{"id":4,"date":"2008-08-17T20:35:40","date_gmt":"2008-08-18T03:35:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/?p=4"},"modified":"2008-08-17T20:35:40","modified_gmt":"2008-08-18T03:35:40","slug":"deep-ecology-and-left-biocentrism-an-introduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/2008\/08\/17\/deep-ecology-and-left-biocentrism-an-introduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Deep Ecology and Left Biocentrism: An Introduction"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>by Patrick Curry<br \/>\nJuly 25, 2008, revised August 15, 2008<\/p>\n<p class=\"crosshead\">The Roots of Deep Ecology<\/p>\n<p>Left Biocentrism grew out of <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Deep_Ecology\" target=\"_blank\">Deep Ecology,<\/a> which itself was rooted in the growing environmental awareness and struggles of the 1970s. Its roots are thus in activism, not academia. In 1973, however, the Norwegian activist and philosopher <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Arne_N\u00e6ss\" target=\"_blank\">Arne Naess<\/a> tried to articulate the theory of deep ecological practice. (Interestingly, in the same year <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Richard_Routley\" target=\"_blank\">Richard Routley,<\/a> later Richard Sylvan together with Val Plumwood, initiated the field of environmental ethics with another influential paper,<em> Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental Ethic?<\/em>)<\/p>\n<p>Naess began with an important distinction between shallow environmentalism and deep ecology. He pointed out that the former is <strong>anthropocentric<\/strong>, or human-centered. In a human-centric view,  non-human nature has only &lsquo;instrumental value.&rsquo; That is, it has value only insofar as it is useful to human beings or for their purposes. Deep ecology, Naess stated, is in contrast <strong>ecocentric<\/strong>; it  recognizes the &lsquo;intrinsic value&rsquo; of the entire natural world. That insight became the first of eight <a href=\"http:\/\/www.deepecology.org\/platform.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Platform Principles<\/em><\/a> which Naess, together with Bill Devall and George Sessions, later formulated as the theoretical basis of Deep Ecology.<\/p>\n<p>As well as the different focus, the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.deepecology.org\/platform.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Platform Principles<\/em><\/a> advocate respecting the richness and diversity of the Earth\u2019s life-forms and argue that human beings have no right to diminish and exploit these for trivial or selfish reasons. But that is just what is happening, so the principles also specify our obligation to reduce our impact on the Earth, particularly through a lower population, less consumption, and more appreciation of the overall quality of life as distinct from economic standard of living.<\/p>\n<p class=\"crosshead\">All Life on Earth<\/p>\n<p>Although the principles make no explicit mention of it, the Earth is clearly the ultimate context for natural value and all life-forms. The term &lsquo;biocentric&rsquo; is often used in this connection, although a better one (because more accurate) would be &lsquo;ecocentric&rsquo;, since inorganic elements are also integral to life. There are fruitful overlaps in this worldview with the work of <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Aldo_Leopold\" target=\"_blank\">Aldo Leopold<\/a> on &lsquo;thinking like a mountain&rsquo; (as opposed, in Sylvan&rsquo;s words, to &ldquo;thinking like like a cash register&rdquo;). Both Naess and Leopold were major influences on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.earthfirst.org\/\" target=\"_blank\">Earth First!<\/a> movement.<\/p>\n<p>Naess and Sessions also formulated an example of a Deep Ecological theory they called <strong>Ecosophy T,<\/strong> with two further principles. These are <strong>Self-realization<\/strong> and <strong>biocentric egalitarianism<\/strong>. Unfortunately, these two ideas have somewhat overshadowed the original ones, and there are problems with both. The emphasis on supposedly one great Self &mdash; certainly the most obvious interpretation &mdash; obscures the vital importance of relations of all kinds between different kinds of beings, and whose flourishing requires those differences to be appreciated and respected. (Ecofeminists have been acute critics on this point.) Secondly, biospheric egalitarianism seems to ask us to treat every species, without exception or attention to context, as of equal value. That assumes, implausibly, that value is parcelled out in equal units per species. It is also very difficult, if not impossible, to fully practice. Finally, the language of &lsquo;Self&rsquo; sits oddly with Buddhism, by which Naess claims to have been influenced.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>[Editor&rsquo;s note]<\/strong> This point is contentious. Some Left-Biocentrists do not interpret Self-realisation as one great Self, but believe that Naess and Sessions simply were encouraging people to go beyond the ego; also that biocentric egalitarianism  refers to the intrinsic value of all species as part of the web of Life (see Suzanne Duarte and Victor, below).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A much more promising recent offshoot of Deep Ecology and, to some extent, of Left Biocentrism, has been the <a href=\"http:\/\/earthmanifesto.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">Earth Manifesto<\/a> developed by Stan Rowe and Ted Mosquin, and published in 2004. (Rowe also produced his own revised short-list of the DE Platform Principles.)<\/p>\n<p class=\"crosshead\">From The Green Web<\/p>\n<p>Left Biocentrism began with the work of David Orton, growing out of his website <a href=\"http:\/\/home.ca.inter.net\/~greenweb\/\">Green Web<\/a>, which combines Deep Ecology with an equally serious commitment to social justice and activism including, sometimes, politics. Members of the Left Bio online discussion group agreed a number of points in 1998 that have remained its basis. Other major early influences include Rudolph Bahro, Richard Sylvan and Judi Bari. The political philosophies of members of the Left Bio list include social democratic, liberal (in the Millsian sense), anarchist and most forms of socialist, as well as feminist orientations.<\/p>\n<p>Left Biocentrists believe that any positive ecological change must address collective social and political structures as much as personal, psychological and spiritual ones. Indeed, we see the deep connections between the two approaches. Ecological spirituality, for example, involves reverence for the Earth and the life-forms we share it with, not just for one\u2019s supposedly own private soul. Conversely, political action will ultimately fail without an emotional and, in this sense, spiritual recognition of the Earth&rsquo;\u2019s intrinsic value. We only fight to save what, or who, we love.<\/p>\n<p>From the perspective of Left Biocentrism, the greatest danger to ecological sanity &mdash; in addition to gross human over-population &mdash; is capitalism. That is, capitalist methods not only of production but also consumption as a &lsquo;lifestyle,&rsquo; and the worship of so-called market forces as a model for every aspect of life. But traditional socialism is equally anthropocentric, and therefore ultimately no solution. (The attitude to ecology of the current governments of Brazil and Venezuala &mdash; perhaps as close to socialist as electorally possible &mdash; is more evidence of this fact, as is the perennial trumping of ecological issues by that of jobs, whether unionized or not.) Thus although commodity capitalism, having much more power, is many times more destructive, both it and socialism are variants of industrialism.<\/p>\n<p class=\"crosshead\">Lethal industrialism<\/p>\n<p>It is the inability and\/or unwillingness of industrialism to recognise the ultimate value of the Earth, upon which we all utterly depend for life, that makes it so lethal. Or rather, that plus its immense power to materially enforce its ecocidal values and views. (Philosophically speaking, Left Biocentrism tries hard to be even-handedly idealist and materialist.) For this reason, while Left Biocentrists respect the traditional concerns of the Left &mdash; gender, class and race &mdash; they are keenly aware that these all remain within the human ambit, and we forget their ecological context at our peril.<\/p>\n<p>And not just our peril! Anthropocentrism in action is currently driving the sixth great mass extinction of life on Earth. Exactly like a bloated and mercenary ruling class or master race, one species among millions is consuming nearly half the energy upon which all depend, enslaving those few it finds useful or tasty, and exterminating (both directly and indirectly) literally masses of others. Furthermore, this is not just something the rich North and West does. Although industrial farming, husbandry and fishing are the worst offenders, the bush-meat industry and trade in wild animal parts, too &mdash; themselves driven by profit more than simply survival &mdash; are murderously callous. The ongoing destruction of wild habitat also takes place at all social levels, as does the consumption of industrially-produced meat.<\/p>\n<p>Hitherto, from a mainstream perspective, Left Biocentrism has seemed like a romantic or idealistic dream. We certainly don\u2019t disown idealism, but in the context of ecocrisis,  however, what is increasingly apparent is its realism. Specific policy implications cannot be covered here, but the most important include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>recognizing the Earth as a commons, both spiritual and material, which is categorically not for sale (privatisation, commodification, etc.); <\/li>\n<li>replacing ownership as presently defined with usufruct (the right of use, conditional upon the fulfilment of appropriate responsibilities);<\/li>\n<li>replacing profit maximization with profit satisisation (sufficiency); and<\/li>\n<li>replacing growth for growth\u2019s sake (&ldquo;the ideology of the cancer cell,&rdquo; in Edward Abbey\u2019s words) with genuine sustainability based on the intention to be able to satisfy  the needs of all concerned (and not only humans), indefinitely.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Yet such steps, vital though they are, cannot themselves replace taking personal responsibility for one&rsquo;\u2019s effects upon all the others one affects. The individual and the collective are both important; indeed, they are inseparable.<\/p>\n<p>In short, to quote David Orton, what is needed is &ldquo;solidarity with all life, not just human life.&rdquo; Or as Richard Sylvan put it, &ldquo;the ecological community forms the ethical community.&rdquo; The only sane and hopeful context for human social justice is justice for all life on Earth. But it also follows, however unpalatably for many, that when and where ecological justice conflicts with social justice &mdash; as does and will continue to happen &mdash; the latter must give way.<\/p>\n<p>The recognition of these truths is what makes Left Biocentrism distinctive. As such, in the present circumstances, we feel it has a lot to offer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Left Biocentrism began with the work of David Orton and his <a href=\"http:\/\/home.ca.inter.net\/~greenweb\/\">Green Web.<\/a> It combines Deep Ecology with an equally serious commitment to social justice and contemporary spirtuality. Politically, Left Biocentrists include social democratic, liberal (in the Millsian sense), anarchist and most forms of socialist, as well as feminist thinkers, who believe that any positive ecological change must address collective social and political structures as much as personal, psychological and spiritual ones. Author Patrick Curry traces the roots of this Earth-centric philosophy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-deep-ecology","category-left-biocentrism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}