| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale |
| |||||||
 Moonshoe Blue Mantis   Registered: 05/28/04 Posts: 27,202 Loc: Iceland |
| ||||||
|
Deep ecology- A spiritual philosophy for modern druids, the rebirth of animism, a new mystical path grounded in reverence for the biosphere.
Deep Ecology Albert Einstein “told us that we cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that produced it” (Sachs, 14). This means that if we are to confront the unprecedented challenges of the global environmental crisis, we will need a radically new kind of thinking capable of carrying us through a complete transformation of our individual lifestyles and our global society. Old ways of thinking have led us to the very precipice of global catastrophe, and new ways of understanding ourselves and our relationship to the world are urgently needed. Historically, a major flaw in human thinking has been its pervasive anthropocentrism. Anthropocentric paradigms “contain a view of human society as the center of the natural world, with humans controlling and using the environment without regard to the natural resource-based limits to social growth” (Humphrey et al, 25). These paradigms are what environmental sociologists Catton and Dunlap call “the Human Exemptionalism Paradigm” or HEP. This paradigm has been dominant throughout recent human history, but is based on fundamentally flawed premises. Essentially the Human Exemptionalism Paradigm holds that humans are a distinct and special form of life that is entirely separate from, and exalted over, all other species of animals and plants. Furthermore, this viewpoint believes that social and cultural factors (such as the economy or religion) are the only major determinants of human actions and conditions, while the biophysical environment is essentially irrelevant. Finally, the HEP clings to the idea that cultural, social and especially technological progress can and will solve all present and future environmental and social problems (Ibid 25-26). Closely related to the human exemptionalism paradigm is what Catton and Dunlap call the Dominant Western Worldview or DWW (Ibid 43). The DWW is based around three core ideas. First, that “humans are fundamentally different from all other creatures on earth, over which they have dominion” (Ibid). Second, that “the world is vast and provides unlimited opportunities for humans” and finally that “the history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease” (Ibid). Together, the HEP and DWW have led humanity blindly down the road to ecological suicide. The problem is that the HEP and the DWW are “both obsolete and in contradiction with the realities of resource scarcity and natural environmental limits to social and economic expansion” (Ibid, 26). The human exemptionalism paradigm is deeply flawed. For one thing, there is no single feature that definitively sets human beings apart from other species of life. Animals such as dolphins display language and communication abilities, and some chimpanzees and orangutans have been trained to speak fluently in sign language. Animals such as whales have been proven to display the qualities of culture, and have been observed to pass down ancestral songs from generation to generation, and to share songs from one pod of whales to another. Animals, like humans, have been demonstrated to possess emotions such as grief, fear, playfulness and affection, and some (such as otters) even cry tears when bereaved. Elephants and some primates are able to paint and create art, and tool use is evidenced by crows and octopi, while ants and bees display complex social organization, military strategy, herding and domestication behaviors and agriculture. The mounds of termite colonies display phenomenally sophisticated engineering and the equivalent of advanced urban planning. Therefore, despite our unusual ingenuity and adaptability, we humans are not nearly as unique as we think, and our tendency to treat animals as objects and commodities (rather than as thinking, feeling entities in their own right) is both ethically and scientifically unsound. The idea that humans exist apart from and unaffected by ecological processes is likewise a mere fantasy, as evidenced by events such as hurricane Katrina and the recent earth quakes in Japan, not to mention the worldwide phenomenon of global warming. Furthermore, the faith in technological fixes to repair environmental harm is becoming more and more untenable, as evidenced by the bungled and impotent responses to recent catastrophes such as the British petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima. For these and other reasons, Catton and Dunlap advance an alternative paradigm that they call the New Ecological Paradigm or NEP. The NEP is based on four key ideas. First is the recognition that “humans…are but one among many species that are interdependently involved in the global ecosystem” (Ibid 25) Second, human affairs are entangled in the intricate feedbacks of the web of nature, and therefore human actions very often have unintended consequences. Third, humans are completely “dependent upon a finite biophysical environment that imposes potent physical and biological restraints on human affairs” (Ibid 26). Finally, and very importantly, “however much the inventiveness of humans… may seem for a while to transcend carrying-capacity, ecological laws cannot be repealed" (Ibid). These four core concepts serve as an essential correction to the flawed thinking that has led us so far down the path to environmental collapse. The new ecological paradigm provides an excellent first step in the project of devising a new moral, ethical, theoretical and philosophical basis for a human civilization that is capable of responding to the challenges of global ecocide. However, the NEP must be taken even farther, as in the perspective known as deep ecology, which expands and elaborates upon its ideas and ideals. Deep ecology was developed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and was further developed by environmental sociologist Bill Devall, and the tenets of deep ecology should be kept in mind when analyzing and acting on environmental issues. Deep ecology is “a normative, eco-philosophical movement that is inspired by our experience as humans in nature and in part by ecological knowledge” (Ibid 44). Arne Naess argued that there is an urgent “need to change the cultural concept of the self from an anthropocentric self-conception to a bio-centric self conception” (Ibid). This means that human beings need to see themselves in relation not only to their fellow humans but also to non-human species and ecosystems such as forests and mountains, which are conceived of as “entities” with whom we have a morally significant relationship (Ibid). Deep ecologists “recognize the fundamental value of biodiversity, not because biodiverse environments offer scientists the opportunity to develop pharmaceutical products, but because the plants, animals and other forms of life…have intrinsic value” (45). This idea of intrinsic value is directly opposed to market based concepts of monetary value as determined by supply and demand. Devall says that animals and “non-human life have value in themselves”, value that we have no right to destroy (Ibid 44). The basic principles of deep ecology are as follows. First, “the well being and flourishing of non-human life on earth have value in themselves independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes” (Naess 405). Second, “richness and diversity of life forms are also values in themselves” (Ibid). Third, “humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs”. Finally “present human interference with the non-human world is excessive and worsening” and the restoration of environmental harmony requires “a substantially smaller human population” and the reform of policies which “affect basic economic, technological and ideological structures” and move those structures in the direction of ecological preservation and restoration (Ibid). Deep ecology is “a normative, eco-philosophical movement that is inspired by our experience as humans in nature and in part by ecological knowledge” (Devall and Sessions 1985, 44). Deep ecology argues that there is an urgent “need to change the cultural concept of the self from an anthropocentric self-conception to a bio-centric self conception” (Ibid). This means that human beings need to see themselves in relation not only to their fellow humans but also to non-human species and ecosystems such as forests and mountains, which are conceived of as “entities” with whom we have a morally significant relationship (Ibid). Deep ecologists “recognize the fundamental value of biodiversity, not because biodiverse environments offer scientists the opportunity to develop pharmaceutical products, but because the plants, animals and other forms of life…have intrinsic value” (Ibid 45). This idea of intrinsic value is directly opposed to market based concepts of monetary value as determined by supply and demand. Therefore, animals and “non-human life have value in themselves”, value that we have no right to destroy (Ibid 44). The basic principles of deep ecology are as follows. First, “the well being and flourishing of non-human life on earth have value in themselves independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes” (Ibid, 405). Second, “richness and diversity of life forms are also values in themselves” (Ibid). Third, “humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs”. Finally “present human interference with the non human world is excessive and worsening” and the restoration of environmental harmony requires “a substantially smaller human population” and the reform of policies which “affect basic economic, technological and ideological structures” and move those structures in the direction of ecological preservation and restoration (Ibid). Deep ecology and the new environmental paradigm combine to provide a new ecological philosophy based on respect for the interconnectedness of all life, commitment to the preservation and restoration of wildlife and ecosystems, and a spiritual, aesthetic and moral appreciation of the beauty and wonder of Earth’s natural biodiversity. Most importantly, deep ecology is a call to action, and “several of the newer environmental organizations in the United States such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society… and Earth First! politically act upon the principles of deep ecology” (Ibid 45). These basic principles provide us with an ethical roadmap and a set of principles that can lead the way towards a sustainable future. Deep ecology seeks to systematize a new way of being which radically transforms the ways in which humans understand the natural world, non-human life forms and the relationship between human society and ecosystems. Deep ecology aims to replace the "deep cultural pathology" which has led us to the present state of profound global environmental harm with a new ethical, aesthetic, emotional and moral valuation of non-human nature (Berry 1995, 9). The literature of deep ecology draws attention to the severity and urgency of the global environmental crisis and its component ecological harms, often asserting that the very survival of humanity is in peril. For example, Berry observes that as a result of human activities "the Earth's ecosystems" are being "shattered in an irreversible manner" to the extent that "the viability of the human species is now in question" (Ibid 11). Beyond just the threat to the human race, deep ecologists such as McLaughlin (1993, 87) argue that the anthropogenic "disruptions of ecological processes...threaten all forms of life on this planet". Therefore, deep ecology begins with an apocalyptic reading of modernity in which the blame for the end of civilization and the wholesale destruction of life on Earth falls squarely on humanity and its ecocidal practices. Deep ecology reasons that the violence which humankind has inflicted upon the Earth arises in large measure out of the anthropocentric paradigm which has dominated civilization, particularly since the industrial revolution. Because humans have believed themselves to be separate and distinct from nature as well as fundamentally superior to all other forms of life, an instrumentalist view of non-human life has taken root which treats all living things merely as resources for extraction and consumption by human beings. Therefore, deep ecologists argue that if it is such ecologically ignorant and morally perverse understandings of the environment that have brought us to this dire state of ecosystem degradation, there is an urgent need for a new worldview and a new paradigm which fundamentally re-imagines the relationship of humankind to the broader "life community" and "the community of all living species" (Ibid 10). The new paradigm offered by deep ecology is described by McLaughlin as having at its heart a belief that non-human life has inherent or intrinsic value which does not depend on economic or instrumental value to humankind but in fact transcends all such considerations. This can be understood in terms of the sacredness of life, or it may be grounded in love, caring and compassion and the "felt sense of relatedness to the rest of nature" (Ibid, 87). In addition to the intrinsic value of individual life forms, deep ecology also recognizes profound inherent value in biodiversity and ecological richness itself. Therefore, not only specific plants and animals but also species and ecosystems have a right to exist and sacred worth that is not reducible to or dependent upon human valuations. Deep ecology takes a radical stance by arguing that "humans have no right" to destroy life or biodiversity except to satisfy essential needs, a stance which is fundamentally at odds with the dominant consumer-driven exploitation of any and all desirable "natural resources". Not only does deep ecology forbid and condemn the vast majority of our consumption (as only a small portion of it fulfills truly vital needs) it also demands a rapid and dramatic reduction in the human population, recognizing that the richness and variety of life cannot survive unless human numbers are reduced to a fraction of their current levels. These prescriptions arise from the awareness that human devastation of the natural world has been excessive, and therefore radical and transformative reforms are urgently needed at every level and in every facet of society. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery    Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
not going to happen
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
 windowlikcer Stranger Registered: 11/14/11 Posts: 527 Last seen: 6 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Still anthropocentric. Now that we have realized what we have done to the environment, our role as humans simply shifts to a sort of dual-character in which we are simultaneously the single-handed destroyers and the new found single-handed saviors (or potential saviors) of nature. The story still pits us at the very center of an invisible conflict between us and nature. The last sentence of this post points directly to this dualism which results from a self-denial of humanity. "Human devastation of the natural world".
If we are devastating the natural world, we can only do so as something other than the natural world. If this is the case, deep ecology is still chained to anthropocentrism by positing the human as something other than nature. On the other hand, if we are as deep ecology claims, a full integrated part of the natural world, then the only way in which we may be devastating this natural world is if it is through an act of self-devastation carried out naturally by the natural world as a whole. This kind of circular thinking is a symptom of our time. We flush our shit down the toilet and get to pretend it disappears off the face of the planet. When we take a trip to the local landfill and see all of our shit in plain view after we have supposedly annihilated it, it gives us a strange feeling because it is repulsively not us. Yet at the same time all of this shit is conceived somehow as the very enemy and antithesis of nature as well. We need to wake up and realize that EVERYTHING is natural, and it makes no difference to nature who is extinct and who is not, which planets have atmospheres viable for life and which ones have burned their atmospheres away with carbon emissions. We won't be able to make any real progress until we come to terms with what we are, and deep ecology is just obscuring this further.
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
yeah baby.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment (  1 2 3 all ) |
 sushil_yadav |
9,633 | 46 | 01/03/13 11:46 PM by circastes |
|
|
Life: A highly structured learning environment for the soul ( 1 2 all ) |
c0sm0nautt |
4,218 | 22 | 03/19/09 03:26 PM by jivJaN |
|
|
Is there a difference between Deep Thought and Over-Analyzing? ( 1 2 all ) |
Apollyphelion |
2,400 | 24 | 07/09/07 03:45 AM by onlynow |
|
 |
Strange energy/vibration during deep meditation? ( 1 2 all ) |
 niteowl |
6,866 | 27 | 07/05/14 07:15 PM by Sozerius |
|
|
The Hubble deep field |  cottlestonpie |
821 | 7 | 06/06/08 03:17 PM by Penguarky Tunguin |
|
 |
Deep Spiritual Concern | FatBath |
795 | 4 | 12/15/06 05:27 PM by AlteredAgain |
|
|
Jesus definately smoked weed, and so did the jewish priests ( 1 2 all ) |
 blaze2 |
11,291 | 39 | 02/01/06 08:32 PM by MAIA |
|
|
Evolver.net ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
c0sm0nautt |
5,417 | 73 | 04/30/09 12:58 AM by LSDXM |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, Asante, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, Northerner, DividedQuantum 345 topic views. 0 members, 21 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||