Deep ecology is the belief that all
ecological systems and the members of those systems have intrinsic value to
humans. Animals, vegetation, and other objects in nature should not be
preserved and protected simply because they have economic worth or are
aesthetically pleasing. It is not our place to pick and choose. Shallow ecology
recognizes these issues in a general manner, while deep ecology calls for a mass
reformation of our way of life to address the problem holistically. Naess
describes our current view of nature as highly anthropocentric—we attach human
value to things in the environment and use those beliefs to create and justify
our own, selfish agenda. Humans overwork the land and consume at a faster pace than
the Earth can normally produce.
Particularly in Western culture,
humans tend to place nature in a subordinate role. Naess says that we should
see ourselves a part of the ecological network and not the regulator. “The attempt to ignore our dependence and to
establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man (231).”
The current relationship we have with nature seems to contribute to an “either
you or me (232)” mentality between humans:
“To the ecological field-worker, the equal right to live and
blossom constitutes an evident and intuitively clear axiomatic value.
Restricting this right to human beings is an anthropocentrism with detrimental
effects upon the quality of life of humans themselves (231).”
Take the Kentucky coal miner strike
in the early 1970s. Such high value had been placed on coal that the miners had
become disenfranchised in terms of healthcare and other benefits. There was
little concern for the foul environment that the townspeople lived in, nor did
politicians feel sympathetic for the miners who developed lung disease from
exposure to coal dust. Do you think our
current relationship with nature is a large contributor to the way we treat our
own?
Harlan County Coal Miner Strike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWj109IAmCg
I think you make a really interesting point. This makes me think of Naess's point about autonomy and self-sufficiency. He argues that our global economy leads us to pursue things as cheaply as possible, and this inevitably leads to the mistreatment of people. You can certainly imagine that, the more distance between us and the commodity, the less interest we have in the ways that we acquire them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie's argument and wanted to introduce the idea of how both politics and economics can be involved in this process of environmental degradation. An example is the movement of polluting industries (like coal mining) from the United States to developing countries. Free Trade Agreements allow and encourage these industries to grow by allowing them to exist in regions of low regulatory environmental oversight. Developing countries are of particular interest to polluting industries specifically because of their limited enforcement record of environmental regulations that are a result of inadequate government funds. Competitive deregulations within these countries to attract direct investment and stimulate economic growth have therefore made it possible for corporations to search for the cheapest labor market and region of production. By producing in countries where the corporation is not headquartered, private industries do not have to internalize the costs of green-taxes and environmental regulations because those regulations have been stipulated by host countries as deterrents to foreign direct investment. Therefore, relatively few incentives exist for private industry to remain clean.
ReplyDelete