Monday, April 17, 2006
The need for Deep Ecology (as explained by Devall and Sessions)
“While accepting the best of reformist environmentalism, many people have sensed that something is missing. They are asking deeper questions. They understand that the environment/ecology movement needs an articulate philosophical approach grounded upon assumptions which are different from those of the dominant worldview. They realize that a perspective is needed that will place the best of the reformist response into a coherent philosophical perspective – a philosophy based on biocentric rather than anthropocentric assumptions. This philosophy should be able to draw on the science of ecology, but should not be constrained by scientism and by the definition of Nature as just a collection of bits of data to be manipulated by humans. This philosophy should be both rational and spiritual. It should focus on ways of cultivating ecological consciousness and on principles for public environmental policy. It should be a philosophy that draws from the Earth wisdom of Native Americans and other primal cultures and that makes these approaches to wisdom relevant to contemporary, technocratic-industrial societies. In 1972, Arne Naess began discussing such a philosophy which he called deep ecology.” (Devall and Sessions, Deep Ecology, 1985, pg 61)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good example of how Devall and Sessions have applied Næss's Deep Ecology philosophy and their own vision of Deep Ecology into an idea that they are calling Deep Ecology. Confusing, but cunning. They give credit to Næss, but greatly elaborate and extend his original philosophy into something that can be grasped - I assume that this is due to the extensive criticism Næss received in relation to the philosophy being too evasive, and him essentially not appropriatly addressing this criticism that his followers demanded and needed.
ReplyDelete