Arne+Naess1212

For the non-APC version of Arne Naess, click here!

Arne Naess lays out the “eight points” of the deep ecology movement on page 264, and many if not all of these points appear to be from the perspective of holism. Naess also begins to contrast deep ecology with shallow ecology on page 266.

Point 1, “The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.”

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

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

Point 4, “The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population [and] the flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.”

Point 5, “Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.” To reduce this excessive interference would require again massive reduction in the rights of people. Naess says “The per capita destruction of wild (ancient) forests and other wild ecosystems has been excessive in rich countries...”

Point 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.”

Point 7, “The ideological 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.” (Thompson)

Point 8, "Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes." (Cozby/Davis)

Point 1 suggests that value exists in nature, despite what any individual might impose on the issue; value in nature (human and non-human life on Earth) exists outside of individual thought or feeling.

The value in point 2 is assigned to “life forms” overall, and does not include the individual. (Again, where does he say this? This is a really tenuous implication which begs for evidence. In fact Naess makes great effort to show that his holism and includes reverence for indivduals - see his fancy charts... Light even alludes to Naess as a pragmatist in some ways - ie, Naess's deep ecology can embrace multiple world views...)

Point 3 takes rights from individual humans and again places them onto “diverse” and “rich” groups. (Be careful here. Where does point 3 say anything about taking away individual rights? What does he mean by "diversity"? Naess himself gives an example of how he goes out of his way to protect others' rights to argue for ideologies that Naess himself sees as odious. So the reverse seems to be Naess' intention - protection of diversity means MORE rights, not less. If Naess is wrong on that you need to make your case, not just a claim.)

What point 4 means is taking, not only value, but also rights away from individual humans. Reducing the human population “substantially” would require immense breaches in the rights of certain individual people, and would have untold repercussions on commerce, reducing individual rights still more. (No - not necessarily! Naess does not put a TIMELINE on this. Population reductions can be achieved without violating individual rights if... these reductions occur gradually via lower birthrates - for example, Italy).

Point 5 implies that Naess wants to stop a certain group of individuals (the rich - No, again - does he SAY this? or is it implied? Chaninging basic econ/tech/ideological structures does not necessarily mean that a) only the rich harm the environment, and b) that the rich cannot profit from new sustainable "green" economies...) ) from harming the environment further, and wants to keep others from imitating them in this regard.

Point 6 suggests that Current policies, (primarily in the West) give a great deal of latitude in regards to freedom to individuals, and a change in the direction that Naess is talking about would limit the freedoms of individuals a great deal. (Again does he SAY this? or is it implied? see my above comment - generally it's best to avoid unsubstantiated claims like this and give the quote, page number, etc where he explicitly SAYS or IMPLIES htat individual rights will necessarily be circumscribed. On the contrary one could make perhaps a better argument that the reverse is true - by protecting ecosystems individual rights will be protected, not undermined - ie, there will be more availalbe "natural capital" for use for and present humans - clean air, clean water, sustainable economies, more job opportunities, more economic goods - which would seem to help individuals in their pursuits of interests protected by rights... So it's not all clear that Naess's deep ecology undermines rights - this needs to be argued for i think.)

Point 7 suggests that people should change the direction that they are moving in in order to become happy. Naess seems to want to reduce the amount of money that they spend, a limit to individual freedom and also a shift of value from individuals to the environment that they would be trying to protect by spending less.(yes, that seems right - he questions whether economic growth ought to be the main value used to guage society's health.)

Throughout his essay, Naess argues for the proponents of deep ecology to stand up, in a manner of speaking, for what they believe in, rather than continuing to be passive and allowing for compromise with the expanding industrial markets. Naess also disagrees with the perspective of shallow ecology (which Naess contrasts wit deep ecology). The discourse of shallow ecology puts nature in terms of its usefulness as a tool for individuals. Shallow ecology also talks about human expansion (one of the 8 points of deep ecology) in a way that makes it seem as though reduction in human population is not a good thing, and that the resulting detriment to the environment is inevitable. Shallow ecology discusses resources in terms of their usefulness for individuals living in affluent societies today. Naess's objection to shallow ecology (a strong individualist ideology) and the 8 points that he has laid out for deep ecology show that he is from the holism perspective. (Thompson)