Counter-Currents
A Deep Ecological Perspective on the Vulnerability of Eurodescendants
Francisco Albanese
2,074 words
Deep ecology represents a significant shift in the way humans understand and interact with the environment. This movement is rooted in the belief that our current models of human engagement with nature are unsustainable and destructive. Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher, first developed the concept of deep ecology in the 1970s, and it has since grown into a powerful environmental and philosophical movement that has inspired many to adopt a more holistic and sustainable approach to environmental issues.
To read this, get behind our Paywall
3 comments
This article makes it seem as though Deep Ecology has succumbed to the anti-carbon fad.
By doing so it betrays the very idea of concern for life forms other than humans.
Plants need carbon dioxide. They evolved in an environment far richer in carbon dioxide than we have now.
Carbon is not a pollutant nor is it toxic.
It’s part of the fundamental building blocks of life and central to the life of plants.
Otherwise a fine article whose policy proposals I support.
Very interesting article.
I for one am highly suspicious of “Deep Ecology” or any tendencies to ascribe some kind of purpose or superstitions to Nature that she does not in reality possess.
I also would not be so quick to dismiss the place of mankind in that “dominant” role either.
If space aliens whisked all humans away from the Earth to some other galaxy far, far away ─ never to return ─ would the Earth “care.” Some of these weird “non-materialist” (and probably well-to-do) New Agers might think this would be a liberation from the human plague. But what is the point of preserving anything if there are no humans to live there?
I think the notion that everything has to be commodified for Big Line stock market growth and conspicuous consumption is a bit of a straw-man. Why would there not be perfectly rational limits to growth?
There may be perfectly good reasons to save a rare fish species by not building a dam or whatever, without necessarily resorting to starvation or magical thinking. It seems that for all species, survival is the main imperative. Some Win. Some Lose. Humans just have better tools and brain power.
I disagree that CO2 is not a pollutant or a toxin. One example is the current acidification of the ocean from burning fossil fuels. Even water and oxygen ─ both essential to life as we know it ─ can be toxic in certain circumstances.
“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.”
—Paracelsus, 1538
I am not a big fan of the Chicken Little syndrome where Leftists act like the sky is falling from burning fossil fuels and greenhouse gases ─ but then they don’t have any serious proposals beyond clichés like Science is Real or measures where developed countries subsidize backward ones. Does eating more soy or using gunny sacks to bag their groceries really tip the lever to Sustainability?
I do think that alternatives to fossil fuels should be found ─ not all of them being equal. Coal in particular should be replaced by other things including nuclear power. The mercury contaminating seafood directly comes from the burning of coal. Nobody seems too concerned about a coal-fired powerplant near a school ─ but if somebody breaks a mercury thermometer, they will shut the whole thing down like Chernobyl in a classroom.
Science is all about measurement and revision ─ and we don’t measure things that are not real. Complexity is no excuse to substitute magical thinking. People tend to deify science and technology because they don’t really understand them. Most people can’t even define such things other than via the sound and fury and flashing lights from occult forces or mystery men hiding behind a curtain.
Just because, for example, the human brain never evolved to be able to fathom imaginary numbers does not mean that we cannot use them as tools to measure, predict, and ultimately to understand complex phenomena like electromagnetic fields.
Somehow, I think we have to get our priorities straightened out.
🙂
[516 words]
Biocentrism is a tricky term, because it implies that human beings are not the center of the universe… and that is false — we are the center of our universe (our particular unwelt). I am tired of empty phrases like “We are a plague on the Earth”. In fact, biocentrism is actually anthropocentrism, because the human being is deciding, in relation to his own views, about being or not being the center of the universe. Ethnomasochistic views are confronted with the reality in which human beings live and are blind to the fact that it is human beings who give a special value to a certain state of conservation, not nature. It is we who choose to conserve a moment. Perhaps, archeofuturist alternatives could be more environmentally friendly than the usual conservative, liberal and socialist ways.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.