Deep Ecology as Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

Deep ecology as an environmental ethic Name Professor Institution Course Date Introduction DEEP ECOLOGY AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC The environment is important to the existence of human beings. Speculations and facts both suggest that human beings would be unable to exist in the absence of their environment. Everyone is well aware of the fact. Therefore solutions to the human destruction of the environment are sort. As the world revolutionised extreme changes occurred. For example industries came into being. The production of their products solely depended on their environment. The raw materials were sourced from their environment while their waste was released back to the environment (Moran, E. F, 2006). Hence the rivers were contaminated and no longer safe for direct human consumption. The gases they emitted continually polluted the clean air. The damage of the fumes was even worse as discovered in the twentieth century. The o-zone layer protecting humans from direct sun rays was corroded. Factories and cars did not stop operating however. More pressure is also put on the environment due to growth in population. The ecosystems are continually strained because humans still want to satisfy their needs despite the limited resources. Problems also occurred due to the creation of matter that did not rot like living things (Milton, K, 2002). The discovery of plastic paper bags and other plastic matter littered the environment. Also excavation for stone and other minerals destroyed the natural environment and disrupted ecosystems. Mans needs and creativity brought destruction to his survival. However just like the nature of man, he relentlessly seeks to correct his mistakes. He continually searches for ways to put the environment in its previous condition. Every section of mans aspects seeks to provide an appropriate answer ranging from philosophy to science. Ideas such as ecology, deep ecology, and environmental ethics arise from these efforts. Since the twentieth century, the alarming rate of environmental disintegration has caught the attention of many. Deep ecology Deep ecology remains a unique and contemporary concept that studies the history of modern man and concludes on solutions to save his world. Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess coined the word in 1973. Since then different controversies and principles have surrounded the word. Deep ecologists suggest that the environment carries intrinsic value. This means that the existence of the environment is similar to the existence of humanity (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012). The environment contains diversity and wealth similar to humans. Deep ecology encourages humans to view the environment as a part of them. The culture of human beings promotes self-centredness. Their assumption is that the world exists for their sake. Like Aristotle stated everything exists for mans sake. This notion is the one that deep ecology seeks to discard. By fighting the notion, deep ecology believes the world can be saved. Just as humans respect human life they will be able to respect the existence of trees, animals, plants, forests, mountains and rivers. Individualism among human beings enables them to separate themselves from the misfortunes on the environment. Deep ecology reconciles the humans to their environment. It appeals to their spirituality, feelings and emotions. The suffering of the environment evokes their feelings ensuring the react in a way that saves the environment. Deep ecology roots its principles on some factors including (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012): The necessity to separate the economic value of ecosystems to human beings. The recognition of the intrinsic value of ecosystems by virtue of their existence. Diverse life carrying value in itself contributes to the wellbeing of humanity in a great way. To prevent diversity and richness decrease, satisfaction of human needs should carry responsibility. Responsibility is required when handling other life for satisfaction of unavoidable wants. Human interaction with the universe has caused the negative and rapid change in the environment. The revival of the environment depends on the reduction on human interaction with the environment. The revival also depends on reforms made in the economic, political and technical structures. The responsibility for environmental deterioration falls on peoples life styles. Peaceful and democratic change need to be implemented by individuals agreeing with the previous statements. By examining the principles around which deep ecology is built, it becomes easier to understand the message it is trying to put across. The solution it offers to the world is also clear in its principles. The destruction of the environment solely falls on the human beings (Milton, K, 2002). Their self centred view made them destroy their environment for their own comfort. They viewed the ecosystem as a source to satisfy their needs and comfort. Their environment is viewed in terms of the food, raw materials and aesthetics aspect. This is the individualistic view deep ecology seeks to discard. So far deep ecology developed two theories that dispute the individualistic view. The Gaia system is the first that disputes the individualism culture (Miller, A. S, 2003). The Gaia system describes earth in a way that seems true in light of the existing environmental crisis. A living system that evolves adapts and keeps itself in check, is the description given to the earth. The reality of this theory is seen in the way in which deep ecologists view the earth. They understand the suffering of environment and call for other individuals to save the earth. By discarding individualism the individuals are able to find solution and solve the problems. Both the earth and the individuals adapt and keep each other in balance. The other system involves the view of the earth as a combination of systems (Moran, E. F, 2006). This is illustrated by taking the example of a cell. The cell is an individual, however it is part of a system say the heart. The heart is only part of a system of for example a cow. The cow is part of a herd of other cows. In a similar way the individuals in an environment are part of other individual ecosystems of the earth. They should therefore quit thinking they are separate entities from the earth. Deep ecology considers the actions of the past such as industrialisation, hydroelectric plants, overfishing and excessive agriculture. It seeks to reverse these human actions to conserve the environment. For example reduction of fishing, controlled agriculture and abolishment of poaching will revive many parts of the environment. The population of endangered species will be able to increase. Similar to this, the soil may gain its natural nutrients due to reduction in artificial fertilizers and chemicals. Deep ecology’s most outstanding principle is one that encourages humans to respect the existence of the ecosystems and the world similar to the way they respect human life (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012). This is the main basis of the deep ecology notion. Its critiques say that the theory is more theoretical than practical. However once integrated to the study of environmental ethics, it becomes clear that the deep ecology ideas are practical. Environmental ethics explores human and environmental interactions. ‘A thing is right when it seeks to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community (Milton, K, 2002). It is wrong when it tends otherwise.’ This is according to an environmental writer Leopold. Environmental ethics encourages preservation an improvement of the environment by humans. It is the morality of the human actions toward the environment that are questioned. Most of the actions create dilemma in deciding their morality and immorality. For example the protection of integrity of the environment may require the killing of some overpopulated individuals. The unanswered question remains if the killing was justifiable or if saving the ecosystem was more important. These are moral questions that face individuals at different times. Environmental ethics therefore tries to reconcile the moral concepts to satisfy both humans and the ecosystem. It is very notable however that the implementation of environmental ethics is hindered by human self-centredness (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012). Human self-centredness is referred to as anthropocentrism. Anthropocentricism is also a common feature in deep ecology. Anthropocentrism is the main link between deep ecology and environmental ethics. Deep ecology as an environmental ethic To begin with, environmental ethics place intrinsic value on the environment. It encourages human being to understand that the forest, rivers, mountains and animals exists for their own sake. Environmental ethics place value on non-human elements. Deep ecology becomes an environmental ethic because; it also encourages humans to place intrinsic value on non-human elements (Moran, E. F, 2006). Deep ecology discards the notion that everything exists for mans sake. Human beings are required by both environmental ethics and deep ecology to view themselves as individuals who are part of a bigger system. This will enable them to respect their environment and conserve it as a moral action. Human beings should understand their existence is as justified as that of the environment. It is undisputable that humans’ existence is enabled by the environment. However, due to their anthropocentrism, they only regard the environment according to its ability to satisfy their wants. The economic usefulness of the environment is the only view they have of the environment. For example, Hawaii, values its beaches due to the economic profits they get from the tourism. Similarly, African countries protect their wildlife due to the tourism benefits they get. As an environmental ethic, deep ecology discourages the view of the environment due to economic usefulness. Human beings destroy the environment due to economic reasons. For example, oil was recently discovered in beautiful part of Kenya. The government is willing to forfeit tourism benefits for more oil profits. The actions will destruct the environment in a bid to acquire economic profits. The environment needs to be respected for its existence and not its economic use. Anthropocentrism has failed to have any sort of boundaries. The intrinsic value of the ecosystems is going to be recovered only after the defeat of anthropocentrism. Environmental ethics propose that human interaction with the environment should seek to conserve and improve it. The anthropocentrism however has no boundaries. Human beings only conserve the environment for their own sake (Milton, K, 2002). They preserve endangered species so that their children get to see the animals in future. Similarly the reduction of factory fumes is to reduce further erosion of the o-zone layer to avoid diseases. They do not focus on saving the environment to preserve the life of an ecosystem. Deep ecology as an environmental ethic encourages humans to embrace the environment as a form of life. Environmental ethics recommend the reduction of human interaction with the environment. This will ensure the environment recuperates to its earlier state. However, this is not the tendency of man. Hydro electric plants are erected in all parts of the world. This is regardless of the disruption it brings to aquatic life. For example the movement and the breeding of the fish are interrupted. This destruction has no cure since rarely will anyone prefer the life of a fish to their lighting. By excessive poaching in the past, most animals in Africa got distinct. The animals were required to make buttons and fake nails. Today man is in a desperate rush to increase the number of these animals. Man prefers to perform an excavation on an area then rehabilitate it to bring back the previous vegetation. This however is a misconception because; it is not the vegetation alone that got destructed. An ecosystem consisting of different symbiotic relationship was also disrupted. Bringing back the vegetation, does not bring back the ecosystem (Moran, E. F, 2006). Therefore as deep ecology suggest, humans should restrain themselves from interrupting the environment. Sometimes no amount of rehabilitation can bring back the environment to its original state. The limited interaction between humans and the environment recommended by deep ecology is reasonable in the environmental ethics aspect. The conservation of the environment is not the declaration of a death for humans. Deep ecology requests the responsible interaction between humans and the environment (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012). The interaction should only be for the provision of very necessary wants and not leisure needs. For example alternative methods of energy should be used. Solar energy for example is in plenty in the environment. It contains no harmful effects on the environment. Smoke or fumes that corrode the o-zone layer are avoided. The building of hydroelectric plants which disrupt aquatic life is also avoided. Solar is renewable and conserves the environment. Solutions need to be created to our needs to avoid excessive interference of the environment. Deep ecology therefore becomes an environmental ethic. Conclusion In conclusion, people who believe in environmental ethics need to implement them responsibly. All structures economic, political and social need to be reformed. Deep ecology suggests this as a step toward reviving the environment. Environmental ethics suggest that morality toward the environment can only be achieved by changes in all structures. The law is in place to prevent the rule of the jungle. Therefore the governments should make laws compelling people to respect the environment. For instance some countries have banned the use of indecomposable matter like plastic bags in the country. This helped in curbing environmental destruction. Socially people need to educate others on the importance of respecting the environment for its own sake. The anthropocentrism view of the environment encourages its misuse for economic sakes. Therefore new economic ideas should be created to save the environment. Deep ecology is the contemporary idea that should be followed to allow fulfilment of environmental ethics. Despite their critics the two ideologies match and need to be followed to save the environment. It will also ensure that it is maintained in good condition. By adopting deep ecology the environment may be preserved for generations. References DesJardins, J. R. (2005). Environmental ethics: An invitation to environmental philosophy. Belmont, Calif: Thomson Wadsworth. Haenn, N., & Wilk, R. R. (2006). The environment in anthropology: A reader in ecology, culture, and sustainable living. New York: New York University Press Moran, E. F. (2006). People and nature: An introduction to human ecological relations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Keller, D. R. (2010). Environmental ethics: The big questions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Miller, A. S. (2003). Gaia connections: An introduction to ecology, ecoethics, and economics. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.. Milton, K. (2002). Loving Nature: Toward Ecology of Emotion. Rout ledge. Curtin, D. (2005). Environmental ethics for a postcolonial world. Lanham, Md: Rowman & littlefield publishers. Schmidtz, D., & Willott, E. (2012). Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works? New York: Oxford University Press.s Read More

Individualism among human beings enables them to separate themselves from the misfortunes on the environment. Deep ecology reconciles the humans to their environment. It appeals to their spirituality, feelings and emotions. The suffering of the environment evokes their feelings ensuring the react in a way that saves the environment. Deep ecology roots its principles on some factors including (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012): The necessity to separate the economic value of ecosystems to human beings.

The recognition of the intrinsic value of ecosystems by virtue of their existence. Diverse life carrying value in itself contributes to the wellbeing of humanity in a great way. To prevent diversity and richness decrease, satisfaction of human needs should carry responsibility. Responsibility is required when handling other life for satisfaction of unavoidable wants. Human interaction with the universe has caused the negative and rapid change in the environment. The revival of the environment depends on the reduction on human interaction with the environment.

The revival also depends on reforms made in the economic, political and technical structures. The responsibility for environmental deterioration falls on peoples life styles. Peaceful and democratic change need to be implemented by individuals agreeing with the previous statements. By examining the principles around which deep ecology is built, it becomes easier to understand the message it is trying to put across. The solution it offers to the world is also clear in its principles. The destruction of the environment solely falls on the human beings (Milton, K, 2002).

Their self centred view made them destroy their environment for their own comfort. They viewed the ecosystem as a source to satisfy their needs and comfort. Their environment is viewed in terms of the food, raw materials and aesthetics aspect. This is the individualistic view deep ecology seeks to discard. So far deep ecology developed two theories that dispute the individualistic view. The Gaia system is the first that disputes the individualism culture (Miller, A. S, 2003). The Gaia system describes earth in a way that seems true in light of the existing environmental crisis.

A living system that evolves adapts and keeps itself in check, is the description given to the earth. The reality of this theory is seen in the way in which deep ecologists view the earth. They understand the suffering of environment and call for other individuals to save the earth. By discarding individualism the individuals are able to find solution and solve the problems. Both the earth and the individuals adapt and keep each other in balance. The other system involves the view of the earth as a combination of systems (Moran, E. F, 2006). This is illustrated by taking the example of a cell.

The cell is an individual, however it is part of a system say the heart. The heart is only part of a system of for example a cow. The cow is part of a herd of other cows. In a similar way the individuals in an environment are part of other individual ecosystems of the earth. They should therefore quit thinking they are separate entities from the earth. Deep ecology considers the actions of the past such as industrialisation, hydroelectric plants, overfishing and excessive agriculture. It seeks to reverse these human actions to conserve the environment.

For example reduction of fishing, controlled agriculture and abolishment of poaching will revive many parts of the environment. The population of endangered species will be able to increase. Similar to this, the soil may gain its natural nutrients due to reduction in artificial fertilizers and chemicals. Deep ecology’s most outstanding principle is one that encourages humans to respect the existence of the ecosystems and the world similar to the way they respect human life (Schmidt, D., & Willott, E, 2012).

This is the main basis of the deep ecology notion. Its critiques say that the theory is more theoretical than practical.

Read More