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.
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
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).
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.
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.
Rees begins with the by filling the audience in on how the world is “getting easier and better,” and medical and technological advances have lead to the rapid growth of the population. (25) The advances and “progress” we have made has lead to a long and comfortable life. The author then lists multiple failed management endeavors, which had initially thought to alleviate or reverse environmental issues. He cites that the reason for the failures is that the models did not reflect the stress of the human demand, “The sheer scale of human demands on nature has pushed many socioecosystems into unfamiliar and often unfriendly territory.” (27) Ecologists have supposed that when socio-ecosystems lose their
The world is categorized into many ecospheres, among all, water and land. Upon further analysis, it is evident that both nature and humanity are interdependent. However, our anthropocentric views on the world have led to a golden age of mass production, accelerating beyond natures ability to regenerate itself. In the late 1950s nature was not seen as an item of importance, during the time civilization was captured by the topic of civil rights for the human being, rather than the detrimental natural surroundings. Often times, society does not utilize all the resources provided by the environment and can fall into the mindset of hurting the environment without knowing the full consequences. In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson exposes the hidden
Over the past two centuries, the human population has become increasingly prosperous; nourishment has improved, the economy has developed and longevity has increased. From this, it is possible to conclude that man’s battle with nature is proving beneficial. However, the wellbeing and success of mankind greatly relies on ‘ecosystem services’, which comprise any benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute towards human life. These developments in wellbeing have partly been achievable because of the increased exploitation of these ecosystem services.
While Rachel Carson’s “The Obligation to Endure”, Christopher Kemp’s "Medieval Planet", and Jared Diamond’s “The Ends of the World as We Know Them” all cover subjects relating to environmental issues, each author goes about purveying his or her message in a different manner. Kemp’s New Scientist article explains humanity’s environmental effects by imagining a world in which we never existed and hypothesizing how it would look and function with our absence. Carson’s essay depicts a frightening reality about the current state of humanity and the environment. She warns readers about how we are the only species who possess the capability to disrupt and even destroy Earth’s natural patterns. Diamond articulates his work with an unusual spin, using examples of historical civilizations that have snuffed themselves out by their own progress or poor relationship with the environment. The main message conveyed in Diamond's essay is that we are just as capable of choking ourselves out by our own doing today as were the historical civilizations that suffered the same fate. Despite their differing focuses, each article agrees that humans are outgrowing the finite amount of resources that the Earth can provide. A delicate symbiotic relationship between life and the environment has been maintained throughout time. Life on Earth was shaped by the constantly changing climate and surroundings. However, humans have gained the capacity to transcend this relationship. Through our ingenuity and industrialism, we have separated ourselves from natural restrictions. Because of this progress, we have been destroying the natural cycles of Earth’s environment and continue to do so at an alarming rate. Humanity has become Earth’s infection, ravaging the worl...
Sassen, S. "The Global City: introducing a Concept." Brown Journal of World Affairs. 11.2 (2005): 40. Print.
description of the construction of a good city. The good city is a relation to
Ecologists formulate their scientific theories influenced by ethical values, and in turn, environmental ethicists value nature based on scientific theories. Darwinian evolutionary theory provides clear examples of these complex links, illustrating how these reciprocal relationships do not constitute a closed system, but are undetermined and open to the influences of two broader worlds: the sociocultural and the natural environment. On the one hand, the Darwinian conception of a common evolutionary origin and ecological connectedness has promoted a respect for all forms of life. On the other hand, the metaphors of struggle for existence and natural selection appear as problematic because they foist onto nature the Hobbesian model of a liberal state, a Malthusian model of the economy, and the productive practice of artificial selection, all of which reaffirm modern individualism and the profit motive that are at the roots of our current environmental crisis. These metaphors were included in the original definitions of ecology and environmental ethics by Haeckel and Leopold respectively, and are still pervasive among both ecologists and ethicists. To suppose that these Darwinian notions, derived from a modern-liberal worldview, are a fact of nature constitutes a misleading interpretation. Such supposition represents a serious impediment to our aim of transforming our relationship with the natural world in order to overcome the environmental crisis. To achieve a radical transformation in environmental ethics, we need a new vision of nature.
In environmental science, there are a set of terms that represent different ways one views his/her relationship with the environment. These terms, called value systems, describe a spectrum ranging from ecocentric, or highly valuing the environment, to technocentric, or valuing technological innovation over the natural environment. In the middle of the spectrum, is another perspective known as anthropocentrism, which describes one’s valuing of humans over the environment. As human civilization became the dominant species on earth, the environment became insignificant compared to the needs of civilization. The natural world became nothing more than a means to provide humans
Though Blackstone created these thoughts well over 200 years ago, they are more relevant now than ever before. He reasoned that “changing environmental conditions” require us to restrict traditional freedoms and property rights in the name of public welfare and equality (Desjardins, 104). Due to dwindling natural resources and rising concerns of pollution, those previous rights and freedoms can no longer exist if the welfare of posterity is to be protected. To say that millions of unborn humans have a right to anything, even before existing in our world, is an odd concept. However, this sentiment conveys perhaps the single most compelling argument for why an anthropocentric approach to environmental ethics is in fact, the most justified. It is the instinct of all living beings to prioritize oneself and ensure a future for those to come (Acari, 2017). Though this justification for protecting the natural world might seem selfish or short-sighted, it is in fact, the nature of all life to preserve self-interests. In response to the counterclaim that plants and animals should be regarded with natural rights like humans, Blackstone would rebut that these beings are incapable of “free and rational thought” (Desjardins, 103). This is most likely in part due to his purely anthropocentric perspective that human life alone is worth consideration. Thus,
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.
Environmental studies is a paramount field to focus on for both the present day and the future. This field of studies pertains to all people, animals, plants, and biomes around the world. Environmental Studying is important because it is only by understands the environmental processes that we can begin to take the steps necessary to correct the on-going damage that is occurring, and ultimately protect and sustain life on the planet. Unless steps are taken to try and abate and control environmental problems, which are often human-generated or exacerbated, then the environmental that we live in will continue to deteriorate. There is no life without protecting the source that sustains us. Even though I have only been alive for seventeen years, it has been long enough to see many negative environmental changes. Since I was born that population has grown by over one billion people causing deforestation, loss of wildlife, increased pollution to both air and water, and even superbugs. However, I have also been able to see extremely positive results such as an increase in the research and implementation of renewable resources. The reason I am so motivated to study environmental science is because I know that change is possible. Those who study environmental science and study have the ability to help reduce, and possible reserve, some of the damage that has been done to the environment while at the same time, helping to advance the well-being of our fellow humans.