Deep Ecology Article 3

Arne Naess after three decades teaching philosophy at the University of Oslo devoted himself to environmental work and developed the theory of Deep Ecology. His goal was to promote an all-embracing connection between the Living Earth and the Humanity. It formed part of a broader personal philosophy that he called: “A philosophy of Ecological Harmony’ – in that, human beings can comprehend by expanding their narrow concept of self to embrace the entire planetary ecosystem. Its central tenet is the belief that all living things have their own value and therefore need protection against the destruction inflicted by thoughtless human behaviour.

 

Harold Glasser, the editor of “The Selected Works of Arne Naess”, has called him “the philosophical equivalent of a Hunter-Gatherer.” In 1969 Naess left the university to develop his ecological ideas, which, he believed, demanded political action. Surveying the continuing destruction of the environment Naess was pessimistic about the 21st century but interestingly optimistic about the 23rd. By then with wisdom and understanding he believed that technology would be non-invasive and children would grow up in a natural environment. At that point, he said, “we are back in the direction of ecological harmony between humanity and the natural world.”

Arne Naess himself used the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ as marking the start of the international movement of deep ecology. In time this philosophy inspired, and indeed continues to inspire, many in the green and environmental movements today.

Naess began his ecological philosophy writings in the mid-1960s saying that very often after he give a talk on deep ecology, numerous people would approach him saying: ‘That’s exactly what I have thought for many years now, but did not find ways to express!’ Silent Spring initiated a transformation in perception of the links between humans and the natural world and stirred an awakening of public environmental consciousness. Meanwhile, deep ecology philosophy argues that:

​

• The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has intrinsic value.

• The value of non-human life forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.

• Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth.

• Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity in order to increase their power and control over the rest of the natural world.

• Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

• The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with an increase in human knowledge and awareness of our dependency on the complexity of the natural world that sustains us.

• A significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in our ways of thinking regarding basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.

• The dominant socio-political living situation relating to basic economic, technological, and ideological structures across the world must change, taking on board a state of affairs very different from the present, and bringing about a more meaningful and sustainable existence for humanity itself.

 

For Arne Naess, those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly, or indirectly, to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes in order to ensure the survival of both Humanity and the Living Earth.