Deep Ecology

Deep ecology principles

To help make the deep ecology concept more digestible and accessible to all, in 1984, Arne Naess, along with fellow deep ecologists Bill Devall and George Session, developed eight fundamental principles of deep ecology. These are often referred to as the eight tenets of deep ecology. They are intrinsic value, diversity, vital needs, population, human interference, policy changes, quality of life, and obligation of action.

Fig. 1 - An image symbolising the protection of the Earth's environment

Intrinsic Value

This principle emphasises that all things in the ecosystem have value whether they are human or animal, living or non-living. In other words, the well-being and preservation of non-human life have value irrespective of its usefulness to humans.

Diversity

The richness and diversity of all forms of life help humans understand these values and that they are also values in themselves. This principle argues that diversity can emerge from the human realisation of the value of non-human life.

Vital Needs

This principle posits that humans have no right to reduce the diversity of non-human life except in cases where it satisfies vital human needs. For example, in deep ecology farming and consumption of meat are wrong as it disturbs the diversity of animals and is not vital to human survival. Deep ecology acknowledges the irrefutable fact that humans have already enacted damage to nature to an almost irreversible state. However, just because the damage has already occurred, does not mean it should continue. Rather we should work towards repairing the damage and stopping processes that continue this damage such as the effects of fossil fuels on the environment.

Population

To flourish, both humans and non-humans require a substantial decrease in the human population. This links to the principle of sustainability, which refers to the capacity of a system to endure and maintain its health in a continuous way across various domains of life without compromising the ability of future generations to have their own needs met. For living and non-living organisms to continue to flourish and thrive, the human population must not continue to grow and expand as rapidly as it has, as this has a detrimental effect on all areas of the ecosystem.

Human Interference

This principle argues that human interference in the natural world has already reached dangerous levels and that things are only getting worse.

Policy Changes

Policies must be enacted that address the current economic, technological and ideological structures. In other words, to achieve the goals of deep ecology, there must be a fundamental restructuring of society in line with deep ecologist ideals.

Quality of Life

The ideological change mentioned in the sixth principle should focus on an overall appreciation of the quality of life rather than adhering to an increasingly high standard of living. This is because the highest possible standard of living for one organism can lead to poor quality of life for others. For example, humans have sought to increase their standard of living, which has had adverse effects on all other organisms and has actively contributed to climate change.

Obligation of Action

Those that subscribe to the principles above have an obligation to help advance them and implement the changes that need to be made on behalf of deep ecology.

Deep ecology examples

Deep ecology has a number of main goals such as population control, living democracy and living economies. Let's take a look at these goals as well as some deep ecology examples.

Importance of deep ecology

The importance of deep ecology is rooted in its rejection of anthropocentrism which refers to human-centred approaches. According to deep ecologists, ecology and anthropocentrism are opposed to one another. Within deep ecology, nature is viewed as a source of morality and good. Therefore, nature has intrinsic value. Intrinsic value refers to the value and importance that an entity has in itself. This means that nature should not be seen in an anthropocentric or human-centred light. Making nature's value contingent on its usefulness to humans runs counter to the beliefs of deep ecology.

Fig. 2 - Comparison of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism

Deep ecology and Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism is a movement that addresses both environmental and feminist concerns, believing both to be the result of societal dominance by men. There are many similarities between ecofeminism and deep ecology. These similarities include focusing on the relationship between humans and nature and critiques of the existing human relationship with nature.

There is a tendency for deep ecology to have a male-centred perspective, as many of its leading voices are men. Deep ecologists blame humanity for nature's degradation as they view mankind's anthropocentric approach as being the chief problem. Ecofeminists, on the other hand, see androcentrism as the root of environmental problems. Androcentrism refers to male-centred domination in analyses and perspectives. However, from the ecofeminist perspective, patriarchy and unjust dominance are the problems. Ecofeminists argue that environmental injustice can only be adequately addressed once human injustice is resolved. Ecofeminists hold that an environmental ethic should be developed out of a broader ethic that focuses first on justice.

Furthermore, ecofeminists deem deep equality inadequate because it fails to acknowledge that dominance of nature by humans occurs within an oppressive and patriarchal framework. However, deep ecologists criticise the aims of ecofeminism, arguing that these aims are distorted due to their focus on power and domination in terms of sex alongside the fact that the ecofeminist movement has difficulty achieving a unified voice due to the movement’s desire to be inclusive.

Fig. 3 - Symbol for Ecofeminism

Deep Ecology vs Shallow Ecology

Deep ecology is often contrasted against shallow ecology (also a term coined by Arne Naess) to distinguish between Naess's visions for ecologism and the existing views. Deep ecology and shallow ecology are both ecological perspectives within ecologism. However, the tenets of both of these concepts are in opposition to one another. The table below shows why deep ecology and shallow ecology have irreconcilable differences.

Deep ecology criticism

Some aspects of deep ecology have been targets of criticism. For example, deep ecology's call for human population control is regarded by some within the ecology field as being too radical and damaging to the global population. Some critics have even argued that the idea of population control is even misanthropic.

Another criticism of deep ecologists is their claim to understand the interests of non-human organisms. Critics argue that the interests that deep ecologists assign to nature (growth and survival) are in reality just human interests.

Finally, social ecologists, many of whom believe that environmental crises are closely intertwined with human social interaction, argue that deep ecology fails to link these environmental crises with things like authoritarianism and hierarchy.