Deep Ecology

There is a spectrum of human response to the natural world, from seeing it a resource to be exploited for human benefit on the one hand through to seeing humanity as part of a single living system. From the Environmentalist point of view, the destruction of natural habitats, pollution and climate change are all primarily threats to human well-being and as such they are potential disasters. From an Ecology point of view, humans are almost the disease! The rest of Nature would recover and continue without us if we were gone. However, without bacteria, everything else would be dead within days if not hours. And what about the seas without plankton? And ‘…once the bees are gone, the humans have got ten years’. (Albert Einstein) A Deep Ecology point of view takes this a stage further and doesn’t really distinguish between humans and all other life. These ideas can be summarised by saying that there is a continuum from a ‘commodified’ (extrinsic) view of Nature to one which ascribes to a belief in Nature’s intrinsic value. The Deep Ecology movement was founded by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess.Naess developed a sophisticated explanation of this ecological perspective, distinguishing it from the other ideas explained above. The basic principles of Deep Ecology are identified as follows: The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease in 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 increasing 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 directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. (From Bill Devall and George Sessions – Deep Ecology.) There are however other paths to environmental care – Gaia, Noble Savage, New Age, Pantheism and Spiritual Transcendence Gaia. James Lovelock. Still essentially a scientific systems theory, but using the name of a goddess to describe the theory has resulted in his book never going out of print, as well as endowing it with a quasi-religious status. (Imagine if it were called, ‘The Hypothesis of Self-Regulative Processes of the Biosphere’ – its original title!) Whether accepted as pure science or not, the Gaia hypothesis has been inspirational to many who look to live a life more in tune with Nature and to look for ways that the environment may be protected. Noble Savage. Ideas of Back to Nature and the Noble Savage as well as stories such as the Garden of Eden have instilled our own and other cultures with the idea that there was a time when humans lived in deep harmony with Nature. A recovery of this original state, perhaps by way of spiritual progress, will in turn instigate a deeper respect and care for the environment. New Age. Again covers a wide range of beliefs, but often suggests a new Paradigm, a single step change of our mindset, which will herald a new age in which we will be in tune with Nature. Pantheism. Basically the idea that God is Nature or Nature is God. (Note Spinoza’s version in which Mind and Nature are two aspects of a deeper reality.) Spiritual Transcendence. The idea that we will be brought into harmony with Nature by way of a spiritual advance which will transcend and include our currently fragmented view of reality. In a way all of these views, even the first, find the idea of purely human efforts to deal with the environmental crisis likely to be insufficient to the scale of the problem. As such, they might argue that only a transformation of consciousness and/or a spiritual transformation would be needed. Some authors though (in particular, Ken Wilber) see a development of consciousness occurring as a natural development of humanity. Put simply, consciousness is moving from ego-centric thought to eco-centric. This is explored below. The evolution of human thought goes through various stages. We all pass through these stages as we grow up, but so too does humanity as a species as it evolves. One way to represent this would be with the following stages: Bio-Centric. Unable to distinguish our own identity or physicality from our surroundings. A baby does not know where its body stops and the outside world begins. Ego-Centric. Aware of our separate identity and totally self-centred. Unable to take on the role of the other, to empathise with other people. Ethno-Centric/Socio-Centric. Aware of others and extending rights and privileges to a small group such as family members, a tribe, a nation, an ethnicity or a religion. Some writers suggest 90% of the world is currently at this stage of development. World-Centric. Extending rights and privileges to all of humanity, irrespective of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. 10% of the world? Eco-Centric. Extending rights and privileges to all species, as well as to the entire biosphere as a single entity. Less than 0.1% of the world? Many countries have at least put in place legislation towards enforcing the World-Centric view and await their populations to catch up. We are beginning to see suggestions towards Eco-Centric legislation. Viewed from this perspective, some of the varieties of Deep Ecology can be described and perhaps criticised. For instance the Noble Savage idea confuses Bio-Centric (where consciousness is undifferentiated from Nature) with Eco-Centric (where consciousness transcends but includes Nature). New Age beliefs on the other hand often look to move directly from Ego-Centric to Eco-Centric and see Ego as the enemy of this process. Arguably though Ego should not be rejected but again simply transcended and included in the process of extending consideration out to larger social groups. There is therefore a hierarchy – or holarchy – of consciousness if you like. This does not necessarily imply any obligation to move up the hierarchy – say from ego-centric to ethno-centric. Nor is there any necessary link between what might be described as ‘spiritual growth’ and a particular level of consciousness. The holarchy does however lead to a change in values. As the range of consciousness is expanded, from ego to eco, there is an ever-expanding realisation that value resides outside of the self. Any personal subjective values must then be contiguous with values inherent in ever-expanding circles of compassion. In this sense, value is not merely subjective, but becomes transcendent. The classic split, which has occurred at least in Western culture, is between Mind and Matter, or Subject and Object. An increasingly industrialised, technology-driven, science-based culture recognises only objects in its world view and discounts the reality of subjective experience. Hence, morals and aesthetics, both subjective, are given less and less prominence. There is no ‘Quality’ recognised as real, only Quantity. Hence, the Disqualified Universe. The cult 70’s book by Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, subtitled An Enquiry into Values essentially sets out a Metaphysics of Quality, that is, putting Quality in the place of Truth as the ultimate reality. Like Pirsig some authors identify the ecological crisis as primarily an ‘aesthetic’ crisis. This might seem a strange proposition at first sight, and indeed different authors mean something different by ‘aesthetic’. But if we take it to mean an aesthetic in the broadest sense of all that constitutes ‘the good life’ then linking this to Ecology raises some interesting points. If there is a crisis then first of all the implication is being made that we are not achieving a good life. And there is even the implication that we may not even recognise what a good life is! Perhaps the problem is that we grow up surrounded by very strong messages about how our lives should be, both from our immediate family and from culture generally. Those writers who say that our problem is an aesthetic one may be meaning that as individuals we do indeed struggle to identify what will bring about our own personal flourishing and long-term contentment. This also turns the usual ecological message on its head. Instead of starting with the big problems out there in the world we start just with ourselves. This could be viewed in something of a negative way. Sometimes authors of ecological books despair over the bulk of humanity – left to its own devices – never being able to solve the global problems that face us. As such, they may advocate either massive global changes or radical political solutions, or both. Such suggestions can be so far-reaching and dramatic that they make the individual feel helpless. Potentially though, the aesthetic approach takes a very much more positive view of human nature. It does not regard the bulk of humanity as short-sighted and selfish. Instead, the suggestion is that given the right information and encouragement, we all as individuals would respond without the need for threats or enforced austerity.If we can identify what would lead to our own well-being and flourishing then the global problems would be sorted by default. Starting with ourselves – the micro scale – we would inevitably work outwards to the local and the global scales. I will return to this version of the aesthetic later in the essay but for now let’s consider things from a more traditional standpoint. If we really were to make such fundamental shifts in attitude about the climate and ecological crisis how might this play out? What might a future sustainable world look like? Well here are some suggestions: Materials will not run out – because of recycling – a ‘circular economy’. There is little or no pollution. There is adequate space for wild nature – one half to two thirds of the world’s land and sea are strictly protected as havens for ‘re-wilding’. There is economic growth and improving material prosperity for everyone, within the natural limits of the Earth. If we achieve all of this, would it be enough? Would it put climate change, pollution and loss of bio-diversity off the top spots of global problems? One way into understanding the issue is to distinguish between technological fixes and those that focus more on natural sustainability and simple lifestyles. A clear way to think of a technological solution is to set a cut-off date for technological advance. All of this is physics, engineering and technology – and in a way it’s clear cut. Setting a date for a cut-off point in the technologies that the world can really afford is really just about doing the maths. Do I think that people would really be willing to revert to (or advance to – depending on where you live) 1955, or 1885? Well, probably the developing world would still like to develop, but for the rest of us, the answer is certainly not! But the thought experiment shows us in a very clear way just what we’re up against. And I’d add a further proviso here however. We’d have to note that it’s only through technology that we support the level of population that we currently have (not to mention future increases). If we were to set the technology level back, then it has to be asked if the current level of population could be supported. Could we grow enough wood, for instance, for everyone to burn wood and charcoal for energy? There’s an argument that is offered from time to time, to the effect that, as technologies develop their use of energy is reduced. There are two concerns with this argument. For one thing the reduction in energy will likely result in increased usage of whatever process or product it might happen to be. So this will more than offset any savings that might have been made. The second concern is that any improvements will likely result in an increased reliance on infrastructure. So then, as a general rule, we could say that increased technology results in more energy and materials being required for its use. This is a big part of the reason that the techno-fix solution will not work. More technology will not solve the problems that we face – in fact, it will add to them – and we will fall further and further behind with addressing the issues that confront us. Or it may be that those issues are ‘solved’ by means of adaptation, that is, we accept a certain level of climate change, we compensate for loss of bio-diversity by artificial means, and we try to clean up pollution where we absolutely must. There’s probably some recycling and re-use of materials to keep supplies going, but that’s it. Even on this reduced version of the techno-fix, I’d suggest the chances of success are very slim indeed. So what’s the bottom line here? The techno-fix may be modified somewhat such that all of the three main issues – climate change, loss of bio-diversity and pollution – are solved and the world can henceforth continue to live within its means. Government legislation could be used to enforce climate targets, reductions in pollution and so forth – and I think this would be accepted provided the legislation was not too onerous. A carbon tax may help with behaviour change. The tax would be set in relation to the carbon embedded in the product or service – including costs of extracting and manufacturing of materials, plus any components involved), the carbon involved in the transport and distribution of the product and the carbon involved in any infrastructure on which the product or service must rely. (For instance, with phones – the making of the phone itself, the components of the phone, the extraction and refining of all materials used in the phone and the phone masts and satellites on which the phone relies. For cars – making, components, extracting, refining, roads, filling stations, charge points and repair shops. For train travel – the cost of the trains, rail lines, stations etc.) Everything we bought would then be a good deal more reflective of its real cost to the planet. In effect, this is the current trajectory, except that we are losing ground – losing Nature and running low on resources. The legislation needs to be stepped up, to win back what’s been lost – so far as that’s possible – and such that we get ourselves onto a stable path. Perhaps the most important thing to note though is that there are efforts to ensure that the ‘consumer’ is unaffected. The only effect might be extra costs passed on by businesses to their customers in order to meet the various restrictions imposed by government. This is likely to affect the poor much more than the rich, of course, but again it could be addressed through further government intervention – progressive taxes and the like. More significantly though is that this effort to ensure that the consumer is unaffected is really an acknowledgement that people really don’t want to change. So then, let’s think about our alternative scenario – voluntary simplicity. The only problem with this is the issue of changing human nature – or at least human culture! So, whilst in one sense the voluntary simplicity model is easily in reach, the difficulty of asking people to change is so great that again I’d put our chances of success as extremely slim indeed! Perhaps it would make some difference if we had more control – as citizens – of the way our societies are run, through some kind of genuine democracy, rather than the rather dubious ‘representative’ democracies that most of us live under at the moment. But that might of course backfire! People’s Parliaments and Citizens’ Assemblies (collectively – ‘deliberative democracy’) might actually show citizens to be even more committed to technical fixes than current systems of government! (And I would not trust what people tell us in surveys. A lot of folk pay lip-service to all notions of sustainability, simplicity, energy efficiency and so on, but their actual lives – and voting behaviour – tell a different story.) My other thought – a kind of third way – is that a wide-scale and very deeply held commitment to protecting Nature (and to re-wilding) would have the necessary effect. It would likely take up the other issues of climate change and pollution as part of the deal – so we’d only really be focused on the Nature side of things. But this, of course, is still a change in human culture, so it does not make our main concern with the simplicity solution go away. So where is it all going? I don’t think we’re going to change our ways soon enough. But I want to avoid using the term ‘collapse’ – which could, after all, denote life on Earth being wiped out or just a downturn in the economy, or anything in between. Let’s say, instead, ‘contraction’. Contraction need not mean collapse or disaster. Circumstances could force us to change our ways and we could manage this peacefully and sensibly. But of course the worry is that it would not be peaceful or sensible – and then we’re in the hands of those doom-mongers who can’t help smiling as they tell you of casualties and quote statistics about famines and migrations. There’s always the suspicion that such folk don’t really like other people that much and don’t think we deserve to survive. Or maybe they just think certain kinds of people don’t deserve to survive – but they’re unlikely to admit to any of this. All of this leads me to the conclusion that the first thing we need to be – if we are to be of any help to the future at all – is to be lovers of people. Surely, by now, everyone has heard of climate change.Everyone has some kind of ‘climate story’ – ways we understand and reconcile our lives to the predicament in which we find ourselves. So as part of that love for people, let’s hear people’s stories. And yes, I include the climate sceptics and the doom-mongers in this too. In fact, especially the deniers – their stories need to be heard above anyone. And for my own part, my ‘climate story’ is to try to live a simple life. Like everyone else, one person’s actions mean nothing. But to try to live the lifestyle that seems to help the most – that still seems important. So, two solutions, both with very slim chances of success. What can we say of that? I wish, first of all, that there were other options. But I have to say that anything that comes to mind is really just a variation of one of these two choices – the third way mentioned above is really a variation of simplicity. And, well, I’m forced into the inevitable conclusion that we will follow the techno-fix route, as this is more or less business-as-usual, fixing the problems as they come along by way of more technology. And it is, essentially, the path we’re currently on. If I think that both solutions are equally unlikely to succeed then why do I still support the simplicity option? If no-one will be convinced by the simplicity argument, why do I keep trying? One reason is that I don’t think the techno-fix solution is going to work. And because I think that, if we fail with our techno-fix solution then the failure will be more catastrophic. So, is that the only reason – a collapse of the techno-fix solution is likely to be more catastrophic? There has to be some other reason for choosing the simplicity option. The simplicity route could happen right now – it does not need to wait for better technology to come along. There’s no gamble with simplicity – we’re more or less assured it would work, provided it were adopted on a large enough scale. By contrast there’s a huge gamble with the techno-fix. So we could stop chasing our tails and start living lives that respect the planet. So I persist then because simplicity is by far the better solution, even although it is a far more difficult one. We are losing ground, and if a contraction comes then it will be more serious the longer we try to hold out. And, it will lead to increasing disparities of wealth. But sticking with the techno-fix means we don’t have to change human nature. How then can people be changed? (And I still include myself here.) That’s the real difficulty. The conclusion, of course – that people need to change – seems patronising, arrogant and condescending, even when the author has the good grace to include himself! But look at it this way, we mostly agree things are going badly with the world. There does not seem to be a technical fix that is going to solve everything for us. Therefore, there seems no alternative – if we cannot change our ways we have to change our minds. People need to change – but in what way? One way would be for us all to become saints first – and in our saintliness we’d realise that it’s morally unacceptable to despoil the planet for future generations. Another (distinctly less obvious but maybe slightly cynical) way is to get people to want a different lifestyle, which, as an aside, does not trash the planet! So hence, appeal to human greed, competitiveness and pride! The alternative lifestyle would have to be so attractive that people will want to show it off and demonstrate that they are happier, luckier and cleverer people than their neighbours! This easier type of change would then be to harness the human capacity for contradiction and self-deception! Harness our ingenuity, our ability to innovate, our fixation with novelty, our desire for increased prosperity, our need to imagine that our lives are progressing — and along with all that, our one-upmanship, power-obsessed, slightly wilfully deviant, slightly devilishly silly, over-sincere and sentimental human nature! Between those two extreme views – saintliness and a cynical manipulation of the human capacity for contradiction – lies a middle way. A shift in consciousness that would genuinely point us in the right direction. What has been said above about an aesthetic crisis is that shift in consciousness. The shift in consciousness involves simply thinking about what it is that would lead to our own well-being and flourishing and then setting that within the context of family, friends, streets, communities and the world as a whole. From Ego to Eco – that journey of deep ecology with which we started – is a journey requiring some wisdom. But it is also an aesthetic journey. It’s a balance of all the factors that we’ve considered above – mitigation and adaptation, technical fixes and simple lives, legislation and subtle persuasion, selfish concern and the love of Nature.