Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
cultures, the rich over the poor, and so on - which needed to be challenged and
overturned. In developing their argument, they suggested that there was no firm
ontological divide between human and non-human realms, and that this
biocentric
equality was intimately related to human
self-realization
. When we harm nature, we
harm ourselves. There are no boundaries and everything is related. Thus, for Naess,
when viewed systematically rather than individually, maximum self-realization means
the maximum realization of all manifestations of life.
The basic principles of deep ecology include:
The wellbeing and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value
in themselves ('intrinsic value' or 'inherent value'). These values are independent
of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
Richness and diversity of life-forms contribute to the realizations of these
values and are also values in themselves.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital human needs.
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial
decrease of human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such
a decrease.
Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic,
technological and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be
deeply different from the present.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in
situations of inherent value), rather than adhering to an increasingly high standard
of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and
great.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation to directly
or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.
(Naess, 1995: 68)
Naess himself is reluctant to apply the label 'deep' or 'shallow' ecologist to anyone
specifically, as the former seemed to be rather conceited and the latter too disparaging,
almost offensive. Instead, applying a Ghandian perspective, he prefers the word
'supporter', believing that groups and individuals may adhere to deep ecology
principles from a number of different positions and from a range of differing life
experiences, cultures, technologies and practices. He therefore sees his own deep
'ecosophy' as being both didactic and dialectic, encouraging people to recognize and
state their own general philosophies. Like Socrates, Naess writes, he wants to use
his ecosophy to provoke questioning about basic matters of ecology, life and death,
and from there to outline implications for practical situations, real-world actions
and concrete issues of lifestyle: 'I believe that multifaceted, high-level self-realization
is more easily reached through a lifestyle which is “simple in means but rich in ends”
rather than through the material standard of living of the average citizens of industrial
states' (Naess, 1995: 82).
Ramachandra Guha (1989) is less certain. Writing from the vantage point of a
developing nation, India, he suggests that deep ecology, particularly in its commitment
