Deep Ecology May Not Be as Unattainable as It May Seem 

Deep ecology is a holistic approach to environmental ethics that was made popular by Arne Naess. Holistic meaning it is considering the whole picture rather than focused on individualism. Contrast to deep ecology would be shallow ecology. Shallow ecology directs its attention to treating the negative effects of industrial activities. Shallow ecology approaches, such as the land ethic, tend to be focused on the “clean up” of environmentally unethical practices; However, deep ecology’s goal is to address not only the clean up of these activities, but also the root of the problem itself, and what a community should do to eliminate these practices. Deep ecology gets a bad wrap for being radical and unachievable. In this paper, I will be presenting the principles of deep ecology and addressing its downfalls. I will be presenting arguments to support why deep ecology may not be as unattainable as it seems.

One problem that arises with deep ecology is its commitment to the principles of biocentric egalitarianism. The commitment seems to be radical and not possible in all given situations. It suggests that all species have equal moral worth. An example that Sandler uses brings attention to this problem. His example is this: “Eating carrots cannot be ethically equivalent to eating elk, let alone people.” Deep ecology argues that all living things have equal intrinsic value, which insinuates that eating a carrot versus an elk, or even a person, would have the same ecological footprint and ethical wrongness. Even Naess himself denied any hierarchical system being applied to different species; However, it is obvious that to live off on earth as a human, or as any living thing at all, it is impossible to thrive or even survive without causing harm to any living organisms. Deep ecology does state that all life has equal intrinsic value, simply for the fact that it is life and/or a part of an ecological community, however, this does not necessarily imply that all things must receive the same treatment. Deep ecologists understand that for all life to have equal moral considerability cannot require never taking a nonhuman life. Principle 3 states “Humans have no right to reduce [life forms’] richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs'. This principle addresses the fact that humans can only take life or reduce a life forms’ flourishing when it is to satisfy vital needs. Principle 3 allows humans to take life, such as a carrot, or maybe even nonhuman animals, but only when it is needed to survive. Deep ecology still does not allow eating meat or wearing fur in such a society like the United States where we have so many alternatives to animal products; However, numbers of people who need meat or medicines, that require ending a life in order to survive, can be excused by Principle 3, as long as they only go as far as they need to “satisfy vital needs'. Deep ecology addresses the issue of moral considerability that other approaches, such as enlightened anthropocentrism, does not with Principle 3.

A big part of deep ecology is the metaphysical and self-realization part of it. This part of deep ecology suggests that all things, living or not living, are interconnected in this reality. Deep ecologists have an ontologically holistic view of our existence. Ontology is the nature of being. This self-realization can only be attained through experience, meditation, and a shift in way of life itself. The principles of deep ecology will be accepted and carried out naturally once this self-realization is achieved. Self-realization itself cannot be argued or rationalized through reasoning, but only achieved by one’s own experience. There are many critiques of deep ecology that see a problem with this interconnectedness and self-realization. Their argument is that all parts of the universe are not metaphysically one. It is for this reason that if I or you were to die, life would go on. The world would not suddenly stop because a cat or a fish died. Ecosystems would continue to go on, survive, and even thrive. Self-realization is something that cannot be argued, so how is one supposed to know if they have this higher level of knowledge? It is for this exact reason that deep ecologists believe in the metaphysical and self realizations of deep ecology. It cannot be explained or argued. Coming to this ideology of the world and the aspects that make up the world can only come from an extended process that changes one's entire perspective of the natural world and the relationships that all parts of this reality have with the biotic and abiotic aspects that make up the world that all of us are all a part of.

Another issue with deep ecology that ties in with the last, is why should the view of deep ecologists be seen greater than the experience that someone who has not had this self-realization. If one were not to have this self-realization, then why should they accept deep ecology? However, deep ecology suggests that each person has their own journey when acquiring the understanding of the metaphysical part of deep ecology, and no journey is better than the other. Number 3 of Naess’s influential description of self-realization does a good job in explaining the development and maturity of one’s ecological self.  The understanding of one’s ecological self does not disregard the experiences of others, but rather is self verifying, and something that cannot be explained through argumentation or reasoning, but only when one has acquired it.

A lot of the reasons that deep ecology seems so unattainable is because of societal standards and our currently increasing standard of living, at least in the United States. Our standard of living keeps building upon itself with materialistic things, instead of building upon itself with one’s morality or charitable actions towards both societal needs, such as helping the homeless, and environmental causes. If status was more dependent on our actions than how much money one made, or how nice our things were, then real change could probably seen quickly. Not only is this important, but in order for human life and cultures to flourish then human populations must decrease, said in Principle 5. Most, if not all, environmental problems are caused by the actions of humans, and is even causing the human race to decrease in flourishing along with the environment. So in order for humans and all living things to flourish humans must decrease their environmental footprint. Although this sounds anthropocentric at first, it is not, because as humans, we are a part of the biotic world and therefore must flourish along with the other aspects of our environment. Because humans are a part of the environment, and all parts of the environment are metaphysically one, humans cannot ignore their own flourishing for the sake of other species or ecosystems; However, in order for the human race and other living things to flourish, can only do so if we, as humans, dramatically decrease our effect on the environment, which would also require a dramatic change in policy and our day to day actions.

In conclusion, a lot of deep ecology cannot be explained or argued because of its metaphysical and self-realization aspects. I think this is important, because through this course I have learned that a lot of things about environmental ethics are extremely difficult to provide a substantial argument for, specifically the moral consideration of all living things. A lot of the beliefs can only be acquired by growing from within, which is probably why it always feels so useless to argue with someone about why you should care about the environment. But in the end, it probably is something that can only be acquired by self meditation. Deep ecology does require all of us to change our actions dramatically, but dramatic changes are what all of us, the environment including humans, need in order to make progress and possibly stop or even just slow down the dangerous effects of climate change. Not only that, but I think a lot of the time, if you want something big, you have to ask for something bigger. If you ask for something that is radical, regarding policy, then you may get a nice compromise, which may have been what you wanted to begin with. Deep ecologists are human, and humans make mistakes. I don’t think deep ecology requires you to be perfect, but rather to have a shift of perspective.