Thursday, August 07, 2008

Lecture #9

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Key message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview

Deep ecology worldview

Dominance over nature

Harmony with nature

Environment as resource

Nature as our equal

Economic growth,

population growth

Simple needs,

stable population growth

Unlimited resources

Finite natural resources

Technological solutions

Non-dominating science

National/centralized community

Minority tradition, bioregion

Consumerism

Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

“Communitarian Ecology”

Lockean property rights

Shallow ecology

“Liberal environmentalism”

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Values of community”:

The tragedy of the commons

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

Communitarian ecology:

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Two essays:

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Two concepts of sustainability:

The sustainable society à

Sustainable development à

“Sustainability” ààà

ààà

“Establishing sustainable patterns of production and consumption”

Argument # 1

Sustainability presupposes “community”

However, liberal democratic societies erode community

Therefore: liberal democratic societies are oriented against sustainability

Argument # 2

Associative democracy nurtures values of community

Associative democracy:

Embraces the views and attitudes of “the grassroots”

Leads to consensus among “deliberators”

Therefore: sustainability is likely to be achieved under a system characterized by associative democracy

Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory

“The worker co-operative”

An organization which is owned and controlled by those working in/for it

Characteristics of the “green cooperative”:

Small(er) scale production

A strong preference for participatory, workplace democracy

Presumed benefits:

Greater commitment to equality contributes to reducing imbalances in the distribution of power, wealth and income throughout society

Greater commitment to a higher quality of life

Greater commitment to local communities

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter
Free Counter