Gaia Utopia ~ For what life is worth
By: Charz
Tags: Animalism, Arne Næss, Biocentric Equality, Biocentrism, Climate Change, Club of Rome, David Foreman, Deep Ecology, Depopulation, Earth First!, Ecoterrorism, Hagakure, Hokuto no Ken, Kakugo, Kakugo no Susume, Mother Earth, Overpopulation, Paul R. Ehrlich, Post-Apocalyptic, Radical environmentalism, Rewilding, Rewilding Institute, Sierra Club, Survival, Takayuki Yamaguchi, Zero
Category: Codex, Kakugo no Susume
PHILOSOPHY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
If the ideologies surrounding the radical environmental movement are diverse and sometimes conflicting, it is also true that there is a central core of ideas embodied in the notion of deep ecology. Posited by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss, deep ecology is a philosophy that promotes the idea of biocentrism as opposed to anthropocentrism, removing human beings from the philosophical center of the world. Instead, deep ecology considers all elements of the ecosystem when formulating a moral calculus regarding right actions. In fact, the concept of biocentric equality – a premise central to the deep ecology framework – insists that all life forms, from protozoa to humans, are of equal value.
The basic tenets of deep ecology as enumerated by Naess follow :
1. The weel-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.
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. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.
5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapodly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideologicl change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
As can be seen, deep ecology is truly a radical ecology calling for radical changes (a massive decrease in the human population)…If ideas are dangerous, then the propositions at the heart of deep ecology bode ill for the future of most human beings. The principle of biocentric equality mandates that the interests of crustaceans (or, for that matter, viruses) be considered alongside the interests of human beings – and, if the interests of the crustacean are seen to outweigh those of humans, deference must be given to the crab. This is misanthropy taken to its limit. When Christopher Manes (author of Green Rage) infamously suggested that the AIDS epidemic just might be a viable solution to the overpopulation problem, not everyone in Earth First! was outraged (Dave Foreman for one, agreed with Manes). Indeed, the only hope for Mother Earth, in the view of the deep ecologist, is for a drastic reduction in the human population – only then can the post-apocalyptic, millenarian, primitive, earth-centered utopia come into being. It follows that if an environmental apocalypse is inevitable, imminent, and necessary, then some motivated deep ecologists may seek to hasten that apocalypse – hence the true theat of eco-terrorism.
Don Liddick, Eco-terrorism: radical environmental and animal liberation movements, 2006, pp.19-21
Leave a Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Duotone by Automattic.
