Spring 2010

Senior Seminar

Discussion Questions: Arne Naess

 

Q1. Point #4 illuminates the necessity of a reduction in human population in order for the flourishing of non-human (and human) life.  Is it ethical to require this reduction by way of laws limiting the amount of children one is allowed?  If not, would it be possible to encourage people to reproduce less without a deep ecological viewpoint?

Q2. Naess states that richness and diversity adds value to life (Point #3), and humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.  Since evolutionary life implies an increase in richness and diversity, is reducing the human population hindering the evolution of richness in human life, thus conceptually opposed to a deep ecological approach? Or could improving the environment by way of limiting reproduction be seen as a ‘vital need’?

Q3. Naess points out that there is prestige in mass consumption and waste.  This undoubtedly interferes with our ability to reduce these behaviors and propose a feasible change in policy that the public would support.  Given economic globalization (and, therefore, the globalization of consumption as a status marker), is it possible to change our value system to favor environmental conservation over mass consumption?  If so, how might we do this?  If not, is there another way to encourage good environmental stewardship?

Q4. Could a global viewpoint (i.e., seeing everyone, regardless of nationality, as a member of the same community) help people develop a deep ecological stance on overpopulation, thus encouraging them to take steps to decrease that population? The deep and shallow approach on overpopulation is explained on the top of p.73.  

Q5. Naess leaves the definition of a ‘vital need’ “vague to allow for considerable latitude in judgment” (p. 69).  Do you think this is effective?  Is it necessary to define what is vital and what isn’t in order to delineate a proper environmental ethic?

Q6. Do you think the pyramid model is helpful in understanding the deep ecology position?  Furthermore, do you agree with Naess that people can disagree on the premises at level 1, but still agree on the points at level 2?