The first words of this venerable and very important anthology of seminal papers in environmental ethics are these: "The Long-Range Deep Ecology movement emerged more or less spontaneously and informally as a philosophical and scientific social/political movement during the so-called Ecological revolution of the 1960's. Its main concern has been to bring about a paradigm shift - a shift in perception, values, and lifestyles - as a basis for redirecting the ecologically destructive path of modern industrial growth societies. Since the 1960's, the long-range Deep Ecology movement has been characterized philosophically by a move from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism, and by environmental activism."
I cite this passage because, sadly, the international corporate hegemony, its paid political operatives, and multifarious media mouthpieces have done such a deceitfully effective job of at once clouding the real issue of our desperately precarious environmental situation and reinforcing our wholly unnecessary dependence of non-renewable energy resources to the tune of record profits, that there are many people coming of age in the most literate societies in the world, who have no idea of what Deep Ecology is, not to mention such a basic distinction as that between anthropocentrism to ecocentrism. Actually, I would say that the vast majority of the planet's population is either ignorant of this distinction or acts in feigned ignorance or ignorance-based denial of it. The idea that our ultimate nurturing and sustaining parent is the Earth, that we live on borrowed time, that our first responsibility in any sort of act is consideration of our responsibility to stewardship of this planet, is generally far from most people's minds when they do act. From radical (and radically unnecessary) clear-cut to all-too common litter, as a humanity, we obviously don't get it.
The corporate think-tank seems to produce an never ending stream of ongoing rationalizations and euphemistically-coated rationales for the relentless wholesale destruction of the only home we have, and we embrace, however unwillingly in some cases, but generally unconsciously in most, the systems which enable this unremitting and mindless extirpation of the root of life to go on.
Thus, a bit of re-education on the subject, the philosophical justifications for the ecocentric worldview, might be in order. I can think of no better place to start than the 39 papers in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, which discuss this need for a shift in our thinking as a humanity in depth.
The book is divided into five sections: What is Deep Ecology?; Historical Roots of Deep Ecology; Arne Naess on Deep Ecology and Ecosophy; Deep Ecology and Eco-Feminism, Social Ecology, the Greens, and the New Age; Wilderness, The Wild, and Conservation Biology; Toward the Twenty-First Century and Beyond: Social and Practical Implications. The book focuses particularly on work of Arne Naess (12 entries) and Gary Snyder (3 entries), two foundational voices deeply rooted in vertices in the philosophical matrix of the position.
Two of my favorite entries in this book, for various reasons, are:
1) Stephan Bodian's interview with Arne Naess, "Simple in Means, Rich in Ends" (1982) "... technology is more helpless than ever before because the technology being produced doesn't fulfill basic human needs, such as meaningful work and meaningful environment. Technical progress is sham progress because the term `technical progress' is a cultural, not a technical term. Our culture is the only one in the history of humankind in which the culture has adjusted itself to the technology rather than visa-versa." "The material standard of living should be reduced and the quality of life, in the sense of basic satisfaction in the depths of one's heart or soul, should be maintained or increased." "All the sciences are fragmentary and incomplete in relation to basic rules and norms, so it's very shallow to think that science can solve our problems. Without basic norms, there is no science. Of course, we need science ..." "A hill is never the same in a repetitious way! The development of sensitivity toward the good things of which there are enough is the true goal of education. Not that we need to limit our goals. I'm not for the simple life, except in the sense of a life simple in means but rich in goals and values." One is led to ask if environmentally exploitative corporate capitalists do not have goals and values as well? Then, while we are, at least, conscious of the possibility of choice, we evidently should focus more on what our goals and values are, why they are what they are, and what are their ultimate ramifications for us? These are fundamental questions, religious questions, if you will, but we rarely ask them directly of ourselves or in a public forum.
2) Wayland Drew's study of anti-utopian fiction, "Killing Wilderness" (1972) "Specifically ... a technological society will be totalitarian regardless of what political structures permit its development, for the essence of technique is efficiency and the autonomous individual, apt to be skeptical, irrational, and recalcitrant, is inefficient. For the general good therefore, the dangerous elements of individuality must be suppressed, and man must be severed from all the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional influences which might promote dissent. Man's integrity must be broken. He must be fragmented and reshaped to participate contentedly in the smooth functioning of the technological State - a State that is fundamentally inimical to his instinct and insulting to his intellect. In other words, the nature of man must be changed." The corporation (as a legal entity or form) is the instrument of that fragmentation and change, and its will, the dictates of the State. "In its mystery and diversity, in exuberance, decay, and fecundity, the perfection of the wilderness contrasts with the sterile and static perfection of the State. The difference between them is that between existence and life, between predictability and chance, between posturing and action. Wilderness ... will threaten the totalitarian state while they co-exist, for the separation of man from nature is imperfect so long as man might recognize that a separation has occurred." "While we are able to do so, let us note the distinction. A park is a managerial unit definable in quantitative and pragmatic terms. Wilderness is unquantifiable. Its boundaries are vague or nonexistent, its contents unknown, its inhabitants elusive. The purpose of parks is use; the earmark of wilderness is mystery. Because they serve technology, parks tend toward the predictable and static, but wilderness is infinitely burgeoning and changing because it is the matrix of life itself. When we create parks we bow to increased bureaucracy and surveillance, but when we speak for wilderness we recognize our right to fewer strictures and greater freedom. Regulated and crowded, parks will eventually fragment us, as they fragment the wilderness which makes us whole."
There are hundreds of other crucial observations in this monumental collection. My one plaint is that the eloquence of great Petra Kelley is not represented. Hopefully, this unfortuanate omission of the slain sister of all Greens will be emended in a future printing or sequel volume, which is overdue. However, these are the decisive early testaments. Please heed them.
