{"id":783,"date":"2008-06-17T11:54:13","date_gmt":"2008-06-17T18:54:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/?p=3"},"modified":"2008-06-17T11:54:13","modified_gmt":"2008-06-17T18:54:13","slug":"deep-ecology-almost-unknown-in-italy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.stuzog.com\/dandeliontimes\/2008\/06\/17\/deep-ecology-almost-unknown-in-italy\/","title":{"rendered":"Deep Ecology Almost Unknown In Italy"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Guido Dalla Casa<\/a>
June 2008<\/p>\n

Milan, Italy<\/span> — The political situation of the green movement in Italy is not good. The Italian Green Party has nothing ‘deep green’ about it \u2013 not even a tiny grass-shoot of green in a barren, brown meadow. Green Party publications do not mention Deep Ecology, their only reference being to its origins in the Italian Communist party.<\/p>\n

This isn’t unusual in Italy: there’s almost no mention of the environment in Italian political discourse and the concept of Deep Ecology is almost unknown in my country. The last Italian elections were a disaster for the Green Party, and with no green representative in the Italian parliament there is little hope of any deep or even shallow greening coming from the political sphere.<\/p>\n

Italians are generally divided between the majority with a secular and mechanistic view of the world, and a minority who follow the strict doctrines of Catholicism. Practically there’s no difference, and only one aim: growth, growth, and more growth. The economic worldview is always present, with very few exceptions. The common behaviour is consumerism, as in both tendencies there’s no concern about natural ecosystems, or that animals are sentient beings who have a right to exist in a free and autonomous way, or for the need to maintain ecological complexity. <\/p>\n

Last winter and spring I gave a series of lectures and classes on Deep Ecology at two UNITRE (adult open universities) and several high schools. Despite the fact that my audiences showed a high level of interest in the concepts of Deep Ecology and had no real opposition to them, for most it was the first time they had heard anything about it. Many could not at first imagine a non-anthropocentric view, but, after some explanation, most of my listeners at least could grasp the concept.<\/p>\n

The Catholic Church and the Earth Manifesto <\/p>\n

At the beginning of 2007 the Vatican requested a copy of Manifesto for Earth<\/em> by Mosquin and Rowe, as representative of the ecocentric viewpoint. Afterwards, J. Navarro-Valls, a high-ranking Catholic Church speaker, became active in the debate about Deep Ecology, especially concerning the Manifesto<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

An article by Navarro-Valls entitled The Ecological Question<\/em> was printed in the front page of the 13th May, 2007 issue of the important Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica<\/em>. Professor Paolo Scroccaro, president of the Eco-Philosophical Association<\/a> (Treviso-Veneto) wrote an article Ecocentrism by Mosquin and Rowe \u2013 Anthropocentrism by J. Navarro-Valls<\/em> in answer.<\/p>\n

\n

Professor Scroccaro’s response:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“This is the first time such a kind of attention is being paid to this subject in Italy. This is a good signal, even if the author is critical of Deep Ecology. Let us list some points about Navarro Valls’ writing. In his opinion:\u00a0<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the Manifesto for Earth<\/em> is too critical of modern Western culture and its anthropocentrism;<\/li>\n
  2. the Manifesto<\/em> is right when in contrast with Cartesian scientism, which is responsible of a reductive concept of nature and its consequent unlimited destruction;<\/li>\n
  3. anthropocentrism and technological science cannot be over-criticized, because nature must be exploited by mankind, that is on a superior stage.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In point c), Navarro assumes that all Greek and thus western philosophy is human-centeric, but this is not true. He thinks Ecosophy is only a fad imported from the East by some \u201cstrange\u201d contemporary thinkers such as Mosquin and Rowe. He forgets Bateson, Devall, Sessions, Capra, Naess, Snyder, Bonesio, and many others. Deep Ecology is not only made by exotic eastern ideas!<\/p>\n

    With reference to b), Navarro agrees with deep ecology, that is, Nature cannot be reduced to the Cartesian mechanistic view. This appears as a good foreword, but the statements following mark the great chasm that divides Navarro’s thought from any form of Ecosophy.<\/p>\n

    Navarro claims intelligence as characteristic of mankind and views as \u201cobvious\u201d the \u201cgreatness\u201d of man over all other beings. His perspective this remains completely anthropocentric, with only a small supplement of responsibility! According to Navarro, man must exploit Nature, which always is at his service.<\/p>\n

    Also according to Navarro, any economic policy must pay attention to the side-effects of growth and control them. The only differences among political parties are on the ways to control them in the obvious aim to maintain perpetual economic growth.<\/p>\n

    Some small (shallow) ecological devices do not change the basic background of \u00a0the present Catholic and scientific thought that has economic growth as a basis: the result is the so-called \u201csustainable growth\u201d, that appears also in Navarro’s words, in which we cannot find any hope for real change.<\/p>\n

    Navarro’s views have nothing in common with the of spirit Deep Ecology, which:<\/p>\n