Siby-Lecture_3

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-1

Contemporary Environmental Philosophy: Deep Ecology 1. BEGINNINGS IN THE 1960S Philosophies often arise in response to new situations and needs, to new turns in a society’s intellectual culture. I hope by now you are convinced that the environmental philosophy that arose in the west was such a response to a new and supposedly alarming situation. I now want to dwell a bit more on this situation that gave rise to the new philosophy.

In the 1960s there arose a new way of philosophical thinking about the environment, largely based on apocalyptic fears that came up as a result of widespread perception of environmental degradation and the possible harm it could cause to the Planet, to human beings, and to our future generations. Speaking in terms of a moral sentiment, no one wants to leave toxic air and poisoned food for their children. In fact, one of the first and best known works that articulated the problem of environmental degradation truly hit at the core of the matter. It was an empirically argued work by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (1962), which showed how dangerous toxins are accumulating in planetary food webs. Ms Carson was an American marine biologist, and her work led to a severe national pesticide policy and grassroots environment movements.

Despite fierce denials by chemical companies, DDT was banned in the USA. The Silent Spring was the most helpful factor in the launch of the global environmental movement.

Several other works in the 60s showed how the Planet was reaching its breaking point in terms of population and resources. More works began to pour in pointing fingers at the GreekJudeo-Christian ethos and modern science. Gradually, discussion began to centre on ‘human chauvinism’ or focusing on humans as the only morally valuable beings on earth. Many environmental philosophers began to think that this assumption was not morally justifiable because nature was intrinsically valuable. If something is intrinsically valuable, it does not base on anything else for its value. According to Kant only human beings are intrinsically valuable because they are ends in themselves. An unsaid agreement in environmental philosophy today is that unless we widen the moral compass (that is, extension of the realm of value from humans to non-human animals and inanimate things), we shall never be able to overcome the environmental crisis.

2. DEEP ECOLOGY: ORIGINS In 1972 Arne Næss (1912-2009; a Norwegian philosophy professor and an avid mountaineer) gave a lecture at the 3rd World Future Research Conference, at Bucharest in Romania, and the lecture was published the next year under the title ‘The Shallow and the Deep: Long-Range Ecology Movement’. The origin of the deep ecology movement is traced back to this lecture.

Deep ecology is a radical theory of the intrinsic value of nature. (Here I will not say anything further on intrinsic and extrinsic value, since that distinction will be our subject matter in the next lecture.) It is to be remembered that Næss proposed the theory after he observed how people

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-2 of the Sherpa tribe in the foothills of the Himalayas in Nepal and India did not venture to climb what they considered the sacred mountains. (Tenzing Norgay, who, along with the New Zealander Edmund Hilary, first reached the peak of Mount Everest in 1953, was a Sherpa.) Næss extended this thought to the whole of nature – that is to say, nature in its entirety, in all its elements is sacred and valuable.

We have seen that according to the modern conception individuals primarily live like atoms separated in their value from everyone/everything else. Næss, on the other hand, proposes that people and other things are constituted by their relationships with others – as knots in a larger web of life. According to him such a relational conception of the human self as anticipated in animist, Hindu, Confucian, and Buddhist traditions. Taking relationships seriously, according to him, meant that humans should care for the extended, or ecological, self because each person is more than just his or her body. Extended self-concern obliges humans not only to connect with and care about the other people who have made them what they are but also to care for the multifarious systems and beings on which continued human existence depends. He not only argued for intrinsic worth of things but for a communitarian view of life as a whole. Human and nonhuman life has value in its own right, and hence promotion of life in all forms is important.

Most of all, Næss was influenced by a rationalist philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (16321677), who was a Dutch Jew. (Spinoza is the most inspiring figure in the whole history of western philosophy. He lived a life of conviction. Spinoza fell into disrepute with Jewish orthodoxy for his beliefs about an impersonal God. His books were banned, and he was excommunicated from the Jewish community. He had radical modern political views and gave expression to an impersonal conception of God, who is in everything and in which everything exists. This is not a God of providence, but a God who is the ultimate substance upon which everything else depends for being. Spinoza used the terms nature and god interchangeably. He advocated a life of reason which would be a life of virtue. Politically, he argued for the strictest separation of the Church and state. Spinoza was a ‘philosopher saint’; refusing all academic positions, he earned a living by grinding lens and died quietly at the age of 44.) Just like the Indic religions’ belief that everything in nature is imbued with the divine, Spinoza believed that we cannot think of a God separated from nature. Now, how this view can inspire Næss’s deep ecology is not difficult to grasp.

3. SHALLOW ECOLOGY Næss makes a clear-cut distinction between deep and shallow ecology. Let us be clear about the concept of shallow ecology first. For Næss, shallow ecology means all other environmentalisms – other than ‘deep’ environmentalism. They are all marked by a self-centered agenda; they all want merely to nibble at the surface and want to leave the deep-seated foundation of the environmental crisis; they all want merely to do certain things extra (things green) to reduce the environmental harm, but want to keep to the affluent, consumerist life-style of the west

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-3 unchanged. Hence the change they want to bring about is cosmetic and not foundational, not deep.

Shallow ecology is a fight against pollution and resource depletion, but the aim of this programme is to save the earth for further exploitation so that the extremely and unreasonably affluent life style of the west will continue. With regard to the scientific culture that is grossly unfriendly towards the environment, shallow ecology wants to maintain the status quo. It is only a way of being more eco-friendly by way of a few countable habits, but it does not support a cultural and intellectual revolution.

In comparison to shallow ecology, the deep one wants to ask very basic questions and bring about a cultural, intellectual revolution. Deep ecology is not simply about green practices, but about the foundations of green practices. For example, shallow ecology promotes green goods, but deep ecology asks whether these goods are, first of all, needed at all. Shallow ecology will be violently against pollution, and will set in place very expensive pollution-reducing systems. Deep ecology would ask whether we need so many cars first of all, and encourage us to reduce our fuel consumption drastically.

4. TOTAL-FIELD IMAGE What Næss wants first is a change of image that is inherent to the imagination of the human being according to the western scientific culture. According to contemporary culture, we have a “humans-in-environment” image. What Næss here means is the image of the atomic individual who is unrelated to others and the environmental world. Instead, Næss proposes the relational “total-field-image”, according to which, human beings, like all that exists, live in a biospherical net of intrinsic relations. This web of relations is a total field of intrinsic relations. A relation is intrinsic if the relation belongs to the definition and basic constitution of the things related. This is like Spinoza’s God. Things of the world, according to Spinoza, are inexplicable without their relation to God, and God too does not have a separate existence from its relation with nature.

Without the relation, the things related are no longer the same things; they become radically different. Hence, total-field image dissolves the humans-in-environment image.

Now, Næss thought that the total-field-image is clearly anticipated in non-western traditions like animism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The new image, according to him, should force the westerner to understand the deep implications of understanding how life prospers in a community of relations rather than in isolation and without relation to one another.

Hence, new image means also an image of the ‘community of life’ versus ‘atomic individualism’. The notion of individualism, according to Næss, is not true to the way life is fostered, whether it is human life or the life of the most elementary organism. Understanding the relatedness of everything (the way our body is related to the universe) helps not only non-human life but also the human beings.

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-4 5. BIOSPERICAL EGALITARIANISM IN PRINCIPLE Deep ecologists advocate biospherical egalitarianism, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. However, what strikes us first in this view is: how then can we live our own life without doing violence to these things of value? Unquestionably, we can’t live without being violent to beings of nature in some way, for that is the cycle of life – take, for example, the food chain. Our relatedness to other beings on earth means also that we depend on them for the maintenance of our own life. In this advancement of our life, this drive to live, we can’t avoid harming non-human beings. How can biospherical egalitarianism meet this challenge?

It is for this reason that Næss added the phrase ‘in principle’ to biospherical egalitarianism. Any praxis (process of putting a theory into practice) necessitates some violence, some exploitation, killing and suppression. This unavoidable violence is not frowned upon by the deep ecologists. This is considered a natural part of life. Even a pure vegetarian has to suppress plant life in order to uphold her own existence. For Næss, there is no difference in the existential priority of plant, animal, and inanimate beings. What is frowned upon is the turning of the existential struggle into a cult of violence and exploitation.

On the other hand, the emphasis of the principle of biospherical egalitarianism is the question of value. All beings are intrinsically valuable. They all have equal right to live and blossom in their own way and time. Since all beings exist in a relational community of life, all members of the community are equal in value, though they are not equal in other respects (intelligence, life, movement etc.) Hence, ethically, we are obliged to respect, or even venerate all ways and forms of life. The restriction of this right only to the humans is anthropocentrism, and it affects the quality of life of humans themselves. For Næss, according to the cultural change that he is intending, this right to live of all should become a conviction of all people, and its success depends solely on the deep satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of life. The estranged relation of human beings from nature alienates them from their own self, which is a relational whole.

6. DIVERSITY AND SYMBIOSIS Since deep ecology considers all beings equal in value, it believes in the fostering of diversity.

Diversity enhances the potentialities of survival, the chances of new modes of life, the richness of forms. It believes that nature has a way of balancing things according to the principle of cooperation rather than competition. Hence, deep ecology pits the maxim ‘live and let live’ against the evolutionary slogan ‘survival of the fittest’. Deep ecology advocates ‘coexistence’: ‘both you and me’ versus ‘either you or me’. The rich diversity of life forms available on earth is disappearing on account of human arrogance and mastership.

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-5 Hence Næss emphasizes symbiosis: the close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that benefits each member; a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence. Symbiosis is the cooperative principle. Beings have the ability to coexist and cooperate in complex relationships, rather kill, exploit, and suppress each other.

The tendency to dominate reduces the multiplicity of the forms of life, and it also brings in destruction within the communities of the same species. Now, against this tendency, the fostering of diversity and the principle of symbiosis has deep consequences for human societies as well. ‘Forms of life’ should be interpreted also in terms of ‘forms of human cultural life’. The principle of symbiosis and fostering of diversity allows the diversity of human ways of life, of cultures, of economies. Hence, deep ecology supports the fight against economic and cultural, as much as military, invasion and domination, (imperialism in all forms) and it is opposed to the annihilation of seals and whales as much as to that of human tribes or cultures. Deep ecology is against reducing variety and bringing about unity; it is for the survival of various forms of life in a symbiotic relationship. Cultural imperialism and economic globalization are against the principles of deep ecology. Deep ecology is against the leveling tendency of modernization.

7. ANTI-CLASS Næss is eager to show that deep ecology is not a status quo position with regard to human society. While it is for the different cultural forms, it is not for the classes in societies. A criticism that Marxists raise against cultural activists is that they break up the unity of the working class by rousing the cultural affinities of the workers, by working on their sentiments, and dividing them on these grounds. Næss does not want this Marxist criticism to affect deep ecology.

A class in any society is defined by the relation of a group of people towards the means of production, whether they own the means of production or not. Næss agrees that exploitation and suppression by the elite class in any given society might contribute to the diversity of cultural forms, consciously or unconsciously. Diversities exist for the sake of class interests. In this case, both the exploiter and the exploited are affected negatively in their progress towards self-realization. So, Næss emphasizes that the principle of diversity does not apply to the differences that are there in a cultural community only on account of class interests of their elites.

So the principles of biospheric egalitarianism, diversity and symbiosis are anti-class in intent. Hence, these three principles are to be applied to all group conflicts, including the biggest one existing today between the developed and developing nations of the world. Næss is openly critical of the cultural and economic imperialism that is continuing in the world today. His plan for the future world is one of rational and moderate life style in the west and enhancing the capacity of people everywhere towards a reasonably healthy and meaningful life, which will help them meet their important needs. The future world is one of classless diversity and symbiosis.

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-6 There won’t be have-nots but there shall be cultural differences which will allow people to live meaningful lives according to their own designs. Not classes but cultures.

8. COMPLEX, NOT COMPLICATE According to Næss, there is an evident distinction between complexity and complication found in the ecosystems everywhere. Due to the naivety of human beings, they take what is complex as complicated. The ecosystem is not something complicated without any unifying principles like a chaotic modern city. Indeed, it is a complex system – a multiplicity of more or less lawful, interacting factors operating together to form a unity, a system. The ecosystem is macro scale of a micro-organism. The ecosystem is upheld by deep-rooted organic principles. Hence, the complexity.

Organisms and interactions in the biosphere exhibit astonishing complexity. Hence, we need to begin to think in terms of vast, intricately complex systems of symbiosis (which sometimes defy human logic). The complexity of the ecosystem should make us aware of the profound human ignorance of biospherical relationships and of the disturbances we can cause, sometimes unknowingly, to the complex relationships of dependence in the ecosystem.

Once again, Næss applies the same principle of complexity to human societies. Like in the ecosystem, in human communities as well, deep ecology favours complex economies and an integrated variety of means of living. Combinations of industrial and agricultural activity, of intellectual and manual work, of specialized and non-specialized occupations, of urban and rural activity, of work in city and recreation in rural nature and recreation in city and work in rural areas. With regard to what is in store for humanity in future, deep ecology does not favour technology aided prognosis but serene clarification of possibilities. It favours sensitivity towards continuity of living traditions, and sensitivity towards human ignorance of the complexities of relational totalities.

Næss is not against technologies; in fact, he argues for an exponential growth of technical skills and inventions. However, he argues for new directions in technology which today have no support in the modern nations – technologies that will enhance the symbiotic relations of the biosphere. Most technologies are only human-centric and disturb the ecosystems.

9. LOCAL AUTONOMY, DECENTRALIZATION Any form of life, whether human or non-human, has an internal system of government. Outside exertion of power or government over these forms will make them vulnerable. Hence, the local region in which that form has obtained an ecological equilibrium will become disturbed. So, they will do well on their own, ‘according to their own genius’ (this phrase was used by Nehru to characterize his policy of non-intervention in India’s tribal cultures; Nehru asserted that he was not sure whether his own or the tribal’s value systems are better).

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-7 With regard to human communities, Næss advocates Gandhian-type local selfgovernmental, and self-sufficiency (swadeshi). Self-sufficiency should be both mental and material. Influences from outside can bring about ruptures to communities that live in harmony with nature. This requires radical decentralization. Local autonomy reduces energy consumption drastically. If a locality is self-reliant without importation of commodities and services from outside, it will use amazingly less fuel than a locality that depends for outside supply for everything.

Local autonomy is strengthened by a reduction in the number of links in the hierarchical chains of decision. According to Næss, longer the chain, less the upholding of local interests.

Even if a decision follows the majority at each step, many local interests may be dropped along the line, if it is too long.

10. ECOSOPHY, NOT ECOLOGY Næss prefers the term ‘ecosophy’ to ‘ecology’. ‘Eco’ comes from the Greek ‘oikos’, meaning house. House here stands for the whole biosphere, the house of life. Ecology is the scientific study of the relations of organisms to one another, to their environment, and the interaction of human beings with the environment and life therein. The scientific study (logos=rational, scientific study), Næss feared, would lead only to shallow ecology. Rather, a philosophical study of the environment (oikos+sophia), which would guide the environmental movement, he thought, would lead to a cultural revolution and will bring about new values and new attitudes towards the environment.

Ecology is a limited science based on scientific methods and tools. Ecosophy (ecophilosophy) does not deal with scientific descriptions and predictions. It rather is a philosophy of ecological harmony and equilibrium. Philosophy is openly descriptive and prescriptive. It lays down norms based on fundamental principles. Science is neutral description and does not make value judgments. Philosophy leads to political actions and viewpoints, science does not.

11. ECOLOGICAL SELF As we have seen, inspired by Spinoza, Næss rejects atomistic individualism. Human being is not in essence separated from other human beings and non-human beings. The dualistic separation in modern philosophy leads to selfishness and insensitivity towards all that is not self. According to the total-field-image and relationalism of deep ecology, human beings are essentially constituted by their relation to other humans and non-human beings. My identity or self is made up of my relation to the whole environmental world. This way of thinking alone, according to deep ecologists, can bring about an environment-friendly attitude.

Hence, my ‘self’ is not narrowly human and focused radically on myself. My ‘self’ is constitutively (from its very makeup) turned towards the whole of nature. Not that I have no

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-8 particular identity; this particular identity is penetrated already by my ‘exposure’ towards all that exists. Hence, Næss calls the human self an ‘ecological self’. The boundaries of our skin are to be enlarged towards the whole of nature. See, as embodied beings who think we relate with the world through our senses. We see a bird that flies in the sky and hear a bird singing from the tree.

So, our self is extended much beyond our body. More importantly, we are nourished and made what we are biologically and spiritually (in non-material terms) by the relational whole where we are placed. Hence we are made of the extended ecological self. By definition we are extended beyond ourselves.

Hence, respecting self means respecting nature. I am part of nature and nature is in me.

Without nature I am not there, and without me and all that exists there is no nature (remember Spinoza). And so, self-realization in the proper sense of the ‘ecological self’ is reconnection with nature. This reconnection enhances the quality of human life, and lets other beings live with us in harmony.

12. EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF DEEP ECOLOGY I.

II. III. IV. V. VI.

VII.

VIII.

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realizations of these values and are also values in themselves.

Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.

The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

Present human interference with the nonhuman 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 increasingly higher 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 to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes.

Figure below.

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-9 Notes Figure 1: Biospheric egalitarianism

APPENDIX: GREEN VALUES VIS VIS-Ă€-VIS CONVENTIONAL MODERN ERN VALUES CONVENTIONAL MODERN VALUES

1 2

3

1 2

NEW GREEN VALUES

ABOUT NATURE Humans are separate from nature.

Humans are part of nature.

Nature should be dominated over and We must live in harmony with nature, and exploited for human benefit. respect and protect it for its own sake, irrespective of its use to us.

We can and we shouldd use the scientific We must obey the laws of nature like laws of nature to exploit and use it. carrying capacity of nature by restricting population growth and resource use.

ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS Humans are naturally aggressive and Humans are naturally cooperative. competitive.

Human societies always organize Social hierarchies are unnatural, undesirable

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-10

3

4

1

2

3

4 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

themselves hierarchically and should do so. and avoidable.

Social standing of people is measured by Spiritual quality of life and loving the material possessions, and social relationships are more important than progress by the production of more goods material possessions, and so possessions for people through the use of more beyond need are to be rejected. advanced technologies.

Logical, rational thought is more reliable There is no such thing as objective ‘fact’, and than emotions and intuitions, and so we so emotions and intuitions are as valid forms must trust only scientific facts. of knowledge as reason.

ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE Science and technology can solve Science and technology cannot be relied on, environmental crisis, and so we must and so we must look other solutions. perfect them.

Technological changes decide social and Social and economic changes should be economic changes, and we can’t do much controlled by us, and technology should not about it. be our master.

Large scale high technology like nuclear Intermediate, appropriate and democraticallypower is a sign of progress. owned technology like renewable wind and solar energy is a sign of progress.

Analysis is the method of problem-solving Synthesis is the method of problem-solving = = splitting them into component part. seeing parts in their relation to whole.

We understand nature by knowing the We understand nature when we understand it building blocks of matter and the forces holistically and as more than the sum of the that control them. parts.

ABOUT ECONOMICS AND PRODUCTION The objective of producing goods and We should produce only those goods and services is to invest them to produce more services that society needs regardless of their and more goods and services, which would profit. eventually benefit all.

The lower the cost of production compared Economic efficiency is to be measured by the with the selling price of goods and services, production of environment-friendly the more efficient is the production process. employment and fulfilling the needs of people without consumerism. Environmental damage is economically inefficient.

Economic growth is good and should go on Since resources are limited and pollution is without restraint because it can’t harm the damaging, economic growth has to be environment. restrained.

To keep up industrial competition, there has Using minimum resources and recycling to be a limit to recycling and pollution them is the most efficient in the long run, and control. local economies are better for restraining unrestrained competition.

Economic planning cannot be for a very Economic planning should be for several long term since returns should be hundred years. imaginable for the near future.

Nations progress by trading among them.

Trade is to be restrained, and sustainable

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 3: Notes-11

7 8 9

1

2

3 4

5 6

regions and communities are to be created.

Large scale production helps industry.

Small scale production helps environment.

Mechanized and automated production is We all need work to fulfill ourselves, and so more efficient. put labour back to work.

Full employment is the ideal.

All should have works, but need not be conventional jobs.

ABOUT POLITICS The nation state is the most important Local community as part of the global political unit. community is the most important political unity (Think globally, act locally).

Environmental crisis can be resolved Without abandoning the typical modern without any political change. industrial state and life, the environmental crisis cannot be resolved.

The greens want to take us to pre-industrial Creating small-scale, localized, nonprimitive times. industrial economies is going forward.

Environmental crisis is to be left to All of us should make environment-friendly scientists who will advise politicians. decisions, and the experts should advise us but should not hold any extra authority.

The way forward is representative The way forward is direct democracy of parliamentary democracy. shared decision making by all.

A strong central government is required to State should only assist local communities make the economy work and for which enforce green laws locally. maintaining law and order.