Seth Banks- Phil. 490 1-24-06 - Dr. Anderson

Deep Ecology By: Arne Naess

1. Naess brings up giant economical issues of today: pollution, resources, population, cultural diversity, technology, land and sea ethic, education, and the scientific enterprise. Within these issues, list some of the general characteristics that surround the two perspectives: Shallow ecology / Deep ecology.

2. Do you agree with Naess when he says, if any "environmentally oriented policy decision is not linked to intrinsic values or ultimates, then its rationality has yet to be determined" (78). This is to say that, while our current decision making may render short-term value in "dollars and cents", we are still taking risks/chances as we still do not know the decision’s long-term effects. Is short-term planning all our leaders can conjure?

3. Naess’ 1^st step states: "The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes" (68). Within Naess’ 1^st step of the "Eight Step Platform of Deep Ecology", he stipulates his meaning of inherent value upon a "natural object". He says that "the presence of a "natural object" is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by any conscious being". Do you agree with his definition of "inherent value" (68-69)? If yes, then is there a need of a "system of values" at all? This is to say that, if everything is valuable, then what need or possibilities are there for distinguishing values? And, if value bears no relationship to human awareness of it, then what ethical import can it have for humans?

4. Naess’ 7^th step states: "The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness" (68). He says that the term, "quality of life", is "non-quantifiable" (70). Deeming this word to have no specific implications, is this ambiguity hurtful, helpful, or inconsequential when looking at the foundation of this Deep Ecology Movement? This question begs, what are human’s vital and non-vital needs?

5. Naess tells us that the current World Conservation Strategy is "thoroughly anthropocentric in the sense that all its recommendations are justified exclusively in terms of their effects upon human health and basic well-being" (66). Is there any other way to reach out in urgency, on a global scale, the major issues of our environment?

6. Throughout Naess’ article he consistently disapproves of the direction 1^st and 2^nd world countries have had upon our world. He advises the leaders of the "greater" countries to stop making themselves role models for the "lesser" 3^rd and 4^th world countries. Do you agree with Naess when he says that non-industrial cultures "should not be seen as promoting lifestyles similar to those in the rich countries" (73)?

7. What is an "ecosophy"? What are the elements and norms of Naess’ "Ecosophy T"? What does he mean by self-realization? What are this philosophy’s lifestyle implications? Finally, if the entire world were to adopt "Ecosophy T" as their own, would our planet be better off (80)? (Or is technology our only way out?)

8. Above all else, Naess supports education as a means to "self-awareness" through the "soft sciences" (philosophy, anthropology, history, etc.). Without this education, we will never achieve a high enough level of altruism to recognize inherent value in "all things". Shouldn’t the "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry, etc), with all their accomplishments, maintain their place on our society’s pedestal (74)?