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.

Stewardship

The concept of environmental (or ecological) stewardship refers to the human relationship with the environment by recognising planetary needs, identifying relations of power and responsibility, raising awareness and establishes networks or institutions capable of managing issues locally and globally. Barry (2002) suggests that stewardship and democracy is a political-ethical idea enabling a transition towards a sustainable society by ‘greening the citizen’ and ‘collective ecological management’ that widens our environmental rights and responsibilities. The advantage is a human/environment reconnection supported by democratic leaders, into fostering a new system of environmental ethics; benefits that extend to the wider community as democratic voters.

With most of the population living in cities it has become more difficult to take on the role of stewards living in a built environment that does not resemble anything in nature. There is even a term for children suffering from ‘nature deficient-disorder’ which is the modern disconnection between society and the biosphere. Could the solution be found in ecological literacy? that is the ability to both read and understand environmental literature knowing what is countable; as well as observing nature with insight and critical reflection. The combination of education and experience can empower individuals to think and act in an ethical manner. Perhaps this means a greater role of education institutions, particularly with young children, to teach ecological literacy and bridge the gap between modern society and the environment. Being reflective adds to personal experience which motivates and equips us to develop more socially just and ecologically sensible ways of living.

How do we establish stewardship within a world where cultures have different values? It is within the globalisation paradigm that Barry (2002) recognises that we are not only dependent on the Earth, but also on each other. Though globalisation has its own contentions, it removes cultural divisions and reveals us all simply to be ‘human’, stripped of beliefs, values and other conditions used to define and separate humanity. Perhaps it is in this simplicity and unity that we can repair our relationship with the environment, and became true stewards of the Earth.

References

Barry., J. (2002). ‘Vulnerability and virtue: Democracy, dependency, and ecological stewardship.’ In Democracy and the claims of nature: critical perspectives for a new century. Ed. By Minteer, B.A. and Taylor, B. P. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield: 133-152.

Enhancing Sustainability with Native Ecology Perspectives

There are many questions posed by various academics that seek to understand the human relationship with the environment. The reason for such questions has emerged in line with several environmental issues and future uncertainties, raising whether human beings as a species, is inherently unsustainable and self-destructive. Just consider Easter Island where the Polynesian travellers constructed one of the most advanced societies from a limited resource base and available technology, but pressure on the environment from these demands lead to the demise of the society. Easter Island strikingly examples a society dependent on their environment and the consequences of irreversibly damaging the environment.

How did, in such a short span of human history, culture transform into an over-consuming, exploitative and dominating community living in a state of non-sustainability? As the ecological crisis has worsened it seems the roots of non-sustainability are influenced by human perspectives which continue to be ingrained by culture, politics and neoclassical economic theory. Thus, exclusive of personal responsibility, the masses are in a way coerced into a consumer culture dissociated from the origins of many goods. Take for instance the chicken that has been killed, cleaned, packaged, transported and presented in a way that it no longer looks like a chicken from the farm.

Perhaps it is traditional cultures that can offer some insight into human behaviour by showing that humans are capable of not only living within ecological limits absent of waste, but also appreciate and respect nature represented as a living and nurturing entity. The Earth provides life and human survival is dependent on nature’s well-being, this is universally acknowledged by indigenous peoples from all corners of the world. These perspectives can be appreciated and provide valuable knowledge for ways to live sustainably that can be integrated into sustainable solutions.

Society needs to recognise that simple living can be good and this does not mean living like a cave man. There appears to be a fear of reversion to living simply, perhaps because there is a deep connection between goods and services with personal identity and status that living with less would be like a kind of death. Shouldn’t we have this type of affinity with nature instead? In order to live more sustainably we, and our relationship with nature, need to be re-defined and this can be aided by a native ecology perspective.

Philosophy Of The Human-Environment Relationship

Humans are constantly interacting with their surrounding environment. But are we autonomous of our environment or are we really part of it?

This idea closely resembles Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss's belief, that the self can be realised by looking into our relationship with nature and finding our whole. It is then somewhat of a paradox to consider ourselves as a separate individual yet at the same time part of a collective society. Society being an extension of our mind and body.

So how can we expect the individual to cooperate with the community while we continue to see ourselves as an independent source of action? We can easily see that life is a system of ecological cooperation, and we must be encouraged to include ourselves in that cooperation. Our speratism is much like branches that are independent but remain an extension of the tree. In understanding the human-environment relationship we realise the relationship is mutal. The balance of nature in alignment with a flourishing society must be consistent with the networks of mutally independent orgransims.

Comprehending this pattern is much like piecing together an infinately complex jigsaw puzzle, but by attempting to observe environment interactions, we start to see patterns and dynamics which have no separate parts. Take responsibility. For every problem is ultimately the collective fractal of human society, and it is one which is simply a macrocosm of the individual.