Transformative Ethics: Deep Ecology

Coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1973, Deep Ecology is concerned with fundamental philosophical and personal questions about the ways humans relate to their environment. He compares this with ‘shallow ecology’ which is the exploitation and destruction of the natural world by materialism and consumerism. Deep Ecology predicts that if we do not shift our basic values and customs we will destroy the diversity and beauty of the world's life and its ability to support humanity. The concept nearly mirrors Ghandi’s philosophy of non-violence and reverence of all life, whom also experimented with and wrote about simple living that balances harmoniously with the environment.

Arne Naess’s movement involves questioning attitudes towards nature and the fundamental root causes. He uses the apron diagram to place belief systems as a platform that can be used by people from a diversity of religious and philosophical backgrounds. The apron distinguishes between four levels of discourse and shows that there can be some consensus formed by cross cultural global movements through the platform principles. Movements are described where their principles emerge from the bottom up (called grass roots movements) as opposed to top down power found in hierarchies. He also uses an 8 point platform to characterise the deep ecology movement. What Naess is suggesting is that through deep questioning there can be some level of agreement between culturally diverse groups and this work can happen at the level of the platform principles moving from the individual towards policy formulation and into practical actions. By Naess’s definition (platform principle number 1), it is important to recognise that the movement is not anti-human, and those who work for social change is motivated by love of nature as well as for humans. This is important as there is a perception amongst some that environmentalists do not care about the human species.



Arne Naess's Deep Ecology Apron Diagram



Deep Ecology Eight Point Platform

Deep Ecology is a more enlightened approach for humanity to live within ecological limits rather than depend on technological fixes for environmental destruction. Accepting the principles involves a commitment to respecting the intrinsic values in Nature, which leads one to analyse industrial culture that aims to meet not only vital needs but excessive desires that can only be satisfied with more consumption. If we do not accept the industrial development model, what then? Would deep ecology lead society towards the values and philosophies of indigenous people? The rapport between Nature and consciousness is not new as indigenous people show the possibilities of contentment and balance with the environment. This line of thinking questions whether humans are capable of such change. As a guide for personal growth, Deep Ecology invites each individual to interact with and identify with all living creatures. So can we move beyond current belief systems and adopt this line of philosophical thought?

Fox (1995) and Keller (1997) contend that Deep Ecology has exhausted itself and will never fully conceptualise. This does not lessen its qualities. Studies by Layard (2005) demonstrate that people are experiencing an increasing growth in restless dissatisfaction, chronic stress and private despair associated with current lifestyles. We come from all walks of life and share different opinions but all of have our own ecosophies which through Deep Ecology, supports ways to find solutions to our shared environmental problems. Deep Ecology will endure, because when people start to question and seek true meaning in their lives is when the principles of Deep Ecology will manifest.

References

Fox., W. (1995). Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Keller., D. (1997). Gleaning Lessons from Deep Ecology. Ethics and the Environment 2(2): 139–148.

Layard., R. (2005). Happiness: lessons from a new science. Harmondsworth: Penguin.