Deep Ecology is a philosophy that believes that all species are an equally important aspect of the world's ecology, and should be treated as equals. He is typically economically and culturally left, but his principal aspect is his extreme environmentalism.
Deep ecology originated in 1973 by an article by Arne Næss where he claimed that he was inspired by ecologists who were studying ecosystems around the world. The three main influences of deep ecology are conservationist Rachel Carson, environmentalist David Brower, and biologist Paul R. Ehrlich. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) is considered the beginning of the contemporary movement. The formation of Greenpeace also had a great influence on deep ecology.
Deep ecology proposes an embracing of ecological ideas and environmental ethics (that is, proposals about how humans should relate to nature). It is also a social movement based on a holistic vision of the world. Deep ecologists hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole, and criticise the narrative of human supremacy, which they say has not been a feature of most cultures throughout human evolution. Deep ecology presents an eco-centric (Earth-centred) view, rather than the anthropocentric (human-centred) view, developed in its most recent form by philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. Proponents of deep ecology oppose the narrative that man is separate from nature, is in charge of nature, or is the steward of nature, or that nature exists as a resource to be freely exploited. They cite the fact that indigenous peoples under-exploited their environment and retained a sustainable society for thousands of years, as evidence that human societies are not necessarily destructive by nature. They believe that the current materialist paradigm must be replaced - as Næss pointed out, this involves more than merely getting rid of capitalism and the concept of economic growth, or 'progress', that is critically endangering the biosphere. 'We need changes in society such that reason and emotion support each other,' he said. '... not only a change in a technological and economic system, but a change that touches all the fundamental aspects of industrial societies. This is what I mean by a change of 'system'.
Deep ecologists believe that the damage to natural systems sustained since the industrial revolution now threatens social collapse and possible extinction of humans, and are striving to bring about the kind of ideological, economic and technological changes Næss mentioned. Deep ecology claims that ecosystems can absorb damage only within certain parameters, and contends that civilization endangers the biodiversity of the Earth. Deep ecologists have suggested that the human population must be substantially reduced, but advocate a gradual decrease in population rather than any apocalyptic solution: 88 In a 1982 interview, Arne Næss commented that a global population of 100 million (0.1 billion) would be desirable.However, others have argued that a population of 1 - 2 billion would be compatible with the deep ecological worldview.Deep ecology eschews traditional left wing-right wing politics, but is viewed as radical ('Deep Green') in its opposition to capitalism, and its advocacy of an ecological paradigm. Unlike conservation, deep ecology does not advocate the controlled preservation of the landbase, but rather 'non-interference' with natural diversity except for vital needs. In citing 'humans' as being responsible for excessive environmental destruction, deep ecologists actually refer to 'humans within civilization, especially industrial civilization', accepting the fact that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived did not live in environmentally destructive societies – the excessive damage to the biosphere has been sustained mostly over the past hundred years.
Deep Ecology is more environmentally radical than environmentalism, which attempts to protect a group of animals from hunters and forests being cut down by lumberjacks and machines that cut trees.
How to Draw
- Draw a ball
- Colour it dark green (#007000)
- Draw a white circle but don't fill it in
- Draw a white diameter for the circle going horizontally
- Add the eyes and you're done!
|0, 112, 0
|255, 255, 255
- Veganarchism - Sometimes I go to the vegan farmers market with him.
- Environmentalism - Hi mom!
- Progressivism - Progress!
- Eco-Anarchism - One of my best friends!
- Eco-Socialism - Great ideas!
- Post-Industrialism - Thanks for stopping industrialism!
- mh:philosophyball:Anti-Humanism - Humans exceptionalism is nonsense. And we both hate being confused for misanthropy.
- All other environmentalists - Godspeed!
- Primalism - Your rights will be protected, but I don't want to return to monke (that's misanthropy). I just want for monkeys and humans to peacefully coexist.
- Eco-Authoritarianism - Uh, calm down?
- Eco-Fascism - Yeah, you too.
- Neoluddism - You're a bit too wacky tbh.
- Technocracy - Some good ideas, but too statist and sometimes "forgets" to care for the environment.
- Nazism - Cruel, soulless tyrant... who cared about animal rights?
- Anarcho-Nihilism - You don't care about the environment! But you also prefer animals over humans which is not bad.
- Industrialism - DIE YOU SMOG MAKING, TREE CHOPPING, ANIMAL BEATING, HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATING, FACTORY CHURNING, DICKHEAD!
- Apoliticism - STOP GRILLING ANIMALS!
- Posadism - DON'T NUKE THE EARTH!
- Climate Skepticism - Unlike the other polluters who at least have some kind of good intentions (as horribly misguided as they are), you're just plain evil for the sake of being evil.
- Libertarian Municipalism - I would like you more, but STOP CALLING ME FAKE ECOLOGY!!! I AM NOT A MISANTHROPE!!!
- Humanism - Stop human supremacy, start treating monkeys like equals too.
- Post-Humanism - He hates all biological organisms, basically my opposite.
- Social Darwinism - ALL species have value, including "weak" ones.
- Maoism - FUCK YOU, stop killing sparrows!