In conservation work, "deep ecology" is used both as a compliment and an insult. I know it comes from the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, but I'm not sure how it differs from other kinds of environmental ethics. Can someone explain?
Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.
Fellow
Naess introduced the distinction in a 1973 article, "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement". "Shallow" ecology fights pollution and resource depletion mainly for the health and affluence of people in developed countries. "Deep" ecology holds that all living beings have intrinsic value, independent of their usefulness to humans, and calls for deep changes in how we live. With George Sessions he later drew up an eight-point platform (1984).
Environmental ethics in general is a broader field. It includes anthropocentric views (protect nature for human benefit), individualist views like animal rights, and holistic views like Aldo Leopold's "land ethic" (1949), which values ecosystems as wholes. Deep ecology is one holistic, non-anthropocentric position among many.
Fellow
Emeka, that helps me see why it's used as an insult: the "deep changes" part can sound like a rejection of human development, which is a problem in countries like India.