In 1973 the philosopher Arne Næss invented Deep Ecology. Næss basically states that all living beings have the right to live, and that this right is universal and cannot be quantified. Therefore Man, like all other species, cannot benefit from any particular right to live and reproduce.
My view would be yes absolutely. Like you say the key tenet of deep ecology is that humans have no right to place ourselves above other life and we have have to accept that not everything has a monetary value. One of the major criticisms of the current practice of monetising nature, for example valuing ecosystem services, is that actually many things have values which are infinitely high and are thus simply ignored. For example the value in maintaining breathable air, or productive soil. And others may have no direct use to humans and so receive a value of '0'. There are other things apart from money which must be considered. Deep ecology goes some way to explain why taking a purely capitalist view of the natural world leads to the state of environmental degradation we are now in.
My view would be yes absolutely. Like you say the key tenet of deep ecology is that humans have no right to place ourselves above other life and we have have to accept that not everything has a monetary value. One of the major criticisms of the current practice of monetising nature, for example valuing ecosystem services, is that actually many things have values which are infinitely high and are thus simply ignored. For example the value in maintaining breathable air, or productive soil. And others may have no direct use to humans and so receive a value of '0'. There are other things apart from money which must be considered. Deep ecology goes some way to explain why taking a purely capitalist view of the natural world leads to the state of environmental degradation we are now in.
Yes Deep Ecology is a philosophy more equally wise to live in harmony with nature provided we become aware of the necessity of this interaction through the protection and conservation of the different ecosystems and their biodiversity.
Dear respected colleague Dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro, Sir
I appreciate your kind invitation, really I am no biologist or environmental specialist, and based on my so simple knowledge in this important regard, I think it is possible to consider Deep Ecology as a philosophical basis for environmental conservationism.
Regards, Emad
Thank you for sharing this interesting question. Yes, in agreement with the colleagues. To me, the implementation of this ''philosophical basis'' is possible, if humans conquer one of their archenemies, greed.
Regards
I concur with my colleagues and would add that deep ecology can also serve as a solid theological basis for environmental conservation. Ecospirituality relies heavily on deep ecology. A great book on the topic is authored by Christian theologian Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology (Fortress, 1993).
A key influence in his long life has been his deep relationship to Hallingskarvet mountain in central Norway, where, in 1937, he built a simple cabin at the place called Tvergastein (crossed stones).
"Through deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment emerges deep ecology"
I think that yes, it can be considered. However, animals cannot talk and therefore participate in global governance. So only some altruistic men can represent their voice.
It is true that animals do not speak our language. But both pets and some wild animals and maybe even some plants communicate with us very well. If we look at where we come from, that is, to our story, to give the voice and to defend the "rights" of animals and plants is the least we can do. Conversely, if we look to the future, we must be aware that without animals and plants man is destined to extinct very quickly. It seems to me that Albert Einstein thought that the extinction of bees would result in the extinction of man.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology