Deep ecology is an environmental philosophy that believes all living things have value on their own, not just because they help humans. It suggests that human societies should change how they live to respect this idea.

Deep ecologists explain that nature is made up of many connected systems, where each living thing depends on others to survive. They say that harmful human actions, even if not directly needed, can hurt not only people but also all living things in nature.

A main idea of deep ecology is that the natural world as a whole should be treated with respect and given rights to exist and thrive, regardless of how useful it is to humans. This philosophy sees Earth as a network of many life communities, including both living things and ethical connections, such as respecting other beings as more than just resources. It is called "deep" because it looks closely at how humans relate to nature and reaches conclusions that go beyond typical environmental ideas.

Deep ecology does not support the idea that humans should protect nature only for their own benefit. Instead, it sees the world as a whole, where humans and other parts of ecosystems work together. It supports ideas like protecting wild areas, policies that encourage smaller human populations, respecting the spiritual value of all living things, and living simply.

Origins and history

In 1973, Arne Næss wrote a paper about deep ecology. He said he was inspired by scientists studying ecosystems around the world. Næss also explained that his reason for wanting to protect nature came from spiritual and intuitive beliefs. He said, "Your motivation comes from your overall views or your philosophical and religious beliefs. When you work to protect nature, you feel you are helping something important inside yourself, which requires change. Your motivation comes from what I call 'deeper premises.'"

In a 2014 essay, environmentalist George Sessions wrote about three people who were important to the deep ecology movement in the 1960s: author Rachel Carson, environmentalist David Brower, and biologist Paul R. Ehrlich. Sessions said the publication of Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring marked the start of the modern deep ecology movement. Næss also believed Carson was the movement's originator, saying, "Eureka, I have found it" when he read her work.

Some people say the pictures of Earth taken by Apollo astronauts in the 1960s were important for the movement.

Principles

Deep ecology is a movement that supports ideas about how humans should live with nature. It believes that all parts of the world depend on each other for survival and criticizes the idea that humans are more important than other living things. This movement supports an Earth-centered view, not a human-centered one, which was common during the Enlightenment period. Deep ecologists disagree with the idea that humans are separate from nature or that humans control nature. They point out that many indigenous groups lived in balance with their environment for thousands of years without harming it. They argue that the current way of thinking, which focuses on material things and economic growth, is dangerous for the planet. They believe society must change in many ways, not just by ending capitalism or economic growth. These changes should involve both reason and emotions working together, not only technology and the economy.

Deep ecologists say that harm to nature since the Industrial Revolution now threatens human survival and the survival of many species. They believe ecosystems can only handle a limited amount of damage before they break down. They argue that human population must decrease, but they support a slow and careful reduction, not sudden or extreme changes. Some deep ecologists suggest a global population of 100 million, while others think 1 to 2 billion people could live in balance with nature. This movement does not fit into traditional political groups but is seen as radical because it strongly opposes capitalism and supports an ecological way of thinking. Unlike conservation, which focuses on protecting land carefully, deep ecology believes humans should avoid interfering with nature unless it is necessary for survival. Deep ecologists say that most environmental harm has been caused by people living in industrial societies, not by humans in general.

In 1985, Bill Devall and George Sessions described deep ecology with eight main ideas:

• All life, human and nonhuman, has value on its own, not just because it helps humans.
• The variety of life on Earth is important and valuable.
• Humans should not harm life unless it is needed for basic survival.
• The survival of life is possible with fewer humans.
• Humans have already harmed nature greatly, and this harm is getting worse.
• Rules and systems must change to fix problems in the economy, technology, and ideas.
• Society should value quality of life, not just increasing wealth or comfort.
• People who agree with these ideas must work to make them happen.

Development

The term "Deep Ecology" was first used in a 1973 article by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss. Næss described "biospherical egalitarianism-in principle," which he called a clear and obvious value. He stated that limiting this value only to humans is called anthropocentrism, and it harms humans by reducing the quality of life for all living things. Næss explained that Deep Ecology teaches that all living beings have a universal right to live and grow. This right cannot be measured, and no single species has more of this right than any other species.

Aspects

In 2010, Richard Kahn supported the idea of ecopedagogy, which uses strong environmental actions as a teaching method to help students learn about "earth democracy." This concept focuses on the rights of all living things, including animals, plants, fungi, algae, and bacteria. Dr. Stephan Harding, a biologist, created the idea of "holistic science," which is based on ecology and deep ecology. Unlike materialist science, which breaks things into parts, holistic science studies natural systems as a whole. He wrote:

Deep ecologist and physicist Frijof Capra stated that deep ecology and spirituality are closely linked because understanding deep ecology is a form of spiritual awareness.

Arne Næss said he was influenced by the ideas of Spinoza and Gandhi, who both based their values on religious feelings and experiences. Although he saw deep ecology as a spiritual philosophy, he did not follow specific religious rules. He said, "It is correct to call me religious or spiritual because I believe all living things have inherent value and that there are basic ideas about what is unfair."

Næss criticized the Judeo-Christian tradition, saying the Bible's "arrogance of stewardship" comes from the belief that humans are superior and exist to manage nature as a middle person between the Creator and Creation. He also criticized the Reformation's view of nature as property to be used for maximum productivity.

However, Næss said the word "God" has too many preconceived meanings, but he agreed with Spinoza's idea of God as "immanent"—a single creative force that continuously shapes the world through nature. He did not rule out the possibility that some Christian ideas might be true in a certain way.

Joanna Macy combined Buddhist philosophy with deep ecology in her work called "The Work that Reconnects."

Criticisms

Guha and Martínez Alier criticize four main ideas of deep ecology. First, they argue that deep ecologists focus too much on moving away from a human-centered view of the environment to a nature-centered one. This, they say, causes deep ecologists to ignore two major global problems: overuse of resources in wealthy countries and the growing use of military power. Second, they claim that deep ecology’s focus on protecting wilderness areas supports the idea of Western countries expanding their influence. Finally, they say that because deep ecology connects environmental protection with preserving wilderness, its more extreme ideas are limited to groups in the United States that focus on saving wild areas.

Deep ecologists agree that overuse of resources and militarization are serious issues. However, they argue that the desire to protect wilderness is natural and not connected to Western expansion. This idea is similar to statements made by Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who said Brazil has the right to cut down the Amazon Rainforest. He claimed, “The Amazon belongs to Brazil, and European countries should focus on their own problems because they already destroyed their environments.” This suggests that since European countries have damaged their own environments, Brazil should be allowed to do the same. Deep ecology values would not apply to Brazil, as it has not yet had its chance for maximum economic growth.

Regarding the idea that deep ecology uses spiritual beliefs, Arne Næss explained that the core of deep ecology is the belief that “all living things have their own inherent value, regardless of how useful they are to humans.” He noted that people who support deep ecology come from many different religious and spiritual backgrounds, but they all share this belief, even if they base it on different values.

When Arne Næss created the term “deep ecology,” he compared it to “shallow ecology,” which he criticized for being focused on human needs and material wealth. He said shallow ecology’s main goal is “the health and wealth of people in developed countries.” William D. Grey believes that creating a non-human-centered set of values is impossible. He prefers a more practical, “shallow” approach. Deep ecologists, however, argue that shallow ecology (which focuses on managing natural resources) is harmful because it supports capitalism, which harms the environment. The nature-centered view is only seen as impossible within the systems and beliefs of modern society. Outside of these systems, many early cultures and some indigenous groups have long held a nature-centered worldview. This view is still present in some cultures today. Deep ecologists say that the nature-centered idea is not foreign to humans and has been part of human history for a long time. Grey’s view represents a different opinion that deep ecology has rejected from the start.

Social ecologist Murray Bookchin criticized deep ecology for being misanthropic, meaning it has a negative view of humans. He pointed to David Foreman, a member of the environmental group Earth First!, who described humans as a “pathological infestation on the Earth.” Bookchin said that some people, like Foreman, support extreme actions, such as reducing the human population rapidly. Deep ecologists disagree, saying that Foreman’s statement contradicts the first principle of deep ecology, which values both human and nonhuman life. Arne Næss suggested a slow decrease in human population over time and limiting immigration, but not mass killing.

Bookchin’s second criticism is that deep ecology does not connect environmental problems with systems of power and control. He argues that deep ecologists fail to see the potential for humans to solve these issues. Deep ecologists respond by saying that industrial society, with its class systems and hierarchies, is the main cause of environmental problems. The nature-centered view rejects any form of social class or authority based on status. Deep ecologists believe that because industrial society causes ecological harm, the only solution is to change that society completely.

Daniel Botkin says that even though deep ecology challenges ideas from Western philosophy, it should be taken seriously. However, he argues that deep ecology is based on a misunderstanding of scientific facts. He believes it is more political and social than scientific. Botkin also criticized Næss for saying all species are morally equal and for criticizing certain species that help shape environments. Deep ecologists respond by saying that their focus on political and social issues is important because environmental destruction comes from the structure of society itself. They argue that changes within the current system cannot stop this destruction. They also mention the work of scientists and activists like Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and John Livingston as influential.

Eco-critic Jonathan Bate calls deep ecologists “utopians,” noting that the word “utopia” means “nowhere.” He quotes Rousseau, who said that the natural state of humans no longer exists and probably never did. Bate questions how a planet full of cities can be a utopia.

Bate’s criticism also says that industrial society and the technology it uses are “natural” because humans created them. Deep ecologists disagree, saying that the idea that technology is neutral is a false belief of industrial society. For example, nuclear weapons are not neutral—they are designed to cause mass destruction. Historian Lewis Mumford divides technology into “democratic” and “authoritarian” types. “Democratic” technology, used by small communities, can be neutral. “Authoritarian” technology, used only by large, powerful societies, is not. These types of technology are not sustainable and should be stopped, as stated in point #6 of the deep ecology platform.

Peter Wohlleben draws a line in time, around 8000 BC, when the agricultural revolution began. This is when humans started changing species through farming. At this time, the landscape began to be changed to meet human needs, marking the start of intentional human control over ecosystems.

Links with other philosophies

Peter Singer criticizes the idea that humans are the most important beings and believes animals should have rights. However, he disagrees with deep ecology's belief that nature has value on its own, not just because of suffering. Michael E. Zimmerman connects deep ecology to feminism and civil rights movements. Nelson compares it to ecofeminism. The strongest link is with animal rights, as supporters say, "all life has intrinsic value."

David Foreman, who helped start Earth First!, supports deep ecology. Arne Næss, a leader in deep ecology, once chained himself to rocks near a waterfall in Norway to stop a dam from being built.

Some people connect deep ecology to green anarchism. The movement also relates to cosmopolitan localism, an idea that organizes production by focusing on the well-being of people and the environment instead of corporate profits, overproduction, or excessive consumption.

Timothy Morton, an object-oriented ontologist, wrote about similar ideas in his books Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics (2009) and Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence (2016).

Additional sources

• Bender, F. L. (2003). The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Amherst, New York: Humanity Books.
• Katz, E., A. Light, et al. (2000). Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• LaChapelle, D. (1992). Sacred Land, Sacred Sex: Rapture of the Deep. Durango: Kivakí Press.
• Passmore, J. (1974). Man's Responsibility for Nature. London: Duckworth.
• Clark, John P. (2014). "What Is Living In Deep Ecology?" Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30 (2): 157–183.
• Hawkins, Ronnie (2014). "Why Deep Ecology Had To Die." Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy 30 (2): 206–273. ISSN 0832-6193.
• Drengson, Alan. "The Deep Ecology Movement." *The Green