N"ss .riting "f geneti$ Tdee6 e$"l"g' eliteT as a T$h"sen
6e"6leT "!t t" save the Earth B66. 14I 18I 83-84I %*-3I1(1-3C. 4e"rge Sessi"nsI 3""k Revie.? 8artha LeeI
Earth ,irstQ. +r!m6eter? 13I 4 B1%%1C Sessi"ns adds that if s!$h $"mments $laim t" dra. "n dee6 e$"l"g'
the' sh". a mis!nderstanding "f its 6hil"s"6h'. 8!rra' 3""k$hin $"mments? TThey are "arely disguised
racists, survivalists, macho Baniel %oones and outright social reactionaries who offer a vague, formless
often self contradictory and inverte"rate Lm"vementM and a kind of crude eco1"rutalism similar to
9itlerIs. Beep ecologists feed on human disasters, suffering and misery...Land are g!ilt' "f thinking
.hi$hM...legitimates e-tremel' regressiveI 6rimitivisti$ and even highl' rea$ti"nar' n"ti"ns.T Firk6atri$k
SaleI U+he $!tting edge? dee6 e$"l"g' and its $riti$sUI +he Nati"nI 8a' 14I 1%88 v*41 n 1% 617( >ee6
e$"l"g' itself reK!ires ever'"ne t" f"rm!late their ".n inter6retati"nI s" itUs diffi$!lt t" reOe$t "ne 6ers"ns
6"siti"n /e$a!se itUs !n$"mf"rta/l' rea$ti"nar'. >" >ave ,"remans ideas $"nf"rm t" the >ee6 E$"l"g'
)latf"rmN #f s"I he $an legitimatel' $laim t" /e 6art "f the m"vement.
Deep Ecologiss +!#ocae 5(%an E0er%inaion
Beep ecologists "elieves that the human race should "e e$terminated
Negers ) B)eterI +he #nstit!te f"r S"$ial E$"l"g' L htt6?//$"mm!nalism."rg/&r$hive/3/ds6e.htmlM +he >ark Side
"f )"liti$al E$"l"g'/ >e$em/er *((*C
Beep ecology is a very eclectic "ag of ideas and there are yet other features that are very distur"ing
"ecause of the reactionary implications. ,!ndamental f"r dee6 e$"l"g' is the $"m6letel' !nf"!nded
asserti"n that the e$"l"gi$al $risis is $a!sed /' U"ver6"6!lati"nU. +here is n"t a single line in the vast literat!re
"n dee6 e$"l"g' that e-6lains .h' this ."!ld /e the $ase. #t is sim6l' a matter "f faith f"r adherents "f dee6
e$"l"g' and /e$a!se "f thisI $ritiK!e "f this as6e$t has n"t res!lted in a $hange "f ideas in this matter. B13C
(ome of the supporters of deep ecology have pu"licly stated that A.B( and famines are natureIs
revenge on humankind and that we should not do anything a"out it. & $ase in 6"int is >ave Foreman,
an activist "f the envir"nmental dire$t a$ti"n gr"!6 Earth ,irstQI .h" said in an interview t" 3ill >evall?
:2hen . tell people how the worst we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid 8 the "est thing would "e to
'ust let nature seek its own "alance, to let the people there 'ust starve 8 they think that is monstrous.
3!t the alternative is that '"! g" in and save these half-dead $hildren .h" never .ill live a .h"le life. +heir
devel"6ment .ill /e st!nted. &nd .hat is g"ing t" ha66en in ten 'earsU time is that t.i$e as man' 6e"6le .ill
s!ffer and die. Like.iseI letting the =S& /e an "verfl". valve f"r 6r"/lems in Latin &meri$a is n"t s"lving a
thing. #t is O!st 6!tting m"re 6ress!re "n res"!r$es .e have in the =S&. #t is O!st $a!sing m"re destr!$ti"n "f
"!r .ildernessI m"re 6"is"ning "f .ater and airI and it is n"t hel6ing the 6r"/lems in Latin &meri$a.; B14C
N"t a single 6r"test against this raving .as !ttered /' >evallI "ne "f the leading e-6"nents "f dee6 e$"l"g'
in the =nited States. 2e !nderstand fr"m his statements at the 4"ld and 4reen $"nferen$e K!"ted a/"ve .h'
3ill >evall did n"t /"ther t" $"ntradi$t ,"reman. Beep ecology lacks a theory of the social causes of the
environmental crisis and the only solution they can think of is a reduction of population. 9ow to
achieve this is not made clear, "ut some supporters do not e$clude draconic, indeed eco1fascistic
measures.
Deep Ecological Ehics /ail
Their ethics eradicates the value of the individual, meaning that it cannot "e a force for
change alone.
2hile animal li/erati"nism e-6anded m"ral $"n$ern t" en$"m6ass all sentient /eingsI land ethi$s e-6anded
the m"ral $"n$ern t" the .h"le /i"ti$ $"mm!nit' and e$"s'stem. The general intuitive principles to "e
derived from the land ethical view included, KGespect nature&, K#reserve the forests&, or K#revent
distinguishing species.G +hese 6rin$i6les are $ertainl' !sef!l and im6"r- tant f"r the 6!r6"se "f rest"ring
nat!re. &lth"!gh they cannot "e a force for change on their ownI the' ma' /e effe$tive f"r the 6!r6"se "f
ed!$ating 6e"6le t".ards e$"l"g'-litera$'R A f"r the 6!r6"se "f making them $hange their attit!de t".ards
nat!re. The land ethic morally considers and respects not only our fellow1mem"ers, "ut also the "iotic
community as a whole. +he land ethi$ $"!ldI theref"reI /e divided into two versionsC one is the eco1
holism that contains moral consideration of fellow1mem"ers and also of the "iotic community5 the
other, is the eco1centrism that is concerned a"out "iological and ecological wholes 6 populations,
species, communities, ecosystems, 6 not a"out their individual constituents. +he g"lden r!le f"r the
latter versi"n "f land ethi$s isI a$$"rding t" Le"6"ldI :& thing is right .hen it tends t" 6reserve the integrit'I
sta/ilit'I and /ea!t' "f the /i"ti$ $"mm!nit'. #t is .r"ng .hen it tends "ther.ise.; #t is this kind of eco1
centric version of holism that isI a$$"rding t" Calli$"ttI P6re$isel' .hat makes the land ethics the
environmental ethics of choice among conservationists and ecologists.& 9owever, there is a pro"lemC if
the whole always outweighs its parts, and if the m"ral ma-im "f the land ethi$I as Calli$"tt 6!ts it, drops
the individual out of the picture altogether, then it will leave only the "iotic community as the o"'ect of
respect and moral consideration. #t f"ll".sI thenI that the individual "ecomes only a part of the organic
whole, without importance or value of its own.
Their environmental ethics is far too spiritual and unuseful alternative5 it prioritizes and
romanticizes the familiar environments while separating us from the total reality of nature.
The relationship "etween humans and nature is central to deep ecology? terms s!$h as Pinter- $"nne$tednessGI
Pinterde6endentGI Prelati"nalit'GI and Ph!man-earth relati"nG d"minate the litera- t!re. This "asic view of the human@nature
relationship corresponds with the view of nature that considers humans as a part of nature , A h!mans
interrelatedI inter6enetratedI and interde6endent .ith nat!re. +his image is refle$ted in "ne "f the $at$h6hrases "f dee6 e$"l"g'? Pnat!re
kn".s /estG. .n the deep ecological view, humans and nature were originally interrelated. Thus, only "y
identifying with nature can we realize our true self. This self1realization can "e attained "y the
identification of self with wider and wider circles of "eing, A .ith "!r famil'I "!r $"mm!nit'I "!r landI and "!r
$"sm"s. Naess 6r"mises that the O"' and meaningfulness of life are increased through self1realization. This
central tenet of deep ecology has revolutionary meaning for !estern philosophy, /' /ringing it "ne ste6 $l"ser
t" traditi"nal Eastern 6hil"s"6h'. 9owever, this meta1 physical or religious aspect of the self1realization thesis
is not, from the viewpoint of our final pur1 pose of restoring nature, particularly useful. %efore
e$amining more practical ethical aspects of deep ecologyI let !s first e-amine this thesis a /it m"re. #n the $ase "f dee6
e$"l"g'I there are strong tendencies to see a certain "iotic community or eco1system as something
intimate, respecta"le, and irreplacea"le for people. 9owever, we can move from our "eloved old place
to a foreign land and also change the wilderness to fields and vice versa. &lth"!gh .e $ann"t re6la$e "ne 6la$e
.ith an"therI .e $an make "!r land fertile "r infertileR a$$"rdingl'I .e $an !nif' "!rselves .ith a green m"!ntain "r a /are m"!ntainI
.ith a 6!re river "r a dirt' river. .f we give priority to some familiar or intimate environment rather than the
wider "iotic community, we are 'udging from an intuitive, "ut nevertheless partial standpoint. !e are
so deeply connected with nature that we cannot "e separated from nature, in the same way that our
mind cannot "e separated from our "ody. C"nseK!entl'I it ."!ld seem im6"r- tant t" haveI and tea$h "!r $hildren t" haveI
the a/ilit' t" int!itivel' feel at "ne .ith nat!re in "rder t" reali7e "!r tr!e selves. #t ."!ld als" seem im6"rtant t" f"ster in "!r $hildren
s"me kind "f religi"!s "r aestheti$ feeling "f !nifi$ati"n. Eet it must "e on the intuitive sort of level, "ecause
unification with nature could not "e effective in restoring nature, although the unification might "e
metaphysically right. S$ientistsI f"r instan$eI .h" .ere raised in ref!gee $am6s and ed!$ated in s$h""ls .ith"!t m!$h green
envir"nmentI might $"ntri/!te t" rest"ring nat!reI m!$h m"re than 6e"6le .h" .ere ed!$ated in ideal $ir$!mstan$esI s!rr"!nded .ith
m"!ntains f!ll "f greenI and .h" /e$"me sales6ers"ns "r entre6rene!rs.
E$" ,eminist Criti$ism "f >ee6 E$"
>ee6 E$"l"g' ,ails +" >iss"lve )atriar$h' 2hi$h 8eans >"minati"n 2ill Still E-ist
2arren %% 2Laren, Ecofeminist #hilosopher, )hil"s"6hi$al >ial"g!es? &rne Naess and the
)r"gress "f E$"6hil"s"6h'I 6g. *07C
2ith regard t" K!esti"n B1CI s"me e$"feminists Be.g.I &riel SallehI <andana ShivaC d" B"r d" s"metimesC
s6eak as if andr"$entrismAmale-$enterednessAis the r""t $a!se "f the e-6l"itati"n "f ."men and the
earthI n"tI as dee6 e$"l"gists $laimI anthropocentrismhuman $enteredness. +" the e-tent that the' d"I
# disagree .ith them? There is no single root cause of oppression, domination, or e$ploitation5 indeed,
one could argue that it is typical of patriarchal thinking that one looks for single, unitary causal
e$planations for phenomena. Gather, it is a set of interlocking Jisms of domination,J JunitedJ "y a
logic of domination, viz., the moral premise that superiority 'ustifies su"ordination, that is needed to
e$ plain un'ustified domination. S" m' res6"nse t" dee6 e$"l"gists like 2ar.i$k ,"-
1
.h" $laim that
6atriar$h' $"!ld end .hile the e-6l"itati"n "f the earth $"ntin!esI is that he is mistaken a/"!t .hat
e$"feminist 6hil"s"6hers like m'self $laim. 8' $laim is thatI at least in 2estern s"$ietiesI
anthropocentrism has historically functioned as androcentrism, s!$h that n" a$$!rate hist"ri$al a$-
$"!nt "f anthr"6"$entri$ attit!des t".ards nat!re $an /e e-6li$ated .ith"!t referen$e t" 6atriar$h' "r
andr"$entrism. ,!rtherm"reI if 6atriar$h' ."!ld /e eliminatedI thenI /' m' a$$"!ntI at least $"n$e6t!all'I
s" ."!ld all the "ther Tisms "f d"minati"nT Bin$l!ding Tnat!rismIT "r the !nO!stified d"minati"n "f
n"nh!man nat!re /' h!mansCI because 6atriar$h' is $"n$e6t!all' tied .ith all these "ther Tisms "f
d"minati"nT thr"!gh the l"gi$ "f d"minati"n. .f patriarchy is eliminated, so is the logic of domination,
which conceptually and morally glues the various systems of domination together. 3' e-tensi"nI
$"n$e6t!all'I nat!rism B.hi$h 6res!66"ses a l"gi$ "f d"minati"nC als" ."!ld /e eliminated. +h!sI f"r
e$"feminist 6hil"s"6hers like m'selfI it really is the logic of domina tion that is e$planatorily "asic in
any description of JcausesJ of oppression and domination.
.hir! Gorl! CriiJ(e >$ Deep Ecology
Beep Ecological Efforts 9arm the Third !orld
=uha PP 2Gamachandra, 9istorian and olumnist for the Telegraph of alcutta,
#hilosophical BialogesC Arne 4aess and the #rogress of Ecophilosophy, pg T<Q3
#f the a/"ve di$h"t"m' is irrelevantI the emphasis on wilderness is posi tively harmful when applied to
the Third !orld. .f in the Mnited (tates the pres ervationist@utilitarian division is seen as mirroring the
conflict "etween JpeopleJ and Jinterests,J in countries such as .ndia the situation is very nearly the
reverse. %ecause .ndia is a long settled and densely populated country in which agrarian populations
have a finely "alanced relationship with nature, the setting aside of wilderness areas has resulted in a
direct transfer of resources from the poor to the rich. +h!sI )r"Oe$t +igerI a net."rk "f 6arks hailed /' the
internati"nal $"nservati"n $"mm!nit' as an "!tstanding s!$$essI shar6l' 6"sits the interests "f the tiger
against th"se "f 6""r 6easants living in and ar"!nd the reserve. +he designati"n "f tiger reserves .as made
6"ssi/le "nl' /' the 6h'si$al dis6la$ement "f e-isting villages and their inha/itantsR their management
reK!ires the $"ntin!ing e-$l!si"n "f 6easants and livest"$k. +he initial im6et!s f"r setting !6 6arks f"r the
tiger and "ther large mammals s!$h as the rhin"$er"s and ele6hant $ame fr"m t." s"$ial gr"!6sI firstI a $lass
"f e--h!nters t!rned $"nservati"nists /el"nging m"stl' t" the de$lining #ndian fe!dal elite and se$"ndI
re6resentatives "f internati"nal agen$iesI s!$h as the 2"rld 2ildlife ,!nd B22,C and the #nternati"nal
=ni"n f"r the C"nservati"n "f Nat!re and Nat!ral Res"!r$es B#=CNCI seeking t" trans6lant the
&meri$an s'stem "f nati"nal 6arks "nt" #ndian s"il. #n n" $ase have the needs "f the l"$al 6"6!lati"n /een
taken int" a$$"!ntI and as in man' 6arts "f &fri$aI the designated .ildlands are managed 6rimaril' f"r the
/enefit "f ri$h t"!rists. Mntil very recently, wildlands preser vation has "een identified with
environmentalism "y the state and the conserva tion elite5 in consequence environmental pro"lems that
impinge far more di rectly on the lives of the poor6e.g., fuel, fodder, water shortages, soil erosion, and
air and water pollution6have not "een adequately addressed.0
En#iron%enal -rag%ais%
Beep ecology lacks the fle$i"ility to adapt to changes in the real world1 environmental
pragmatism solves
and Fat7I 6.*1-*7C
+h!s arises the need f"r ethi$sI a s'stemati$ !nderstanding "f the relati"ns that "!ght t" "/tain
am"ng vari"!s val!esI a the"r' "f .hat is right. 3ased as it is "n the vie. that val!e arises in a
d'nami$I infinitel' $"m6le- s'stem "f "rganisms-in-envir"nmentsI it is a "asic tenet of pragmatic
ethics that the rightness of an action is largely system1dependent. The Enlightenment dream of a
universally valid ethical theory may appear plausi"le at first glance "ecause many morally pro"lematic
situations do resem"le one another so closel'. +he 6ragmatistI h".everI attends t" differen$e and
$hange as .ell as t" similarit' and $"nstan$'. As the world evolves, and as human thought and
activities change along with it, new kinds of ethically pro"lematic situations inevita"ly emerge. To
cope, we need to develop new ways of comprehending what is right. 4o list of virtues, no list of rights
and duties, no ta"le of laws, no account of the good should "e e$pected to serve in every possi"le
situation that we confront. Attempts to set down the Jfinal wordJ on what is right have a distur"ing
tendency to show up as incomplete, am"iguous or quaintly archaic in the ne$t generation.
)ragmatism maintains that n" set "f ethi$al $"n$e6ts $an /e the a/s"l!te f"!ndati"n f"r
eval!ating the rightness "f "!r a$ti"ns. !e know from past e$perience that some ethical concepts
work "etter than others in given situations, "ut our past e$perience is the only thing we have as an
ethical Jfoun dation.J &s &nth"n' 2est"n 6!ts itI ethi$s is an endeav"r m"re like $reativel' making
"!r .a' thr"!gh a s.am6 than it is like ere$ting a 6'ramid "n a /edr"$k f"!ndati"n.
13
After
many trips through the swamp, we arrive at the means that serve "est. Tomorrow we may have to
read'ust, though, "ecause it is the nature "oth of swamps and of the world of values to shift continually
"eneath us. +he aim "f ethi$s is n"t 6erfe$t rightnessI thenI sin$e there is n" a/s"l!te
standard f"r referen$eI /!t rather $reative mediati"n "f $"nfli$ting $laims t" val!eI aimed at
making life "n the 6lanet relativel' /etter than it is.

Deep Eco File

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Deep Eco File

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Scholars Deep Ecology

S-ar putea să vă placă și