DEEP

ECOLOGY
L.SRI LASYA
CB.EN.U4EEE15030
 INTRODUCTION
An environmental movement and
philosophy which regards human life as
just one of many equal components of a
global ecosystem.
The central idea of Deep Ecology is that
we are part of the earth, rather than
apart and separate from it.
FOUNDATION OF DEEP ECOLOGY
In 1973, Norwegian philosopher and
mountaineer Arne Naess introduced the
phrase deep ecology to environmental
literature. Environmentalism had emerged
as a popular grassroots political
movement in the 1960s with the
publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent
Spring.
In 1972, Naess made a presentation in
Bucharest at the Third World Future
Research Conference. In his talk, he
discussed the longer-range background
of the ecology movement and its
concern with an ethic respecting nature
and the inherent worth of other beings.
 PRINCIPLE
Proponents of deep ecology believe that the
world does not exist as a resource to be
freely exploited by humans.
Proponents of deep ecology offer a three
simple principles to elucidate their claims:
Wilderness and biodiversity preservation
Human population control
Simple living (or treading lightly on the
planet).
 development
The ecological problems faced by the world
today are partly due to the loss of traditional
knowledge, values, and ethics of behaviour
that celebrate the intrinsic value and
sacredness of the natural world and that give
the preservation of Nature prime importance.
Correspondingly, the assumption of human
superiority to other life forms, as if we were
granted royalty status over Nature; the idea
that Nature is mainly here to serve human will
and purpose. Deep ecology had a response
to the anthropocentric view and several
different actors played a role in its
development.
 development
Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for
environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide
human activity against perceived self-destruction.
Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the
science of ecology shows that ecosystems can
absorb only limited change by humans or other
dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the
actions of modern civilization threaten global
ecological well-being.
Deep ecologists hope to influence social and
political change through their philosophy. Nss has
proposed, as Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes, "that
the earths human population should be reduced to
about 100 million."
 deepness
Deep ecology is criticised for its claim to being deeper than
alternative theories, which by implication are shallow.
When Arne Nss coined the term deep ecology, he
compared it favourably with shallow environmentalism which
he criticized for its utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to
nature and for its materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.
Writer William D. Grey believes that developing a non-
anthropocentric set of values is "a hopeless quest". He seeks an
improved "shallow" view, writing, "What's wrong with shallow
views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but
that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being
consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified
anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the
dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception."
 views
Deep ecology
This perspective tends to be male
centered; many of the leading
voices within the movement are
male. And there is some sense in
which the view is unified, much
moreso than the ecofeminist
position.
For deep ecology, the locus of the
problem is identified as humanity;
deep ecologists blame the human
centered attitude toward nature for
the degradation of nature. They
contend that humans ought not to
think of nature in an instrumentalist
way and to acknowledge its
inherent worth and value.
ecofeminism
This perspective tends to be woman
centered, though there are
certainly men involved. The
ecofeminist movement can have
difficulty achieving a unified voice,
however, due to pluralism and due
to the movements desire to be
inclusive.
Ecofeminists claim that deep
ecology is too shallow because it
fails to acknowledge that the
domination of nature occurs as part
of a broader scheme of oppression
and patriarchy.
 VIEWS
DEEP ECOLOGY
Deep ecologists charge that
the ecofeminist mission
becomes distorted through
analyses of power and
domination. They claim that
the environment would be
better served if humans
restored it to its own ends,
recognized its intrinsic worth,
and acknowledged the
priority of the sovereignty
and autonomy of nature.
ECOFEMINISM
For ecofeminists, the locus of the
problem is not humanity in
general, but androcentrism more
specifically. Ecofeminists also see
patriarchy and unjust domination
as the problem, believing that
environment injustice can only
be addressed after human
injustice to other humans is
resolved. In some sense, the
ecofeminist view can be said to
insist that an environmental ethic
should develop through a
broader ethic centered first on
issues of justice.
 ISSUES OF WILDERNESS
Deep ecologists often recommend policies setting
aside expanses of free nature outside of human
control.
The ecofeminist response to this solution of deep
ecology claims that wilderness is a constructed
concept. As a constructed concept, ecofeminists
ask us to examine who determines what wilderness
means and what free wilderness would look
like. Ecofeminists are wary of classifying nature as
other because they contend when we think of
something as other it is more likely to be subject
to domination resulting from patriarchal ideology.
 ISSUES OF WILDERNESS
Deep ecologists, of course, claim that they are not
dualists in this regard. They would like humans to
ultimately view the natural world as an extension of
themselves. Ecofeminists, on the other hand, are
suspicious of this expansion of self. They contend
that it is possible that this expanded self will adopt a
patriarchal outlook.
Further, ecofeminists may point out that setting up
these territories of free or wild nature denies that
humans, and especially women, do indeed depend
on nature for daily life. Because ecofeminists want to
examine issues of power and inequality, they express
concern about how setting aside free wilderness
would affect people.
THANK YOU