Thursday, February 6, 2014
Shallow Ecology Movement
After reading through the readings, I spent a lot of time trying to decide what kind of Ecologist movement I would fit into if it was like a war between the two sides and I had to decide. After looking at the evidence presented in the book, and looking within myself, I've decided that I'd be a part of the Shallow Ecology Movement. That's because I care about going green for artificial reasons as opposed to the deeper more important reasons. I want everything to be pretty, and I want people to be happy and healthy enough to enjoy it which is largely affected by the health of the surrounding environment. Is it bad that I don't necessarily really care about the environment because it independent deserves to be cared about? Is it wrong that I view the environment in terms of how it benefits humans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that in the society we are raised in, it's completely normal to be more focused on how the environment is a "useful tool". As a society we view the environment as purely as a useful necessity, but I think that needs to change. I think that we as a society need to change our view in terms of the environment - and look at it as an extension of ourselves and not necessarily a benefit.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think it's wrong, outright. The shallow argument isn't any less important. As Naess mentions, it has the most bearing politically. But I don't think he would have us separate deep and shallow ecology out into distinct camps pitted against each other; the shallow argument is part and parcel of the deep movement (in part 13, Naess includes the description he gives for shallow ecology (1) as a part of the deep ecology description (5), only he stipulates that its effects must be considered in relation with a wider perspective of consequences and responsibilities). The shallow movement might be considered like the arm of a greater body of principle and value. If that arm goes rogue, and fights against pollution and resource depletion for anthropocentric reasons, it happens to benefit the earth as well. It satisfies both movements, and in the long run, may actually help shift the zeitgeist in a more environmentally conscious direction. Better that arm is attached to an ideology of ecosophy than of fascism, though.
ReplyDeleteYou could always be a private deep ecologist. Naess leads us to believe many of them are anyways.