deep ecology and its problems

The environment is a complicated issue. There are many beliefs about how we should be handling the crisis that is upon us, and there are many different views on how significant the crisis really is and whether or not a crisis even exists or not. The study of the environment is dubbed ecology and inherent to ecology are many issues of conservation, however deep chasms exist in ecology, and it becomes clear that many of these chasms have been around for long periods of time prior to many of our lifetimes. Some view the environment as a resource, some view the environment as a creation of god, and some view the environment as a member of their own community whose needs they need to put before their own.

            One good area to dive into in beginning to understand some of the viewpoints that exist is that of Deep Ecology as outlined and explained by Norwegian Philosopher Arne Naess in his writing of “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” Naess describes Deep Ecology as “the ecology movement that questions deeper.”(p. 250) And what this basically means is that there is no reason for definitions, as Naess says “there is no reason why supporters of movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any definition, for that matter.”(p. 242) What I find interesting in the way Naess frames Deep Ecology is that he specifies that it is not a philosophy but it is a movement. Movement means that this is not something that is grounded in the realm of theory but rather it is action, it is doing. Deep Ecology seems more a frame of mind or a way of living than it is a belief and there is no way to define a way to live. Deep Ecologists are people that as Naess puts it share similar ideals and many people who think that they aren’t Deep Ecologists may in fact be Deep Ecologists. What Naess argued and started his paper with is the idea that anyone “even those who completely subsume ecological policies under the narrow ends of human health and well being cannot attain their modest aims, at least not fully, without being joined by the supporters of deep ecology.”(p. 241) Because as Naess puts it sooner or later we will all be doing work so deep ecology becomes the premise from which conservation work will stem. This is Naess offering a middle ground, a place where both sides can converge in order to ultimately forward the goals of ecology and conservation. Naess establishes eight points that all deep ecologists agree to unanimously and one of these it that “humans have no right to reduce” the “richness and diversity” of non-human life “except to satisfy vital needs.”(p. 243) what Naess is saying here is that we are not the conquerors of this planet, the earth and life that surround us do not belong to us, we merely inhabit it like we rent our apartments. And so Naess says that when the non vital needs of humans come into conflict with the vital needs of non-humans than humans need to pull away and leave. But Naess makes no effort to define what constitutes a vital need. Are vital needs of humans the same worldwide? If so then what does he mean when he says that “differences in climate and related factors, together with differences in structures of societies as they now exist, need to be taken into consideration.”(p. 246) What are these structures and what exactly does he mean by this? Is Naess implying that not all humans are equal? Are these structures social in context? Are they biological? Naess provides no explanation to what exactly is meant by this rather he says that the goals of non-industrial or 3^rd and 4^th world countries “should not be seen as promoting lifestyles similar to those in rich countries.” And that we need to protect non-industrial countries from “invasion by industrial societies.” (p. 247) What exactly classifies invasion and how is it that these countries should work in order to attain their vital needs. Naess classifies many prohibitions but no solutions nor workable models. And given that we need to classify people by structures of society and that vital needs differ worldwide, who determines what is a vital need to every person in this world and while these needs are being determined what are we supposed to do in the meantime? Naess Presents many interesting and provoking arguments but he gives us nothing that we can grasp in our hands, there is nothing to understand, and he seems to eliminate the middle ground that he calls for in the beginning with every argument that he proposes.

However the most problematic part of Naess’ deep ecology model is something very different than anything that I have touched on thus far. Deep ecology’s most crucial premise I feel is one that Aldo Leopold proposed where the person is not a conqueror but rather a citizen of this planet on equal footing with everything that exists apart from us. This is primarily the belief that we view the world in a very anthropocentric manner and deep ecology seems to be screaming out with every fiber of its being that this needs to cease to exist. Where then does Naess get the justification to use the term “Non-human” to describe nature. It seems to me that the problem with Naess’ argument is one where the very language that he employs seems to undermine his entire belief system and the entire movement he is fighting for.