What is Deep Ecology?

Deep Ecology is a philosophical movement that values the flourishing of all life on Earth, considers humans an intrinsic part of nature, and recognizes the need to heal the relationship between humans and the more-than-human world. This essay introduces the movement’s key ideas and considers its significance today.

Deep Ecology was named and established by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (b. 1912 — d. 2009) in the 1970s, but its origins go further back, into the global responsibility movements of the 1960s,¹ and beyond that to wisdom traditions and storytelling throughout human history. In articulating our connection with all beings, and respect for all life, Naess was especially influenced by Gandhi, and Indian Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

Naess developed the concept of Deep Ecology in opposition to what he called ‘shallow environmentalism’. Shallow environmentalism urges people to protect natural ‘resources’, such as forests or fish ‘stocks’ because they are useful to us, and because humans will benefit from continued access to tangible and intangible goods such as timber, fish and a stable climate. By contrast, Deep Ecology recognizes the inherent value of living beings and ecosystems, without reference to their usefulness for humans.

The platform principles

Deep Ecology is a movement rather than a philosophy. Naess wanted it to be accessible to people with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. For this reason, he and George Sessions in 1984 set out eight ‘platform principles’ for Deep Ecology, but emphasized that people could approach these principles from many different worldviews. The platform principles of Deep Ecology they shared are as follows:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.²

These principles have radical implications. First place is given to the inherent worth of the more-than-human world. This questions deeply held human-supremacist beliefs that have dominated western philosophy, both in Judeo-Christian traditions and in post-Descartes rationalist traditions.

The principle that has caused the most criticism of Deep Ecology, though, is the fifth. Naess and Sessions call for a reduction in human population. This has led to accusations of misanthropy and even eco-fascism. Population control is entangled with oppressive politics, eugenics, racism, and control of women’s bodies. Naess was not a eugenicist, and I have found no call for state control over population in his work. However, the question of population is not one we can discuss today without reference to racist and sexist oppression. My preference would be to rewrite this principle: The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of human consumption. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease. This is because the problem we face today comes primarily from people with high-consumption lifestyles, rather than large families. This is also true on a national scale. For example, the average American uses the same amount of energy as 370 Ethiopians. The birthrate in the USA is 1.8 births per woman, compared with Ethiopia’s 4.3, but clearly the birthrate is not the key issue from an ecological viewpoint. According to George Monbiot, the question of population has been hijacked by a growing form of climate denial: ‘Panic about population growth enables the people most responsible for the impacts of rising consumption (the affluent) to blame those who are least responsible.’ Furthermore, statistically the world population is showing signs of slowing in growth, towards an eventual decline, whereas consumption shows no such sign.

Unfortunately, discussion of population distracts from the value of the Deep Ecology principles. I would like to return to the key points: the value of rich, diverse, flourishing life on Earth, and our responsibility as humans to act to restore that richness.

The Apron Diagram

Naess attempted to show how the principles of Deep Ecology could be compatible with many different worldviews and many different ways of acting in the world by presenting a structure he called the ‘Apron Diagram’:³

At the top of the diagram are a person’s ‘fundamental premises’, which might be called their worldview or personal philosophy. My examples here are Catholicism, Eco-Feminism and Zen Buddhism. At the second level are the principles of Deep Ecology. By passing through those principles, while holding a personal worldview, different conclusions may be drawn (level 3). As a result, people then make decisions about how to act in the world (level 4).

Growing an Ecosophy

Naess described his own personal worldview, at level 1, as ‘Ecosophy T’. An ecosophy is an ecocentric personal philosophy, consciously aiming towards living harmoniously with Earth ecology. Naess named his ecosophy after Tvergastein, a mountain hut where he lived and worked part of each year. For Naess, living in alignment with Deep Ecology had an important element of place: observing the local ecosystem and growing in awareness of the lifeforms sharing space with you. He put this into practice at Tvergastein.

Ecosophy T is not Deep Ecology; it is Naess’s personal belief system. He constructed it using two types of statement, hypotheses about the nature of the world (H), and values, which he called norms and marked with an exclamation point (N!). This is how he articulated Ecosophy T:⁴

N1: Self-realization!

H1: The higher the Self-realization attained by anyone, the broader and deeper the identification with others.

H2: The higher the level of Self-realization attained by anyone, the more its further increase depends upon the Self-realization of others.

H3: Complete Self-realization of anyone depends on that of all.

N2: Self-realization for all living beings!

H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realization potentials.

N3: Diversity of life!

H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realization potentials.

N4: Complexity!

H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.

H7: Symbiosis maximises Self-realization potentials under conditions of limited resources.

N5: Symbiosis!

Within the Deep Ecology movement is an invitation to develop a personal ecosophy, and to commit to living in alignment with those beliefs. In their summary of the Deep Ecology movement, Alan Drengson and Bill Devall wrote, ‘ecosophies are not just theories; they are ways of life actively engaged on a daily basis’.

If you are interested in the idea, you might try writing your own personal ecosophy. What are your hypotheses about the world and your values? How are you living in alignment with them, and where might you draw closer to them?

Deep Ecology today

Ideas within Deep Ecology can be recognized in today’s environmental movements, but it is difficult to say whether they have come from Deep Ecology, or from the sources that influenced Arne Naess. For example, Thich Nhat Hanh has been influential in sharing the concept of ‘interbeing’, our radical connection with all of nature and the living Earth. His ideas are drawn from his tradition of Zen Buddhism, not from Deep Ecology. Recognition that humans are a part of the natural world, and have no right to destroy other living beings unless for vital need, is strengthened by today’s decolonization movements. There is increased interest in indigenous teachings and practices for connecting with nature, especially in the Americas and Australasia, as seen, for example, in the great success of Robin Wall Kimmerer’s book, Braiding Sweetgrass.

These are hopeful signs, but in the decades since the Deep Ecology platform principles were written humans have conducted an ever-accelerating attack on the more-than-human world. A report published this month found that just 3% of the world’s ecosystems remain intact. Extinction rates have risen to hundreds or perhaps thousands of times higher than natural baseline, and surviving populations are crashing. A 2016 WWF report found a 58% reduction in wildlife populations since 1970. Meanwhile CO² emissions continue to rise: more than half of cumulative CO² emissions since 1751 have been emitted in the last 30 years (since 1990), with dire implications. Despite a lot of talk about protecting nature, humans are still destroying life on Earth faster and faster.

The climate crisis and destruction of ecosystems compel many to recognize that human consumption must decrease and radical changes in ‘basic economic, technological, and ideological structures’ are necessary for the continued flourishing — or even survival — of life on Earth. Responses to the climate crisis are often articulated in terms of shallow environmentalism: humans need a stable climate to protect homes, food supplies, water and peace between nations. However, the recognition of our existence within a complex, living or life-like system is creating a shift for many people towards the Deep Ecology principle that richness and diversity of life are values in themselves.

The first principle of Deep Ecology, that all life has value, independent of its usefulness to humans, can also be recognized in the animal rights movement. This began long before the 1980s, and could also be traced to ancient wisdom traditions in India and beyond. In the west, the Vegan Society was founded in 1944 with the aim of ‘the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man’ . The term ‘speciesism’ was first used in 1970 by Richard D. Ryder to recognize that all organisms are ‘on the same moral continuum’. The concept was popularized by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation, published in 1975. It continues to be a powerful inspiration for many vegans and activists seeking a healthier and happier world for all beings. It spills out culturally into a reframing of humanity’s place in this world, not as fundamentally different from other animals, nor even as the pinnacle of evolution, but rather as one species connected with all others. Popular science books and novels without an animal rights agenda are moving in this direction, for example, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are by Frans De Waal, Other Minds by Peter Godfrey Smith, and The Overstory by Richard Powers.

What I wish to highlight here is that the principles of Deep Ecology are widespread, but not necessarily because of Deep Ecology itself. Rather, the movement has been part of a wider conversations. The principles remain radical and destabilizing to the dominant Industrial-Growth society, and under the ecological pressures of ever-increasing human consumption, only become more necessary. I would like to see renewed interest in Deep Ecology, and a greater readiness among environmentalists to align with its principles. For that there needs to be ongoing evolution in the movement to ensure diversity and inclusivity. I would suggest there should also be flexibility about how to express the principles. Personally, as stated above, I would alter the principle giving prominence to population to refer to consumption instead.

Philosophical movements important in the twentieth century such as post-modernism, feminism, queer theory and post-colonialism, all evolved over time, without ownership by one individual. This has been less true of Deep Ecology, but it continues to have great value as a philosophical movement recognizing humanity’s place within nature, along with the practical understanding that changes in our societies and ways of interacting with the greater natural world are needed. What’s more, Deep Ecology and aligned decolonizing and environmental movements are part of a positive, inspiring vision of what humans and human society could be. Far from being misanthropic, as is sometimes claimed, Deep Ecology offers a vision of a world with more vibrancy, creativity, diversity, compassion and beauty. Unlike consumerism, Deep Ecology asks humans to focus upon what really brings happiness: community, connection, simplicity, harmony with nature, self-realization. This is what Charles Eisenstein calls ‘the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible’, in which we fulfil our potential to support the flourishing of life.

Where there is a compulsion to dismiss the idea, pause to ask why? As Richard Powers writes in The Overstory: ‘We don’t know what people can and can’t do. So little has been tried!’

References

1. According to the excellent summary of the movement by Alan Drengson and Bill Devall, (2010) ‘The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development & Future Prospects’, The Trumpeter, Volume 26, Number 2.
2. Arne Naess and George Sessions (1984). ‘Basic Principles of Deep Ecology’, Ecophilosophy VI, 3–7.
3. I adapted this Apron Diagram, based on the Apron Diagram by Arne Naess, Source: (2005) The Apron Diagram. In: Drengson A. (eds) The Selected Works of Arne Naess. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4519-6_92
4. Arne Naess, (1990) Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy, tr. David Rothenberg (Cambridge University Press).

Other references may be found in the hyperlinks.

*

Follow me on Medium to be updated when I publish articles on Deep Ecology. I am currently posting a series on practicing deep ecology; links can be found at the bottom of the introduction, here.

This summary-essay was written following a discussion in the Deep Ecology Study-Action Group, meeting via Facebook. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the conversation.