Deep Ecology/Ecosophy
The ideas behind deep ecology have major implications today. They allow people to think more profoundly about the environment and possibly come to a better understanding of their own meaning. People are intensely concerned about the world’s technological adolescence, massive consumerism, and overpopulation. A man named Arne Naess, former head of the philosophy department at the University of Oslo founded an idea that can direct people’s anxiety away from their "shallow" notion of the problem to one that is much "deeper." "Deep ecology goes beyond the limited piecemeal shallow approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview." (EE p.145) In its most basic form, deep ecology is a wisdom, an ecosophy, which requires humans to see themselves as part of the bigger picture. Naess, Devall, and Sessions outline basic principles of deep ecology in their writing. Furthermore, they address the roles that scientific ecology plays as well as the concept of self-realization. Aside from these ideas, ecosabotage needs to be discussed in terms of how it fits with the practice of deep ecology.
The basic principles of deep ecology as characterized by the authors mentioned, show us what is supposedly wrong with the world and also give us a framework by which we can make a change. In fact, Naess and Sessions went camping in Death Valley, California in order to gain a different perspective. They condensed fifteen years their thought on the topic of deep ecology in an effort to make it appeal to people from all kinds of backgrounds. They also emphasize that these principles must all be considered together.
The first principle states that the value of life, human or non-human, is intrinsic. This means that everything about it is valuable, including individuals, species, populations, habitat, and culture. When considering non-human life, it important to remember that deep ecology likes to include that which can be classified as non-living such as bodies of water and landscapes. Essentially, "the presence of inherent value in a natural object is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by a conscious being." (EE p.147)
...
... middle of paper ...
...sp;Deep ecology makes a good deal of sense. Before learning about this, shallow ecology seemed legitimate. Clearly, the principles behind deep ecology could be far more productive than anything practiced today. Some will argue that complete acceptance of deep ecology is absurd. Completely neglecting our anthropocentric perspective means that we have forgotten where we stand in the whole picture. We have been around a short while in comparison with life of the earth. It could easily go through another dramatic climatic shift and we would be history, and probably succeeded by a new form of life. The point is that humans share something valuable. Of course it is anthropocentric and it is worth saving. The other issue that seems debatable is the current state of economics and the market. These writing by Naess and company are somewhat dated and much has changed since then with the advent of the Internet. Is global village really such a bad thing if we use it properly? Deep ecology wants to preserve cultures and independent economies. I do not know which side to join at this point in time. I want to believe in most of what deep ecology holds true, however some issues make me uncertain.
he concept of nature is elusive, and humans have never had a positive and unified way to name and interact with it. Since the colonizing of America, many leaders have had different definitions of nature, and have held different views on humans’ relationship with nature. These views have often led to destruction masked as “progress” (Marx 14). But not all definitions of nature are so destructive. Ursula Goodenough, a biology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, wrote The Sacred Depths of Nature to create a new religion based in the physical, chemical, and biological laws that govern the universe (Department of Biology). Goodenough’s treatment of “nature” illustrates her unique interpretation of the word. Goodenough understands the word nature to mean life, and life means biology. She uses this definition to inspire humans to care for the world we live in. And while she recognizes that humans can be separate, she also shows how much a part of nature we truly are. Recently, a proposition has been made to define First Nature as biophysical and Second Nature as the artificial (Marx 20).
The metropolitan museum is the largest art museum in the United States, and one of the largest in the world. Upon going to the museum I found myself wondering how I can choose three artifacts out of nearly a million different relics. After spending countless hours roaming the three story museum and looking at the vast amount of artifacts I found myself overwhelmed with inspiration to write this analysis. The only dilemma was how one can narrow down the selection to three relics out of hundreds of thousands. After sometime I picked the three relics that I found interesting, spiritual, and showed a significance in modern and ancient history. The three relicts I will discuss in this essay are the following; Family Tree, Emperor’s Twelve-Symbol Robe, and lastly Mans Shirt, these three artifacts show in my opinion how god, the spirit and the universe all reflect upon the individual wearing the clothing/stories painted upon the person.
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
The personal experiences that Daniel cites all serve to demonstrate the depth of understanding nature that is possible. Daniel argues that with a furthered understanding of nature, the environment is seen as integral to life. Throughout the essay, Daniel caters to personal motivations to convey his opinion. Daniels emphasis is on the benefit of broadening personal wisdom rather than environmental causes. According to Daniel, the primary benefit of in depth experiences is gaining a new understanding of the
Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to investigate the various components of different ecosystems in a smaller representation and study the conditions required for the ecosystem’s sustainability as well as the connections between
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
Mary Oliver's (Clinebell, 1996, p.188) poem has a lot to say about the relatively new approach to conservation called ecopsychology. Ecopsychology combines the human element from psychology, with the study of how biological systems work together from ecology. A more in depth explanation of ecopsychology is that it seeks to help humans experience themselves as an integral part of nature (Strubbe 1997). When this is accomplished, humans can proceed to commit to "helping heal the earth, as well as healing ourselves" (Strubbe 1997, p. 293). In the past, environmental action has consisted of scaring and shaming those who over consume or do not recycle, which proved to be quite ineffective. Ecopsychology, in contrast, attempts to create positive and affirming motivations, derived from a bond of love and loyalty to nature (Bayland, 1995). Before tackling the principles, religious aspects, therapy, actions and education included in ecopsychology, it is essential to unde...
Such ploys seek to undermine any legitimate eco-consciousness in the audience, replacing it with rhetoric that is ultimately ambivalent toward the health of ecosystems, but definitively pro-business. These tactics assume a rigidly anthropocentric point of view, shutting out any consideration for the well-being of non-human existence; they seem to suggest that nature lies subordinate to our base desires. In addition to upholding the subordination of nature to business and leisure activities, this view establishes nature as something privately owned and partitioned (243), rather than something intrinsic to the world. Our relationship with nature becomes one of narcissism.
description of the construction of a good city. The good city is a relation to
When thinking about the good city naturally every person imagines a physical condition to be improved but the physical environment is not the only force that shapes the city. For example, city and urban society cannot be detached (Lefebvre, 1970/2003). Hence the urban society is, combined with the city, an important force in urban development.
Exploring the essence of what it means to be human as well as the essence of nature connects the relation between the two more closely. For instance, in Bookchins reading he mentions the difference between first and second nature, where first nature can be related to the concept of nature as an essence. First nature deals with the biological evolution of nature, so in other words the qualities constructed in order to identify something. If humans are able to realize that every living thing as an essence, the natural world becomes more interrelated to humans. By viewing nature as having a specific type of essence, individuals are able to understand that nature is characterized by being natural and pristine and must remain in this way. For example, problems such as pollution can be seen as unnatural and caused by the carelessness of humans. When individuals realize that this is unnatural they are able to protect and sustain nature in order to keep the natural
Thomas Aquinas for example, used this view to rebuke the criticisms of anthropocentrism, “We refute the error of those who claim that it is a sin for a man to kill brute animals. For animals are ordered to man’s use in the natural course of things, according to divine providence. Consequently, man uses them without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way” (Desjardins, 99). Not only has Aquinas claimed that animals are subject to man as a “natural course”, but also that anyway in which they are used is justified because of this. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, and claims that the sole basis for plants and animals’ existence is to serve humans. He later goes on to say that if nature makes nothing without purpose, then nature has made everything specifically for the sake of humankind. Both Aristotle and Aquinas based these beliefs upon the idea that only human beings are worthy of moral standing. This is due to the belief that humans alone have a “soul” capable of thinking and choosing. Since they thought animals not to have such a soul, animals must be morally irrelevant (Desjardins, 99). In this first example, the basis for environmental responsibility comes entirely from the belief that said the environment is meant to serve humans. Meaning that any obligations man has towards nature is entirely