Deep Ecology

Deep Ecologist argues that all things in the universe have their own intrinsic value and are interconnected with each other. The holistic view is based on an ontological monism which rejects the matter-reason dualism of the human-centred ethicists and instead considers all matter in some sense to be spiritual or alive. It is for this reason that deep ecologists generally reject the need for God as the one who values nature as this view sets up a hierarchy of value and gives more power to some than others.

Basic Principles:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes (instrumental value). 
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. 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.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

Ecosophy

Arne Naess (1912-2009), one of Norway’s best known philosophers developed his deep ecology as a mountaineer and lived for much of his life in an isolated hut in the mountains. His philosophy is influenced by Spinoza, Gandhi and the Buddha. Naess argues that there are two things that are morally considerable:

• The biosphere – as a whole
• The Eco-systems that constitute it.

The extinction of a species may not be bad in itself but is certainly bad in relation to the larger goal of maintaining the biosphere or eco-system.

Ecosophy is the “realisation of the self” that humans are not superior because they are conscious beings but have their place in the ecosphere. Naess was critical of the Christian teaching on stewardship and regarded it as arrogant, giving, as he considered humans a morally superior place in the universe.

An ‘everything ethic’ suggests also that non-living things which lack consciousness and even basic biological organisation must be considered morally significant because the natural order has intrinsic value. It is our human duty to keep it healthy. An action such as mining by smashing up rocks and disturbing geological structures should not be valued in relation to the thing in itself that is the intrinsic value of the rocks.

Naess thinks humans should reduce their population, abandon the notion of economic growth, conserve diversity and live in small self-reliant communities.

? How practical is this?

? How does it function as a criticism of Singer? How would he reply?

? Is it really incompatible with Christian ethics?

There are two main critiques of Naess’ ecosophy:

• Irrationalism – it is not possible to demonstrate that the ecosystem is morally considerable or that matter is equally valuable then we only have Naess; word for it.

• Practical – how are humans to decide who’s needs are greater given that all nature is equally valuable

Eco-holism

The most influential holistic environmental theories, the Gaia theory, was developed by James Lovelock – inventor, scientist and author. He was acutely aware of the inter-connectedness of all matter – especially at the subatomic level. He argues that it was quite wrong to consider the earth to be inert but in some ways alive. He likened the relationship of the atmosphere and living beings to be like the bark of a tree: although the bark is inert without it the tree cannot live – but without the tree there would be no bark! Gaia is therefore more than just a principle but describes the vital energy of nature.

Gaia is non-teleological and seeks only for the homeostatic equilibrium of the earth that implies that human life has no particular priority or significance. Lovelock set out a thought exercise he calls “Daisyworld”:

“In this world there are white and black daisies. Daisies absorb heat and they flourish in lower temperatures whereas white daisies reflect heat and flourish at higher temperature s. Therefore as the temperature of the world increases more white daisies grow and as they reflect heat thereby lowering the temperature this encourages more black daisies to grow and flourish. But as black daisies increase the temperature that they absorb heat this increase the temperature of the world which encourage the white daisies increase and the black daisies die out. This process carries on without stop and illustrates the world is in a state of equilibrium or homeostasis. Thus Gaia’s self-regulation will likely prevent any extraordinary runaway effects that wipe out life itself, but that humans will survive and be “culled and, I hope, refined.”

? How can Gaia be interpreted?

Pro-environment or Anti-Environment

Whatever the interpretation, Lovelock believes if we wish humans to have a future we must comply with Gaia:
“She is stern and tough, always keeping the world warm and comfortable for those who obey the rules, but ruthless in her destruction of this who transgress. Her unconscious goal is a planet fit for life, if humans stand in the way of this; we shall be eliminated with as little pity as would be shown by the micro-brain of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile in full flight to its target.” Lovelock – The Ages of Gaia

Problems:

• What does it mean to say the planet is alive?

• The Daisyworld experiment assumes stability, not change as dictated by evolution