Deep Ecology and Shallow Environmentalism Environmental Philosophies - Essay Example

Deep Ecology and Shallow Environmentalism Environmental Philosophies Name: Course: Institution: Instructor: Date: Deep Ecology and Shallow Environmentalism Environmental Philosophies Introduction Both the deep ecology and the shallow environmentalism environmental philosophies have shaped the efforts and perceptions of environmentalists towards protection of nature. This is because the tow schools of thought have advanced different arguments on how nature should be understood and protected. In this case, they have been responsible for efforts to protect the nature and understanding of the role of humanity in this process. Understanding the different views presented by the proponents of the two schools of thought is essential in the process of guarding the environment. Over the years, these schools of thought have been developed to address the subject of the necessity to guard the environment. Shallow environmental philosophy was developed first by its early proponents who saw the need tom protect the environment for human posterity. The proponents of this view argued that man is at the centre of the world: if the environment has to be protected, it should be for the benefit of humanity. This view did not ogre well with its critics who argued that the world should be considered as a whole. They advanced the deep ecology philosophy, which looks at the world as a whole, and the need to protect the environment, not just for humanity, but also for the sake of other living and non-living existence on it (Diehm, 2007). Thesis The deep ecology environmental philosophy is more comprehensive in its focus on environmental protection than the shallow environmentalism philosophy; thus, it is the best philosophy on environmental protection. Understanding of shallow environmentalism Shallow environmentalism philosophy is well understood because it encompasses many of the efforts carried out by the general society. It includes many of the efforts advanced by media and other bodies responsible for the protection of the environment. Shallow environmentalism involves the common activities such as recycling of wastes, the purchase of energy saving bulbs to save energy, the acquisition of hybrid cars to minimize pollution, avoidance in the use of plastic bags, and replace them with organic materials, as well as, the campaigns for planting of trees. These initiatives are designed to minimize pollution and the degradation of nature by man. However, they do not question the fundamental believes of human culture and the running of society, which affects the environment (Tsevreni, 2011). Shallow ecology participates in the myth that human beings exist in order to conquer and master the global environment. It operates in the notion that man has the power to conquer the world: if some of the consequences of man affect the environment, necessary measures can be undertaken to fix this challenge (Hasan, 2011). For instance, human beings have the liberty to manufacture products and dump wastes; however, in the event that landfills become a predicament then recycling is paramount. Man needs to explore the oil and petroleum resources, but if this causes pollution problems, then it is necessary for man to use electric or hybrid cars (Lai, 2000). Shallow environmentalism makes an effort to save the world, but only if the effort to save the world is for the sake of humanity. It looks at saving nature but only for the purposes of its use by man. For instance, shallow environmentalism advances the need to save the wilderness, but this should be done so than humans (campers and backpackers) can enjoy these services. Shallow environmentalists argue that there is a need to protect the rainforests, because children enjoy visiting these forests and that they are influential in the provision of oxygen necessary for human existence. In other words, the natural resources should only be preserved if they are of value to humanity or if they are deemed to have value in the days to come (Meyer & John, 2005). The noble view of shallow environmentalism is self-centered. It central argument is that man is a superior being, thus the need to protect nature if it does benefit humanity. This argument gives man the liberty to protect or destroy nature. This is because it has put focus on human existence and the protection of the environment for humanity. However, if the environment is lost, then it is a man who is responsible for this loss. In this case, if man is responsible for the loss of environment, then he cannot use it. This is the reason why the environment has to be protected for use by humanity (Annette, 2004). Shallow environmentalism is criticized for the setbacks, which make it incapable to save the world. The critics of Shallow environmentalism have argued that this view cannot protect the environment because it focuses on humanity in the process of protecting the environment. Shallow environmentalism philosophy is additionally criticized because of its failure to address the culture of human beings, which makes them believe that the world belongs to them by right. Indeed, this philosophy does not question human culture and belief that the world belongs to them; thus, they have the liberty to undertake actions for their sole benefit (Barry, 2009). The founding principles of the shallow environmentalism may be the Biblical thought in Genesis, which advances “man should rule or take dominion over all the creatures on earth.” Shallow environmentalists imply that humans have the power to make necessary changes to the earth, and environment as long as it favors their existence interpreted in this view (Lauer, 2005). The social influence of the early nineties and the development of industrialization played a significant part in the advancement of his line of thinking. The implication of this school of thought is than humanity has the liberty to protect or alter the environment for their sole own wellbeing (Bron, 2008). Understanding of deep ecology Deep ecology is one of the latest advancement of environmental protection. Deep ecology philosophy school of thought argues that the environment should be considered as a whole. This philosophy argues that the environment is whole, and an independent entity with its own rights to flourish and live. This philosophy is referred as “deep” because it considers it argument to deeply, question the reality in the interaction of humanity with the environment. The proponents of this philosophy argue that it goes deep into the fundamentals of human cultures and its effects on the environment. The philosophy investigates the real connection that exists between humankind and the natural world. This makes its proponents to argue that this philosophy exposes more profound conclusions than the shallow environmentalism philosophy (Sessions, 2000). The greatest and typical premise of this philosophy is the wholesomeness of the environment. This philosophy considers the environment as an entity on its own, which must be respected and accorded its own rights of protection. The proponents of this philosophy advance that the world is not a free resource for human beings to exploit. The philosophy argues that the entire environmental system is superior to any of the parts that form it (Martin, 2002). This philosophy is enshrined on various principles. The first code is that the interests of non-human and human life on earth have value in their sense. Secondly, the miscellanies of life forms on earth are values in themselves and should be independently valued. The other principle is that humans lack the free will to alter this diversity only for the case where they have to satisfy fundamental human needs (Besthorn & Fred, 2003). The philosophy also argues that the flourishing of human life on earth is synonymous to the decrease in the population of humans. This is because this decrease flourishes non-human life. In addition, it argues that increased human interference on the non-human world is excessive and needs to be addressed (Drengson, 1995). This philosophy also argues on the need for reforms in the economic, ideological, and technologically oriented policies. These changes should support the ideology of appreciation of life quality as it is as opposed to pushing for higher standards of living (Allan, 2011). In essence, this philosophy pushes for the preservation of natural ecosystems such as the wilderness preservation. This will support the existence of life forms in this wilderness although it has little benefit to humanity. The philosophy pushes for human population control as a way of protecting the natural environment as a whole. Finally, the need for simple living, as opposed to pushing for a high standard living, which causes harm to the natural environment (Phillip, 1998). The similarities & Differences Similarities exist between the deep ecology and the shallow environmentalism philosophies. The first similarity is that both the proponents of the two philosophies advance for increased environmental education and awareness programs as a strategy of protecting the environment. The proponents of both philosophies argue that it is worthwhile to increase the awareness of human intervention in the protection of the environment (Davidson, 2007). The second similarity is that both philosophies advance on the need to protect the natural ecosystems such as wilderness and rainforest. The two philosophies advance the need for the protection of these ecosystems as essential for the existence of humanity, and for other non-human forms. In other words, both philosophies value the significance of the environment and the value of protecting them (Timothy, 2002). Thirdly, both philosophies acknowledge the role of humans in the protection of the environment. The focus of both philosophies is on the efforts of man in protecting the environment. They both advance humans as the people responsible for the fortification of the wider environment and ecosystems (Vaughn, 2003). In addition, both philosophies agree in principle on the destruction of the environment by human interference. The proponents of deep ecology argue that the environment is destroyed through human cultures and beliefs that they are superior. On the other hand, the shallow environmentalists argue that the environment often is destroyed for the betterment of the life of humans (Burns, 2000). There are also differences in these two philosophies. The first difference is on the intents of protecting the environment. Shallow environmentalists argue on the need to protect the environment if this will serve humanity or will be for the advantage of human beings. Deep ecology on the other side argue that the environment should be protected as a whole and independent entity. It should be protected for its benefit it to human or non-human existence. Secondly, the shallow environmentalists argue that often it may happen that the environment is destroyed for the sake of humanity. This view is opposed by the deep ecology, which argues that the human culture and belief that they own the world creates self-interest in humanity responsible for the destruction of environment (Fred, 2001). In addition, shallow environmentalism philosophy pushes for counter actions to the destruction of the environment through human effort to improve living standards. For instance, if car pollution is a problem, it suggests the use of electric cars. On the other side, deep ecology philosophy pushes for uncomplicated living and other policy reforms, which reduces environmental destruction. Conclusion In conclusion, there is a need to guard the ecosystem. It is evident from the two philosophies that human beings have contributed much in the destruction of the ecosystem. The fortification and maintenance of the environment is a fundamental aspect both to the existence of human and non-human life forms. However, it comes evident that the deep ecology philosophy is comprehensive in its approach to environmental protection. This is because it focuses on protecting the environment for not only human life forms, but also non-human life forms. In my view, this is a better philosophy than the shallow environmentalism. References Allan, D. (2011). Shifting Paradigms: From Technocrat to Planetary Person. Anthropology of Consciousness, vol. 22(1): 9-32 Annette, G. (2004). Environmental education research and interpretation. Environmental Education Research, vol. 10(3): 409-424 Bron, T. (2008). The Tributaries of Radical Environmentalism. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 2(1): pp. 27-61 Barry, J. (2009). Environmental Justice and Environmentalism, Organization & Environment, vol. 22(3): 363-366 Besthorn, B. & Fred, H. (2003). Deep Ecological Philosophy, Social Thought, vol. 20(2): 23-44 Burns, T. (2000). Deep Ecology and Immanuel Kant, Politics, vol. 20(2): 93-100 Davidson, S. (2007). The Troubled Marriage of Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism, Environmental Values, vol. 16(3): 313-32. Diehm, C. (2007). Identification with Nature, Ethics & the Environment, vol. 12(2): 1-22. Drengson, A. (1995). The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. New York; North Atlantic Books Fred H. (2001). Transpersonal Psychology and Deep Ecological Philosophy, Social Thought, vol. 20(1): 23-44. Hasan, C. (2011). A Radical Suggestion for the Solution of Environmental Problems: Deep Ecology, Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal, vol. 1(26): 369-377 Lauer, D. (2005). Expropriating Nature: The Decoding of Deep Ecology, Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, vol. 9(3): 315-337 Lai, O. (2000). The Perplexity of Sponsored Environment Education. Environmental Education Research, vol. 4(3): 269. Meyer, M. & John M. (2005). Does Environmentalism Have a Future?, Dissent, vol. 52(2): 69- 75. Martin J. (2002). Land Reclamation and Deep Ecology, Ethics & the Environment, vol. 34(3): 242-252. Phillip, C. (1998). Deep Environmental Politics. London: Greenwood Publishing Group. Sessions, R. (2000). Deep ecology versus ecofeminism. Hypatia, vol. 6(1): 90. Tsevreni, I. (2011). Towards An Environmental Education without Scientific Knowledge. Environmental Education Research, vol. 17(1): 53-67 Timothy W. (2002). Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Organization & Environment, vol. 15(2): 150-178. Vaughn, J. (2003). Environmental Activism: A Reference Handbook. London: ABC-CLIO Read More