402 Chapter 10 I ARNE NAESS i The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects ‘Arne Naess is professor emeritusat the University of Oslo, Norway. Born in 1919, he was appointed professor of philosophy at age 27, the youngest in Norway's history. After some 30 years of work on semantics, philosophy of science, Spinoza, and eastern philos- fophy, he resigned in 1969 to devote himself to environmental matters. In 1972, he coined the phrase deep ecology, to distinguish a moral relation to the natural world from Simply an instramental one. In addition to writing many articles about envio philosophy, in Ecology, Community and Lifestyle, Naess sets out his “Ecosophy 7," or the philosophical basis for what became codified, with deep ecologist George Sessions in 1984, as the deep ecology platform. satal CRITICAL READING QUESTIONS 1. Why does Naess use the adjective detp to describe his view about the proper position of people in the natural world? 2. How does Naess’ “deep” approach contrast with “shallow” environmentalism on pollution, resources, population, cultural diversity, and appropriate technology, land use, and education? What does Naess mean when he says that deep ecology is “derivational system"? 4, What does Naess mean by "Ecosophy T™? 1. DEEP ECOLOGY ON THE DEFENSIVE Increasing pressures for continued growth and de- velopment have placed the vast majority of envi- ronmental professionals on the defensive. By way of illustration: The field-ecologist var Mysterud, who both pro- fessionally and vigorously advocated deep ecologi- cal principles in the late 1960s, encountered con siderable resistance. Colleagues at his university said he should keep to his science and not meddle in philosophical and political matters. He should resist the temptation to become a prominent "pop- ularizer" through mass media exposure. Neverthe- This exsay oxiginally appreated in Phlsophica Dupuiry 8, 1-2 (1986). Reprinted with permission, less, he persisted and influenced thousands of peo- ple (including mse Mysterud became a wellknown professional "ex: pert” at assessing the damage done when bears Ailled or maimed sheep and other domestic ani- mals in Norway. According to the law, their owners are paid damages. And licensed hunters receive permission to shoot bearsif their misdeeds become considerable.! Continued growth and development required that the sheep industry consolidate and sheepowners became fewer, richer, and tended to live in cities. As a resule of wage increases, they could not afford to hire shepherds to watch the flocks, so the sheep were left on their own even more than before. Continued growth also required roving sheep to what was traditionally considered “bear territory" In spite of this invasion, bear pop- ulations grew and troubles multiplied.1913, he was story. After stern philos- In 1972, he iy T," or the » Sessions in ber position lism on nology, system"? ands of peo- essional "ex: when bears omestic ani- heir owners eds become evelopment. wolidate and d tended to reases, they o watch the Iso required considered a, bear pop: Broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecoferninism — 403 How did Mysterud react to these new problems? Did he set limits to the amount of human/sheep ‘encroachment on bear territory? Did he attempt a direct application of his deep ecological perspec- tive to these issues? Quite the contrary. He adopted ‘what appeared to be ashallow wildtife management perspective, and defended the sheepowners: more money to compensate for losses, quicker compen sation, and the immediate hiring of hunters who killed mostly “juvenile delinquent” bears accused of kalling many sheep. Protectors of big carnivores noted with concern, the change of Mysterud’s public “image”; had he re- ally abandoned his former value priorities? Pri vately he insisted that he hadn't. But in public he tencled 10 remain silent. ‘The reason for M.'s unexpected actions was not ifficul to find: The force of economic growth was so strong that the laws protecting bears would be changed in a highly unfavorable direction if the sheepowners were not soon pacified by accepting some of their not unreasonable demands. Afterall, it did costa Jot of money to hire and equip people to locate a flock of sheep which had been harassed byabear and, further, to prove the bear's guilt. And. the bureaucratic procedures involved were ime- ning, M. had not changed his basic value pri- oritics at all, Rather, he had adopted a purely defen- sive compromise. He stopped promoting his deep ‘ecology philosophy publicly in order to retain credi- bility and standing among opponents of his pr ples and to retain his friendships with sheepowners. ‘And what is teue of Mysterud is also true of thou- sands of other professional ecologists and environ mentalists. These people often hold responsible positions in society where they might strengthen re- sponsible environmental policy, but, given the ex: ponential forces of growth, their publications, if any, are limited to narrowly professional and spe- cialized concerns. Their writings are surely compe- tent, but lack a deeper and more comprehensive perspective (although I admit that there are some billiant exceptions to this) If professional ecologists persist in voicing their ‘value priorities, their jobsare often in danger, or they tend to lose influence and status among those who are in charge of overall policies Privately, they ad mit the necessity for deep and farranging changes, but they no longer speak out in public. As a result, people deeply concerned about ecology and the en- vironment feel abandoned and even betrayed by the “experts” who work within the “establishment” In ecological debates, many participants know a Jot about particular conservation policies in partic- ular places, and many others have strong views con- cerning fundamental philosophical questions of environmental ethics, but only a few have both. ‘qualities, When these people are silent, the loss is formidable, For example, the complicated question con- cerning how industrial societies can increase en- ‘ergy production with the least undesirable conse~ quences is largely a waste of time if this increase is pointless in rclation to ultimate human ends. Thou sands of experts hired by the governmentand other big institutions devote their time to this compl cated problem, yet itis diffieult for the public 10 find out or realize that many of these same experts consider the problem to be pointless and irrelevant. “What these experts consider relevant are the prob- lems of how to stabilize and eventually decrease consumption without losing genuine quality of life for humans, But they continue to work on the irrek evant problems assigned to them while, at the same time, failing to speak out, because the ultimate power is not in their hands, 2. A CALL TO SPEAK OUT What I am arguing for is this: Even those who com- pletely subsume ecological policies under the nar- row ends of human health and well-being cannot at- tain their modest aims, at least not fully, without being joined by the supporters of deep ecology. ‘They need what these people have to contribute, nd this will work in their favor more often than it will work against them, Those in charge of environ- mental policies, even if they are resource-oriented, (and growth tolerating?) decision makers, will in- creasingly welcome, if only for tactical and not fur damental reasons, what deep ecology supporters have to say. Even though the more radical ethie may seem nonsensical or untenable to them, they know404 Chapter 10 that its advocates are, in practice, doing conserva tion work that sooner oF later must be done. They ‘concur with the practice even though they operate from diverging theories. The time is ripe For pro- fessional ecologists to break their silence and ex: press their deepest concems mote freely. bolder advocacy of deep ecological concerns by those ‘working within the shallow, eso ronmental sphere isthe best strategy for regaining some of the strength of this movement among the general public, thereby contributing, however modestly, toa turning of the tide What do T mean by saying that even the more ‘modest aims of shallow environmentalism have a need for deep ecology? We can see this by consid- ering the World Conservation Strategy—prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in coopera- tion with the United Nations Environmental Pro- gramme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund NWF). The argument in this important document is thoroughly anthropocentrc in the sense that all lis recommendations are justified exclusively in terms of their effects upon human health and basic wellbeing.? ‘Amore ecocentric environmental ethics also ree commencled apparently for tactical reasons: “A new thie, embracing plants and animals as well as peo- ple, is required for human societies to live in har ‘mony with the natural world on whieh they depend forsurvival and well-being.” But such an ethic would surely be more effective if twere acted upon by peo- ple who believe in its validity, rather than merely its usefulness. Ths, think, will ome to be understood more and more by those in charge of educational policies. Quite simply its indecent for a teacher to proclaim an ethic for tactical reasons only Furthermore, this point applies to all aspects of a world conservation strategy. Conservation strate- gies are more eagerly implemented by people who love what they are conserving, and who are con- vinced that what they love is intrinsically lovable. Such lovers will not want to hide their atitudes and values, rather they will inereasingly give voice 10 them in public. They possess a genuine ethies of conservation, not merely a tactically useful instri- rent for human survival ceoriented envi oe a In short, environmental education campaigns can fortunately combine humancentered argu ments with a practical environmental ethic based on either a deeper and more fundamental philo- sophic or religious perspective, and on a set of ‘norms resting on intrinsic values. But the inherent strength of this overall position will be lost if those ‘whe work professionally on environmental prob- leis do not freely give testimony to fundamental ‘The above is hortatory in the positive etymolog- ical sense of that word. 1 seek "to urge, incite insti gate, encourage, cheer” (Latin: hortar. This may seem unacademic but I consider it justifiable be- cause of an intimate relationship between horta tory sentences and basic philosophical views which {formulate in section 8. To trace what follows from fundamental norms and hypotheses is eminently philosophical, 3, WHAT IS DEEP ECOLOGY? The phrase “deep ecology movement” has been used up to this point without tying to define it ‘One should not expect too much from definitions ‘of movements; think, for example, of terms like “conservatism,” “liberalism,” or the "feminist move- ment.” And there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly 0 the same defi nition, or to any definition, for that matter, It is the same with characterization, criteria, ora set of pro- posed necessary conditions for application of the term or phrase. In what follows, a platform or key terms and phrases, agreed upon by George Sessions and myself, ate tentatively proposed as basic to deep ecology.* More accurately the sentences have a double funetion. They are meant to express int porant points which the great majority of support cers accept, implicitly or explicitly, at high level of generality. Furthermore, they express a proposal to the effect that those who solidly reject one or more Of these points should not be viewed as supporters of deep ecology. This might result because they are supporters ofa shallow (or reform) environmental movement or rather they may simply dislike one or more of the eight points for semantical or other resmpaigns d argu: c based 1 philo- 2 set of herent ifthose a1 prob: amental ymolog- te, insti- may able be- n hort: rs which, ws from, ninently as been efine it, nitions rms Tike st move: ters of me defi- Itis the cof pro- n of the n or key Sessions basic 10 ces have support. evel of posal to pporters they are nmental ther rear Broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Eeofeminisi sons, But they may well accept a different set of ‘nts which, to me, has roughly the same meaning, PP which case I shall call them supporters of the deep ecology movement, but add that they think they disagree (maybe Henryk Skolimowski isan ex: ample of the latter), The eight points are: 1, The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intr inherent worth). These values are inde- pendent ofthe usefulness of the non-human ‘world for human purposes 2, Richness and diversity ofife forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. 3, Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs ‘The flourishing of human life and culres is compaible with a substantially smaller hurnan population. The flourishing of nonhuman life repuinesa smaller human population. ic value, 4 5, Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening, 6, Policies must therefore be changed, These policies affect basic economic, technolog- ical, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present. 4, The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situa: tions of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living, ‘There will be a profound awareness of the Gifference between bigness and greatness 8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. Comments on the Eight Points of the Platform RE (1): This formulation refers to the biosphere, or more professionally to the ccosphere as a whole (this is also referred co as “ecocentrism”). Thi cludes individuals, species, populations, habitat, as well as human and nonhuman cultures. Given our current knowledge of allpervasive intimate rela tionships, this implies a fundamental concern and respect "The term “Tie” is used here in a more compre- hensive nontechnical way also to refer to what biol- ogists clasiy as “nonliving’: rivers (watersheds), landscapes, ecosystems. For supporters of deep ecology, slogans such as “let the river live” illustrate this broader usage so common in many cultures. Inherent value, as used in (1), is common in deep ecology literature (€., “The presence of in- herent value in a natural object is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by any ‘conscious being”).° RE (2): The so-called simple, lower, or primitive species of plants and animals contribute essentially to the richness and diversity of life. They have value in themselves and are not merely steps toward the socalled higher or rational life forms. The second principe presupposes that life itself, as a process ‘over evolutionary time, implies an increase of di- versity and tichness. ‘Complexity, as referred to here, is different from complication. For example, urban life may be more complicated than life in a natural setting without being more complex in the sense of multifaceted quali. RE (3): The term “vital need! is deliberately left vague to alloy for considerable latitude in judgment. Differences in climate and related factors, together swith differences in the structures of socicties as they now exist, need to be taken into consideration. RE (4): People in the materially richest countries cannot be expected to reduce their excessive inter ference with the nonluman world overnight, The stabilization and reduction of the human popular tion will take time. Hundreds of years! Interim strategies need to be developed. But im no way does this excuse the present complacency. The extreme seriousness of our current situation must frst be re- alized. And the longer we wait to make the neces. ‘sary changes, the more drastic will be the measures needed. Until deep changes are made, substantial decreases in richness and diversity are liable to oc ‘cur: the rate of extinction of species will be ten t0406 Chapter 10 one bundred or more times greater than in any other short period of earth history. RE (5): This formulation is mild. For a realistic assessment, see the annual reports of the World- watch Institute in Washington, D.C. ‘The slogan of *noninterference” does not imply that humans should not modify some ecosystems, as, do other species. Humans have modified the earth over their entire history and will probably cont to do so. At issue is the nature and extent of such in terference. The per capita destruction of wild (an- cient) forests and other wild ecosystems has been excessive in rich countries; itis essential that the ‘poor do not imitate the rich in this regard. ‘The fight to preserve and extend areas of wilder ness and nearvilderness ("free Nawre") should continue, The rationale for such preservation should focus mainly on the ecological functions of these areas (one such function: large wilderness ar- ‘eas are required in the biosphere for the continued, evolutionary speciation of plants and animals) Most of the present designated wilderness areas and ‘game reserves are not large enough (0 allow for such speciation, RE (6): Economic growth as it is conceived of and implemented today by the industrial states isin ‘compatible with points (1) through (5). There is only a faint resemblance between ideal sustainable forms of economic growth and the present policies ‘of industrial societies. Present ideotogy tends to value things because they are scarce and because they have a commodity value. There is prestige in vast consumption and waste (to mention only several relevant factors). Whereas “selfdetermination,” “local commu: nity." and “think globally, act locally.” will remain key terms in the ecology of human societies, neverthe less the implementation of deep changes requires increasingly global action: Action across borders. Governments in Third World countries are mostly uninterested in deep ecological issues. ‘When institutions in the industrial societies try 10 promote ecological measures through Third World governments, practically nothing is accom- plished (e.g., with problems of desertification). Given this situation, support for global action through non-governmental international organiza~ ee oe tions becomes increasingly important, Many of these organizations ate able to act globally “from grassroots to grassroots” thus avoiding negative {governmental imterference. Cultural diversity today requires advanced technology, that is, techniques that advance the hnasic goals of each culture. So-alled soft, imer mediate, and alternative technologies are steps in this direetion. RE (7): Some economists criticize the term “quality of life” because itis supposedly vague. But, co closer inspection, what they consider to be vague is actually the nonquantifiable nature of the term, One cannot quantify adequately what is important for the quality of life as discussed! here, and there is no need t0 40 $0, RE (8): There is ample room for different opin- ions about priorities: what should be cone first: ‘what next? What is the most urgent? What is clearly necessary to be done, as opposed to what is highly desirable but not absolutely pressing? The frontier of the environmental crisis s long and varied, and there isa place for everyone. ‘The above formulations of the cight points may be useful to many supporters of the deep ecology ‘movement. Butsome wll certainly fee that they are imperfect, even misleading. If they need to formu late in a few words what is basic to deep ecology, then they will propose an alternative set of sen- tences I shall of course be glad to refer to them as alternatives. There ought to be a measure of diver sity in what is considered basic and common. Why should we call the movement “the deep ecological movement"? There are at leat six other designations which cover most of the same issties: “Ecological Resistance,” used by John Rodman in important discussions; “The New Natural Philoso- phy" coined by Joseph Mecker, "Eco-philosopty” used by Sigmund Kvaloy and others to emphasize (1) a highly critical assessment of the industrial growth societies from a general ecological point of View, and (2) the ecology of the human species; “Green Philosophy and Politics’ (while the term green” is ofien used in Europe, in the United States “green” has a misleading association with the rather “blue” Green agricultural revolution); "Sus tainable Earth Ethics” a8 used by G. Tyler Millersiloso- phy,” steal and “Ecosophy" (ecowisdom), which is my own fa- ace term, Othess could be mentioned as well ‘and so, why use the adjective “deep”? This ques- tion vill be easier to answer after the contrast is made benecen shallow and deep ecological com ens, “Deep ecology” is not a philosophy in any proper academic sense, nor is itinstinationalized as Prvligion oF an ideology. Rather, what happens is that vations persons come together in campaigns snd directactions, They form a circle of friends sup- porting the same kind of lifesije which others may think to be “simple,” but which they themselves see fs rich and manysided, They agree on a vast array ot politcal issues although they may otherwise sup- port ferent political parties. Asin all social move- rents, slogans and thetoric are indispensable for ingroup coherence. They react together against the same threats in @ predominantly nonviolent vray, Perhaps the most influential participants are rusts and writers who do not articulate their in- sights in terms of professional philosophy, express ing themselves rather in artor poetry. For these rea- sons, I use the term “movement” rather than “philosophy.” But its essential that fundamental at tiuudes and beliefs are involved as part of the mot vation for action. 4, DEEP VERSUS SHALLOW ECOLOGY A number of key terms and slogans from the envie ronmental debate will clarify the contrast between the shallow and the deep ecology movements.” A Pollution Shallow Approach: Technology seeks to purify the air ‘and water and to spread pollution more evenly: Laws Timit permissible pollution. Polluting industries are preferably exported to developing countries ‘Deep Approach: Pollution is evaluated from 4 biospheric poiatof view, not focusing exclusively on its effects on human health, but rather on life 2s a whole, including the life conditions of every species and system. The shallow reaction to acid rain, for ‘example, isto tend to avoid action by demanding more research, and the attempt (0 find species of broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism 407 tnces which will tolerate high acidity, ete. The deep approach concentrates on what is going on in the total ecosystem and calls for a high priority fight against the economic conditions and the technol coy responsible for producing the acid rain, The long-range concerns are 100 years, atleast The priority is to fight the deep causes of pollu- tion, not merely the superficial, short-range effects ‘The Third and Fourth World countries cannot af ford to pay the total costs of the war against pollu tion in their regions; consequently they require the assistance of the First and Second World countries Exporting pollution is not only 2 crime against hur imanity, itis a crime against fe in general B, Resources Shallow Approach: The emphasis is upon resources for humans, especially for the present generation in affluent societies. in this view, the resources of the ‘earth belong to those who have the technology 0 fexploit them, There is confidence that resources snl not be depleted because, as they get rarer, & high market price will conserve them, and substi- ‘utes will be found through technological progress Further, plants, animals, and natural objects are valuable onlyas resources for humans. Ifno human. tise is known, or seems likely ever to be found, it does not matter if they are destroyed. Deep Approach: The concern here is with re sources and habitats for all life-forms for their owe. sake, No natural object is conceived of solely 3 are Source. This leads, then, to a critical evaluation of human inodes of production and consumption. ‘The question arises: to what extent doesan increase jn production and consumption foster ultimate hur man values? To what extent does it satisly vita needs, locally or globally? How can economic, legal, ‘and educational institutions be changed to coun- Teract destructive increases? How can resource use serve the quality of life rather than the economic Standard of living as generally promoted by con- Sumerism? From a deep perspective, there isan em phasis upon an ecossstem approach rather than the Consideration merely of isolated life-forms or local Situations. There is a longsange maximal perspec- tive of time and place.C Population Shallow Approach: The threat of (human) “over: population” is seen mainly as a problem for devel- ‘oping countries, One condones or even applauds population increases in one's own country for shortsighted economic, military, or other reasons; aan increase in the number of humans is considered as valuable in itself or as economically profitable, The issue of an “optimum population” for humans is discussed without reference to the question of an “optimum population” for other lifesorms. The de- struction of wild habitats caused by increasing hu: man population is accepted as in inevitable evil, and drastic decreases of wildlife forms tend to be ac- cepted insofar as species arc not driven to extine- tion, Further, the social relations of animals are ig- nored. A longaerm substantial reduction of the global human population is not seen to be a desir- able goal. Inaddition, the rightis claimed to defend one’s borders against “illegal aliens,” regardless of ‘what the population pressures are elsewhere, Deep Approach: It is recognized that excessh pressures on planetary life stem from the human population explosion, The pressure stemming from the industrial societies is a major factor, and population reduction must have the highest prior- ity im those societies. D. Cultural Diversity and Appropriate Technology Shallow Approach: Industrialization of the Western industrial ype is held to be the goal of developing ‘countries. The universal adoption of Western tech- nology is held to be compatible with cultural dliver- sity together with the conservation of the positive elements (from a Western perspective) of present nonindustrial societies. There is a low estimate of ep cultural differences in nonindustral socicties which deviate significantly from contemporary ‘Westem standards, Deep Approach: Protection of nonindustrial cul- tures from invasion by industrial societies. The goals of the former should not be seen as promot- ing lifestyles similar to those in the rich countries. Deep cultural diversity is an‘analogue on the bu: ‘man level to the biological richness and diversity of, litesforms, A high priority should be given w cu tural anthropology in general education programs in industrial societies, ‘There should be limits on the impact of Western technology upon present existing nonindustrial countries and the Fourth World should be de- fenced against foreign domination. Political and economic policies should favor subculeares within industrial societies. Local, soft technologies should allow for a basic cultural assessment of any techni- cal innovations, together with freely expressed cr icism af so-called advanced technology when this, has the potential to be culturally destructive E, Land and Sea Ethics ‘Shallow Approach: Landscapes, ecosystems, rivers, and other hole 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 indi- viduals, organizations or states. Conservation is ar ‘gued in terms of “multiple use” and “cost/benefit analysis." The social costs and longterm global eco logical costs of resource extraction and use are ustt- ally not considered, Wildlife management is con- ceived of as conserving nature for "future generations of humans.” Soil erosion or the deteri: oration of ground water quality, for example, is noted as a human loss, but strong belief in fature technological progress makes deep changes seem unnecessary. Deep Approach: The earth does not belong t0 humans. For example, the Norwegian landscapes, vivers, flora and fauna, and the neighboring sea are not the property of Norwegians. Similarly, the oil under the North Sea or anywhere else does not be- Jong to any state or to humanity. And the "free nae ture” surrounding a local community does not be: long to the local community ‘Humans only inhabit the lands, using resources to satisfy vital needs. And if their nonvital needs come in conflict with the vital needs of nonhumans, then humans should defer to the latter, The eco: logical destruction now going on will not be cured by a technological fix. Current arrogant notions in industrial (and other) societies must be resistediven to cub 1 programs of Western snindustrial uld be de- slitical and ures within gies should any techni- essed crit: when this tive nceptually ger units ments are 28 of indi- tion is ar /benefit lobal eco “future be deter: ample, is im furuve Bes seem velong to rdscapes, gscaare 4 the oil S not be- $not be sources W needs mumans, ‘he eco: ‘© cured isted, Broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism 409 F Education and the Scientific Enterprise Shallow Approach: The degradation of the emviron- rmentand resource depletion requires the taining of more and more "experts? who can provide advice ‘concerning how to continue combining economi growth with maintaining a healthy environment, We axe likely to need an increasingly more dominat and manipulative technology to "manage the planet” wen global economic growth makes further envi ronmental degradation inevitable, The scenic e terptise must continue giving priority to the “hard sciences" (physics and chemist). High educational standards with intense competition in the relevant “ough areas of learning will be required, Deep Approach: If sane ecological policies are adopted, then education should concentrate on an increased sensitivity co nonconsumptive goods, and on such consumables where there is enough for all Education should therefore counteract the exces sive emphasis upon things with a price tag. There should be a shift in concentration from the “hard” to the “soft sciences which stress the importance of the local and global cultures. The educational ob- jective ofthe World Conservation Suategy (“bild- jing support for conservation”) should be given a high priority, but within the deeper framework of respect for the biosphere, In the future, there will be no shallow environ mental movement if deep policies are increasingly adopted by governments, and thus no need for a special deep ecological social movement. 5. BUT WHY A “DEEP” ECOLOGY? ‘The decisive difference between a shallow and a deep ecology, in practice, concerns the willingness to question, and an appreciation of the importance of questioning, every economic and political policy in public. This questioning is both “deep” and pub- lic. It asks *why* insistently and consistently, taking. nothing for granted! Deep ecology can readily admit to the practical effectiveness of homocentric arguments: Its essential for conservation to be seen as central tw human interests and aspirations. At the same. eee eee time, peopte—trom heads of state wo the members ‘of rural communities—vill most really be Drought to demand conservation if they ‘hemselves recognize the contribution of conservation to the achievement oftheir need as perceived by them, and the solution of theie problems, a5 perceived by then.” ‘There are several dangers in arguing solely from the point of view of narrow human interests. Some policies based upon successfil homocentric argu: ‘ments turn out to violate or unduly compromise the objectives of deeper argumentation, Further, ho- ‘mocentric arguments tend co weaken the motiva- tion to fight for necessary social change, together with the willingness to serve a great cause, In addi tion, the complicated arguments in human-centered conservation documents such as the World Conser- vation Strategy go beyond the time and ability of many people to assimilate and understand. They also tend to provoke interminable technical dis agreements among experts. Special interest groups with narrow short-term exploitive objectives, which. ‘run counter to saner ecological policies, often ex- ploit these disagreements and thereby stall the de- bate and steps toward effective action, When arguing from deep ecological premises, ‘most of the complicated proposed technological fixes need not be discussed at all, The relative mer its of alternative technological proposals are point- less ifour vital needs have already been met. A focus ‘on vital issues activates mental energy and strength: ens motivation. On the other hand, the shallow en- Vironmental approach, by focusing almost excht sively on the technical aspects of environmental problems, tends to make the ‘more passive and disinterested in the more crucial nontechnical, lifestyle-related, environmental issues, Writers within the deep ecology movement try to articulate the fundamental presuppositions under- lying the dominant economic approach in terms of value priorities, philosophy, and religion, In the shallow movement, questioning and argumenta- tion comes to a halt long before this. The deep ecol- ogy movements therefore “the ecology movement which questions deeper” A realization of the deep changes which are required, as outlined in the deep, ecology cight point platform (discussed in 43410 Chapter 10 above) makes us realize the necessity of “question- ing everything.” The terms “egalitarianism,” “homocentris,” “anthropocentrism,” and “hurnan chauvinisin” are often used to characterize points of view on the shallowdeep spectrum, But these terms usually function as slogans which are often open to mis terpretation. They can properly imply that man isin some respects only a “plain citizen” (Aldo Leopold) ofthe planeton a par with all other species, but they are sometimes interpreted as denying that humans have any “extraordinary” traits, or that, in situations involving vital interests, humans have no overriding, obligations towards their own kind. But this would bbe a mistake: They have! In any social movement, rhetoric has an essential Function in keeping members fighting together un: der the same banner. Rhetorical formulations also serve to provoke interest among outsiders. Of the many excellent slogans, one might mention “na: ture knows best,” "small is beautiful,” and “all things hang together” But sometimes one may safely say that nature does not always know best, that small is, sometimes dreadful, and that fortunately things hang together sometimes only loosely, or not at all Only a minority of deep ecology supporters are academic philosophers, such as myself. And while deep ecology cannot be a finished philosophical system, this does not mean that its philosophers should not try to be as clear as possible. So a dis cussion of deep ecology asa derivational system may bbe of value to clarify the many important premise/ conchusion relations. 6, DEEP ECOLOGY ILLUSTRATED AS A DERIVATIONAL SYSTEM Underlying the eight cenets or principles presented in section 8, there are even more basic positions and norms which reside in philosophical systems and in various world yeligions. Schematically we may represent the total views logically implied in the deep ecology movement by streams of deriva- tions from the most fundamental norms and de- scriptive assumptions (level 1) to the particular de- cisions in actual life situations (level 4) The pyramiclal madel has some features in com- ion with hypotheticodeductive systems. The main difference, however, is that some sentences at the top (= dleepest) level are normative, and preferably are expressed by imperatives. This makes it possible to arrive at imperatives at the lowest dertvational level: the erucial level in terms of decisions. Thus, there are “oughts” in our premises as well asin our conclusions, We never move from an “is” to an “ought,” or vice versa. From a logical standpoint, this is decisive! ‘The above premise/conclusion structure (or di- agramn) of a total view must not be taken too seri- ously. It is not meant in any restrictive way to char acterize creative thinking within the deep ecology movement, Creative thinking moves Ireely in any di- rection, But many of us with a professional back ground in science and analytical philosophy find such a diagram helptul. ‘As we dig deeper into the premises of our think: ing, we eventually stop, Those premises we stop at are our ultimates. When wwe philosophize, we all stop at different places, But we all use premises hich, for us, are ultimate. They belong to level 1 in the diagram, Some will use a sentence like “Every life form has intrinsic value” asan ultimate premise, and therefore place it at level 1. Others try, as Ido, to conceive of it as a conclusion based on a set of premises. For these people, this sentence does not belong to level L. There will be different ecosophies corresponding to such differences. Obviously, point 6 of the 8 point decp ecology tenets (seesection 3) cannot belong to level 1 of the diagram. The statement "there must be new poli Ges affecting basic economic structures” needs to be justified, If no logical justification is forthcom- ing, why not just ascert instead that ecologically de- structive “business as usual” economic policies should continue? In the diagram I have had ecoso- phies as ullimate premises in mind at level 1, None ‘of the 8 points of the deep ecology principles be- Jong at the ultimate level; they are derived as con- clusions from premises at level 1 Different supporters of the deep ecology move- ment may have different uldimates (level 1), but will, nevertheless agree about level 2 (the 8 points), Level 4 will comprise concrete decisions in concrete situ oeres in com ‘The main pees at the preferably it possible jerivational ons. Thus, asin our is" to an tandpoint, ture (or dé ay to char ep ecology lyin any di jonal back- sophy find four think: wwe stop at ize, we all e premises jolevel lin like “Every te premise, try as Tdo, on aset of -e does not ecosophies ep ecology wel 1 of the 2 new poli- needs to forthcom- ogically de- ic policies hhad ecoso- vel 1. None riciples be- ved as con- logy move- 1), but will ints), Level rete siwwa- Broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Reofeminism 411 € Level 1: uitimate premises fad ecosophies Logical Derivation ‘Deep Ecology Platform 4 Level 2: the &-point deep Questioning ‘ecology platorm or principles + Level: ‘general normative ‘Consequences and “actual hypotosos Examples of kins of fundamental premises: B= Buddhist vistian <— Lovet a: panteulr rules or —} Gecisions adapted to parioular situations ce = Philosophical (6... Spinozst or Whiteheadtan) tions which appear as conclusions from delibera- tions involving premises at levels 1 10 5. An impor- tant point: supporters of the deep ecology move- ment act from deep premises. They are motivated, in part, from a philosophical or religious position. 7. MULTIPLE ROOTS OF THE DEEP ECOLOGY PLATFORM ‘The deep ecology movement seriously questions the presuppositions of shallow argumentation. Even what counts as a rational decision is chal- Jenged, because what is “rational” is always defined in relation to specific aims and goals. Ifa decision js rational in relation to the lower level aims and {goals of our pyramid, but not in relation to the hhighest level, then this decision should not be judged to be rational. This is an important point! If ‘an environmentally oriented policy decision is not linked to intrinsic values or ultimates, then its ra- tionality has yet to be determined. The deep ecol- ogy movement connects rationality with a set of philosophical or religious foundations. But one cannot expect the whimate premises to constitute rational conclusions, There are no “deeper” prem ises available. Deep ecological questioning thus reveals the ft damental normative orientations of differing posi- tions. Shallow argumentation stops before reaching. fundamentals, or it jumps from the ultimate to the particular; that is, from level 1 co level 4.| f 412 Chapter 10 But itis not only normative claims that are atis- sue, Most (perhaps all) norms presuppose ideas about how the world functions. Typically the vast ma- Jjority of assertions needed in normative systems are descriptive (or factual). This holds at all the levels. As mentioned before, it does not follow that sup- porters of deep ecology must have identical beliefs xe issues. They do have common atti tudes about intrinsic values in nature, but these can, in turn (ata still deeper level), be derived from different, mutually incompatible sets of ultimate beliefs. Thus, while a specific decision may be judged as rational from within the derivational system (if there is such) of shallow ecology, itmight be judged. as irrational from within the derivational system of deep ecology. Again, it should be emphasized that, what is rational from within the deep ecology de- rivational pyramid does nat require unanimity in ‘ontology and fundamental ethics. Deep ecology as ‘a conviction, with its subsequently derived practical recommendati follow from a number of more comprehensive world views, from differing about ult ecosophies. ‘Those engaged in the deep ecology movement have so far revealed their philosophical or religious homes to be mainly in Christianity, Buddhism, Tao- ism, Baha'i, or in various philosophies. The top level of the derivational pyramid can, in such cases, bbe made up of normative and descriptive principles which belong to these religions and philosophies. Since the late 1970s, numerous Christians in Eu- rope and America, including some theologians, hhave actively taken part in the deep ecology move- ment. Their interpretations of the Bible, and their theological positions in general, have been re formned from what was, until recently, a crude dorm inating anthropocentric emphasis. ‘There is an intimate relationship between some forms of Buddhism and the deep ecology move ment. The history of Buddhist thought and prac- tice, especially the principles of nonviolence, nom injury, and reverence for life, sometimes makes it easier for Buddhists to understand and appreciate deep ecology than it is for Christians, despite a (Gometimes overlooked) blessedness which Jesus recommended in peace-making. I mention Taoista chiefly because there is some basis for calling John Muir a Taoist, for instance, and Baha'i because of Lawrence Arturo. Ecosophies are not religions in the classical sense, They are better characterized as general philosophies, in the sense of total views, inspired iti part by the science of ecology. At level 1, 2 tradi- tional religion may enter the derivational pyramid through a set of normative and descriptive assurmp- tions which would be characteristic of contempo- rary interpretations (hermeneutical efforts) of that religion. Supporters of the deep ecology movementact in, contemporary conflicts on the basis of their funda mental beliefs and auitudes. This gives them a par- ticular strength and a joyful expectation or hope for greener future, But, naturally, few of them are ac- tively engaged in a systematic verbal articulation of where they stand. 8. ECOSOPHY T AS AN EXAMPLE OF A DEEP ECOLOGICAL DERIVATIONAL SYSTEM Teall the ecosophy I feel at home with *Eeosophy T.” My main purpose in announcing that | feel at home with Ecosophy T is didactic and dialectic. I hope to ‘get others (o announce their philosophy. If they say they have none, I mnaintain that they have, but per- haps don’t know their own views, or are too modest. ‘inhibited to proclaim what they believe. Follow ing Socrates, I want to provoke questioning until ‘others know where they stand on basic matters of life and death. This is done using ecological issues, ‘and also by using Ecosophy T as a foil. But Socrates pretended in debate that he knew nothing. My pos: ture seems to be the opposite. I may seem to know everything and to derive it magically from a small set, of hypotheses about the world, But both interpreta tions are misleading! Socrates did not consistently claim to know nothing, nor do I in my Ecosophy T pretend to have comprehensive knowledge. Socrates claimed to know, forinstance, about the fal- Libility of human claims to have knowledge.ation Taoism calling John i because of the classical as general spired in U1, a tradi sal pyramid ive assump- ‘contempo- orts) of that ment actin heir funda- them a par- or hope for culation of | osophy T." Jathome Thepe 1 they say + but per- omodest ©. Follow. ving until satters of sal issues, Socrates My pos: to know simall set Cerpreta- vsistendy ‘sophy T owiedge, the fal Broader Concems: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism 413 Ecosophy T has only one uhimate norm: “Sele realization!” I do not use this expression in any nar- row, individualistic sense. I want to give it an ex panded meaning based on the distinetion between large comprehensive Self and narrow egoistic self as conceived of in certain Eastern traditions of at an This large comprehensive Seif (with a capital *S") embraces all the life forms on the planet (and. elsewhere?) together with their individual selves ivas). If Tere to express this ultimate norm in a ew words, [ would say: "Maximize (long-range, uni- versal) Selfrealization!" Another mote colloquial way to express this ultimate norm would be to say “Live and let livet” (referring to all of the life forms and natural processes on the planet), If had to give up the term fearing its inevitable misunder standing, I would use the term “universal symbio- sis." "Maximize SelFrealization!" could, of course, be misinterpreted in the direction of colossal ego tips. But “Maximize symbiosis!” could be misinter- preted in the opposite direction of eliminating in- dividuality in favor of collectivity Viewed systematically, not individually, maximum. Selfrealization implies maximizing the manifesta tions of all life. So next I derive the second term, “Maximize (long-range, universal) diversity” A corok Jary is that the higher the levels of SelFrealization 2t- tained by any person, the more any further increase depends upon the SelErealization of others, In- ‘creased self'identity involves inereased identification ‘with others, “Altruism” is a natural consequence of this identification This leads to a hypothesis concerning an in- escapable increase of identification with other be- ings when one’s own selfrealization increases. As a result, we increasingly see ourselves in other beings, ‘and others see themselves in us. In this way, the self is extended and deepened as a natural process of the realization of its potentialities in others. By universalizing the above, we can derive the norm, *Selfrealization for every being!” From the norm, “Maximize diversity!” and a hypothesis that rximum diversity implies a maximum of symbio- sis, we can derive the norm "Maximize symbiosis!" Further, we work for life conditions such that there isa minimum of coercion in the lives of others. And eevee EEC HEE HELE 50 on!" The cight points of the deep ecology plat form are derived in a fairly simple way, A philosophy asa world view inevitably has impli- cations for practical situations. Like other eceso- phies, Eeosophy T therefore moves on, without apologies, to the concrete questions of lifestyles. ‘These will obviously show great variation because of differences in hypotheses about the world in which each of us lives, and in the “factual” statements about the concrete situations in which we make decisions shall limit myself to a discussion of a couple of areas in which my “style” of thinking and behaving seem somewhat strange to friends and others who know a litle about my philosophy, First, [have a somewhat extreme appreciation of diversity, a positive appreciation of the existence of, stylesand behavior which I personally detest or find nonsensical (but which are not clearly incompati- bie with symbiosis); an enthusiasm For the “tere” diversity of species, or varieties within a genus of plants or animals; I support, as the head of a phi- losophy department, doctrinal theses completely at ‘odds with my own inclinations, with the require- ‘ment only that the authors are able to understand fairly adequately some basic features of the kind of philosophy 1 myself fecl at home with; an apprecia- tion of combinations of seemingty incompatible in- terest and behaviors, which makes for an increase of subcultures within industrial states and which ‘might to some extent help future cultural diversity, So much for “diversity” Second, I have a somewhat extreme appreciation ‘of what Kant calls beautiful actions” (good actions based on inclination), in contrast with actions which, are performed out of a sense of duty or obligation. ‘The choice of the formulation “SelEsealization!” is in part motivated by the belief that maturity in hu- -manscan be measured along a scale from selfishness toan increased realization of Self, that is, by broad- ‘ening and deepening the self, rather than being measured by degrees of dutiful altruism, [sec joyful sharing and caring as. natural process of growth in humans, Third, I believe that multifaceted high-level Self realization is more easily reached throngh a lifestyle Which is “simple in means but rich in ends” rather414 Chapter 10 EcesophyT Tatatzion CS implies “The higher 6 atained tealzaton Goncs neme sae eee acer eereecentts pysaiy, Sates i He Satay. Seaman seater Raber Bee. Sai Strat Wasim} | | sitet beings diversity. SP Cassar] [Eni east Soros) [ecertae || [Serseeme equal rights| have oqual| | | Satzaton of wes rignisotS |) | Sp Tsim oe wes} [Soar Saas Sy hes ars ‘asin Sima ‘S = Sott-reatization complexity Pee Sceemae Scream Ee re eon ptndan than through the material standard of living of the average citizens of industrial states. ‘The simple formulations of the deep ecology platform and Ecosophy T are not meant primarily to be used among philosophers, but also in di logues with the “experts.” When I wrote to the "ex- peris” and environmental professionals personally, asking whether they accept the eight points of the platform, many answered positively in relation to ‘most or all of the points. And this includes top peo: ple in the ministries of oil and energy! Neatly all were willing to let their written answers be widely published. It is an open question, however, as to what extent they will try to influence their col Teagues who use only shallow argumentation. But the main conclusion to be drawn is moderately en ‘couraging: there are views of the buman/nature re- lationship, widely accepted among established ex: pers responsible for environmental decisions, which require a pervasive, substantial ehange ofuely en ture re hed ex- inge of present policies in favor of our “living” planet, and these views are held not only on the basis of short- sighted human interests. NOTES 1. For more about interspecific community relation- ships, see Arne Naess, “Selfrealization in Mixed Communities of Humans, Bears, Sheep, and Wolves," Inquiry 22 (1979); 921-41; Naess and Ivar (Mgsterud, “Philosophy of Wolf Policies I: General Principles and Preliminary Exploration of Selected. Norms,” Conservation Biology , 1 (1987): 22-4 2. These problems are discussed further in Naess keynote address to the second international Gonference Conservation on Biology held at the University of Michigan in May 1985; published as “Intrinsic Value: Will the Defenders of Nature Please Rise?” Conseruation Biology (1986): 504-15. B.TUCN, World Conservation Stray: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (Gland, Switzerland, 1980), section 13 ("Building Support for Conservation’. 4, The deep ecology principles (or platform) were agreed upon dusing a camping trip in Death Valley, California (April 1984) and first published in Gorge Sessions (ed.), Ecophilsophy VI newsletter (May 1984). They have subsequently appeared in a number of publications. 5, Tom Regan, *The Nature and Possibility of an Environmental Ethics,” Bnuionmental Bthics 3 (1981): 19-84, citation on p. 30, 6. I proposed the name “Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement” in a lecture at the Third World Future Research conference in Bucharest in Scptember 1972, A summary ofthat lecture ("The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement") was published in Jnguiry 16 (1973) 195-100, Within the deep ecology movement it is fairly common to use the term "deep ecologist,” ‘whereas “shallow ecologist,” I am glad to say, is rather uncommon. Both terms may be considered arrogant and slightly misleading. I prefer to use the awkward, but more egalitarian expression ‘supporter of the deep (or shallow) ecology movement,” avoiding personification. Also, it is common to eall deep ecology consistently anti- anthropocentric, This has led to misconceptions: see my °A Defense of the Deep Ecology Movement,” Enuirenmental Ethics (1983), 7 10. Broader Concems: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism 415 ‘The “shallow/deep” dichotomy is rough. Richard Sylvan has proposed a much more subile clasi cation; see his “A Critique of Deep Ecology; Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosphy, RSSS, ‘Australian National Universicy, No. 12 (1985). World Conservation Strategy, section 18 (concluding. paragraph). ‘The term afman is not taken in its absoluustic senses (not as a permanent indestructible soul). This makes it consistent with those Budldhist denials (Une avatman doctrine) that the ‘atman is to be taken in absolutist senses. Within the Christian tradition some theologians distine guish “ego” and “uue self” in ways similar to these distinctions in Easter religions. See the ecophilosophical interpretation of the gospel of Luke in Stephen Verney's Onto the New Age (Glasgow: Collins, 1976), pp. 38-41. ‘Many authors take some steps toward derivational structures, offering mild systematizations. The ‘chapter “Environmental Ethics and Hope” (in “Tyler Miller, Living in the Breivonment, Sr ed, [Belmont: Wadsworth, 1983)) is a valuable start, but the derivational relaons are unclear. The logic and semantics of simple models of normative sjstems ate briefly discussed in my “Notes on the Methodology of Normative Systems," Methodology and Science 10 (1977): 64-79, For a defense of the thesis that as soon as people assert anything at all, they assume a total view, implicity involving an ontology, methodology, epistemology, and ethics, see my "Reflections about Total Views,” Philosoply and Phenomenolog ical Research 25 (1964-65): 16-29. The best and witest warning against king systematizations too seriously is to be found in Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Pestscript For criticism and defense of my fundamental norm (‘Selfrealization”), together with my answer, see In Seeptical Wonder: Esays in Honor of. ‘Ame Naess (Oslo: University Press, 1982), My tmain exposition of Ecosophy T was originally offered in the Norwegian work, Okelgi, samy ag lust! (Oslo, University Press, 5th ed., 1976). Even (here, the exposition is sketchy. (Editor's note: Naess’s Norwegian book has been revised. and reissued as Ame Naess (anslated and edited by David Rothenberg), Ecology, Community ‘and Lifssle (Cambridge: Cambridge Universioy Press, 1989].)446 Chapter 10 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. 1, Ist possible to live according to the deep ecology platfors 2 3, Is Selfrealization possible? Is it good? Why? 4. Asa social and political movement, which scems "bes," deep or shallow environmentalism? you derive the platform from Naess' fundamental norm Self-realization? KAREN J. WARREN The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism Karen Warren's now classic article, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Femini sets out the ecofeminist agenda and philosophical framework, Warren and fellow ecophilosopher Val Phumwood have been instrumental in developing ecofeminism as a contribution to both feminism and environmental philosophy. In 1991, under Warren's editorship, the academic journal Hypatia: A journal of Feminist Philosophy devoted an en- tire issue to ecofeminism. Warren has subsequently edited several books and written ‘other important articles developing the fiindamental insights articulated in “The Power ‘and the Promise of Ecological Feminism.” As she notes, “There are important connec. s between ferninism and environmentalism, an appreciation of which is essential for the success of the women’s and ecological movements. CRITICAL READING QUESTIONS 1, What does Warren mean by a “feminist issue"? 2 What does Warren mean by patriarchy and oppressive conceptual frameworks, and what is their relation? 3, Why, according to Warren, must all feminists oppose the logic of dominati 4. According to Warren, what justifies including "nacusism” among the forms of domi nation that feminism opposes! 5. What does the narrative about rock climbing show, according to Warren? INTRODUCTION tive feminism and environmental ethic.' Since Frangoise d'Faubonne introduced the term ecofénin- Ecological feminism (ecofetminism) has begun 1ore-_isme in 1974 to bring atention to women's potential ceive a fair amount of attention lately as an alterna- for bringing about an ecological revolution,” the term has been used in a variety of ways. As [use the —— term in this paper, ecological Feminism is the post “This esay originally appreated in Envirnarmtal Evhis 12, tion that there are important connections—histor (Surumer 1990}: 125-45. Reprinted with peemission, cal, experiential, symbolic, theoretical—between the a a