What if?

Emily Dickinson’s ecology poem

A year before a young German marine biologist coined the term "ecology," Emily Dickinson, born on this day in 1830, captured the concept perfectly in one of her sparest, loveliest poems. Here it is, set to music, in its evolutionary context:

https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/02/04/universe-in-verse-bloom/

https://www.threads.net/@mariapopova/post/C0sja9GsMQW/

At Journey’s End - Environmental Ethics Independent Study Week 11

This week we finished Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction (Environmental Ethics) and read the last selection from The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings By Arne Naess (The Ecology of Wisdom). In chapter seven of Environmental Ethics, Robin Attfield discusses the role various religious beliefs play in the environmental ethics field. Attfield explains that “given that the cultures of approaching half of humanity are strongly influenced by one or other of…[the] three [mono]theistic faiths…a focus on theistic religions and the related tradition of stewardship is indispensable in an introduction to environmental ethics (however short).” (p.91) Furthermore, Attfield explains that an essay, written by Lynn White, was highly influential in “stimulat[ing] theologians to develop what is often called ‘ecotheology’, or a theology of nature and of humanity’s obligations towards the planet and its creatures.” (p.93) This was because White’s essay “argued that Christianity is essentially human-centered and committed to an arrogant and despotic attitude to the natural world, holding that it is God's will for humanity to exploit the Earth,” and many theologians disagreed with this analysis. (p.92) 

     He next discusses the religious concept of “stewardship’. Attfield explains that millions of religious people around the world “believe that humanity’s relation to nature is that of a steward or trustee, many of them holding that in this role they have ethical responsibilities and are answerable to God for discharging them.” (p.91-92) He provides examples from not only Christian conceptions of stewardship but also Jewish and Islamic conceptions. Though all three religions have scriptural interpretations that seem to advocate caring for God’s creation, it could be argued that, among these three monotheistic faiths, Islam has the most comprehensive view of stewardship that even includes considerations for future generations. Yet, “while some other religions have regarded nature as sacred, the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have authorized its study and its use to satisfy human needs.” (p.95)

     Attfield also discusses some of the criticisms of stewardship. One criticism is found in the association of stewardship with slavery because stewards used to supervise slaves. Another is how stewardship is often tied to the religious concept of ‘dominion’ can “...prevent respect for the natural world.” (p.96) Another criticism claims “...that stewardship is invariably anthropocentric.” (p.97) Yet another criticism lies in the “...suggest[ion] that it involves human interference with the entire surface of the planet to enhance the productivity of nature’s resources,” what has been called ‘managerialism’. (p.98) Stemming from these criticisms the argument has been made “...that stewards will be prone to reach out for technological solutions to environmental problems, such as geo-engineering.” (p.99)  And, lastly, there are the claims that “...it is liable to ignore social and international justice and concentrate instead on the management of time, talent, and treasure.” (p.99) 

     Attfield next presents several other religions’ views on the environment. Among these, a few examples stood out to me. Attfield writes:

…Daoism is more explicit in being environmentally benign. It rejects sharp distinctions between humanity and the rest of nature, and, according to Lao Tzu teaches the equality of all creatures…[T]he dao of Daoism diverges from that of Confucianism, all along encompassing the natural world and non-human perspectives, and implicitly fostering a broadening of the relationships of the virtuous person beyond relationships between human beings. This…opens up the possibility of an environmental ethic based on relation on a relational self… (p.101-102)

This is similar to the ‘self’ of Arne Naess’s ‘self-realization’, to understand ourselves as more than only skin-deep. Another religious concept that can be incorporated into an environmental ethic comes from Buddhism. Attfield writes: “[The] Buddhist teaching about dukkha and compassion enables Buddhists to develop their compassion so that it includes not only current suffering (whether human or non-human) but that of future beings and generations as well.” (p.103) Additionally, “...the Borana Oromo [of Ethiopia] deliberately leave drinkable water close to wells for wild animals to drink in the night, believing that drinking water is among their rights.” (p.103) This example of an inherent understanding of the basic rights of wild animals is quite endearing and can be learned from.

     In chapter eight, the last chapter of this text, Attfield discusses ‘the ethics of climate change’. However, since we have already read Climate Change: A Very Short Introduction this semester, and since most of Attfield’s climate science data has not been updated since 2018, I will choose to focus here on the ethical components and any new information he can add to the conversation. Knowing that the current climate crisis is anthropogenic and that we are headed toward average global temperatures of 2 degrees, or more, higher than pre-industrial levels which would be devastating for many human and non-human beings on our planet, Attfield writes:

[U]nless vigorous and concerted action is taken, there is a significant risk of human activity generating catastrophic climate change, catastrophic both for future generations, numerous species, and human victims of flooding and other extreme weather events in the present, including people who have made little or no contribution to causing climate change. There is thus a strong ethical case for vigorous and concerted action to mitigate climate change, and, given that some climate change is already irreversible, to adapt to its effects. (p.107)

And, though I consider climate skeptics to be unscientific and often disingenuous, Attfield does address their skepticism by promoting the Precautionary Principle that we discussed earlier in the semester. 

     Next, Attfield asks the question: “How should entitlements to emit greenhouse gases and responsibilities to pay for mitigation, adaptation, and compensation be allocated?” (p.110) However, though Attfield presents several proposed systems, such as ‘Contraction and Convergence’ and ‘Greenhouse Development Rights’, the most important thing to know is that none of the proposed systems have been accepted or implemented mostly due to the developed nations. Attfield writes:

In fact, the organizers of the United Nations Paris Climate Conference of December 2015 took the view that no centrally administered system of distribution of entitlements and burdens was likely to prove acceptable, and that it was therefore better for all participant nations to make pre-conference commitments of their own; thereby countries which might not otherwise participate could be induced to do so. But the aggregated commitments, even if fully implemented, turn out to be insufficient to satisfy the goal (also agreed at that conference) of 2 degrees, let alone that of 1.5 degrees (agreed as preferable), with an expected average temperature rise of towards 3 degrees being more likely. (p.113) 

Additionally, another major criticism of the 2015 Paris Agreement “is that no mention whatever was made in the agreement of compensation, despite the harms inflicted on less developed countries by the emissions of richer countries whose prosperity has been achieved through historical emissions, many of them emitted since it became recognized that greenhouse gases were disrupting the global climate.” (p.114) 

     Another important concept that Attfield discusses is the ‘carbon budget’. I have heard that phrase several times, but never fully understood that the carbon budget was based on a scientific discovery, and it was not just an agreed-upon number by the countries of the world. Attfield explains:

It turns out that if humanity is to have a 50 per cent chance of avoiding an average temperature rise of more than 2 degrees, its total of carbon emissions has to be limited to an all-time total of one trillion tons of carbon. For either a 75 per cent chance of 2 degrees or for a 50 per cent chance of achieving a 1.5 degree ceiling, the limit is some three-quarters of this figure, or 750  billion tons. These figures have become known as ‘humanities carbon budget’. But unfortunately, 55 per cent of the budget of one trillion tons had already been emitted by 2009, when these figures were published…, and the rest of the budget appeared likely to be emitted by a date early in 2044. (p.111)

Due to this need to lower carbon emissions, Attfield does discuss some means of reducing our carbon output, such as renewable energy and geoengineering, however, again I will defer to the more in-depth information on these subjects provided in Climate Change: A Very Short Introduction. 

     Attfield closes with a consideration of ‘climate change as a test-case for environmental ethics’. He writes: 

Although the founders of environmental ethics did not envisage th[is] kind of anthropogenic climate change…, climate change epitomizes themes they introduced…Action to rescue the environment from degradation and pollution (such as global warming) is required by ethical principles, moral virtues, and the promotion of the best available outcomes alike. Both sustainable development and ecological preservation depend on strong action, both individual and governmental, local and global, in matters of climate change. Despite their disagreements, Deep Ecology, ecofeminism, Social Ecology, the environmental justice movement, and Green parties can (and must) unite in support of such action. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic supporters of stewardship,...need to lend such action their support, as do adherents of secular understandings of stewardship, and the adherents of other religions seeking to preserve the Earth and its sacred places. For the future of the planet and all its species is at stake. (p.121)

    This week in The Ecology of Wisdom we read the essay: “Spinoza and the Deep Ecology Movement”. In this essay, Naess discusses Spinoza’s philosophy and how it relates to the deep ecology movement. He begins by explaining that he considers Spinoza a great philosopher because his “texts are constantly reinterpreted by philosophers, poets, scientists, and others.” (p.232) He adds that some of the “nineteenth century’s well-known influential interpretations …[include]...those of Goethe and Hegel.” (p.232) Naess also explains that Spinoza has been interpreted in a multitude of various ways and throughout different historical periods. He explains: “For me, the lesson is primarily that new interpretations will occur in the future and that my own interpretation will only be one of a long series – forgotten in due time.” (p.233) 

     When introducing the role of Spinoza’s philosophy in ecological movements, Naess writes: 

Many people who are engaged in the ecological crisis claim to have been inspired by Spinoza…[However,] Spinoza does not write about the beauty of wild nature. Perhaps he never talked about it…What he says about wild animals does not suggest that he had any wide or deep sense of identification with any of them. Nevertheless, his kind of philosophy of life, its structure, is such that he inspires many supporters of the deep ecology movement. (p.233)

Naess then goes on to lay out some of the fundamental aspects and terminology of Spinoza’s philosophy that make it so appealing. He states: “One of the most inspiring aspects of the Ethics is this: It outlines a total view – a set of ultimate premises in our thinking about ourselves and the greater reality we are a part of, and Spinoza applies it to concrete situations.” (p.234) Naess explains that, though there are several Spinozistic terms that “express the fundamental views that have motivated the environmental activism of some,” he will primarily focus on one, amor intellectualis Dei – ‘the understanding love of God’. (p.235) 

     Naess expounds: “The term amor intellectualis Dei…had for centuries been [a] theological term…[which]...Spinoza modified in his own particular direction.” (p.235) He adds that Spinoza studied several philosophers while writing the Ethics, one of those was St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas “distinguishes between (a) natural love (amor naturalis) exists between even inanimate objects, (b) sensitive or animal love (amor sensitivus animalis), and (c) intellectual, rational, or spiritual love (amor intellectualis, rationalis, spiritualis).” (p.235) It is important to note here that rational love was considered the highest form of love due to its voluntary nature. This, interestingly, corresponds to Aristotle’s three kinds of souls – nutritive soul (of even plants), sensitive souls (of all animals), and rational soul (of humans), of which I am certain Spinoza was also aware. Naess further explains that for both Aquinas and Spinoza, the love of God was the ‘highest goal’; however, they may have disagreed on their concept of God. Naess interprets Spinoza’s God (Deus or Dei) as “consistently immanent…and hold that amor intellectualis is directed toward ‘God, not as infinite’...My minimum thesis here is that at least for one hermeneutically justifiable interpretation, the understanding of God, as part of the third and highest way of cognition, is directed toward individual, finite beings.” (p.236)

     Naess continues by acknowledging that in order to understand his interpretation he must discuss further Spinoza’s God and its immanence. He explains that, though Spinoza mentions God many times throughout the Ethics, it was his conception of God that branded him an atheist. Spinoza describes God as “maximally perfect (perfectissimus).” (p.236) However, Naess states that “Spinoza was using the adjective perfect (perfectus) in an old way, in which it means ‘complete’ (from Latin per, ‘thoroughly,’ and facere, ‘to make or do’).” (p.236) For scholars of Spinoza, this completeness is all-encompassing – nothing lies outside of God for Spinoza. Naess writes:

[According to Spinoza,] God is the cause of everything…Nothing at all can be conceived except through God…(But Spinoza does not say anywhere that “He” is good, and there is nothing personal about “Him”!)...There is no place, as far as I can see, for a God that has completely different properties from those of the “in itself” family. (p.236)

     Along with this perfection, or completeness, Spinoza’s God is also interpreted as immanent. Immanent is defined as ‘permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ in the dictionary. And, Naess explains that, throughout Spinoza’s work, “one expression has supported the concept of the immanent God: ‘God or Nature’ (Deus sive Natura).” Naess expounds:

The God of the Ethics may be identified essentially with Nature-as-creative (natura naturans) – the creative aspect of a supreme whole with two aspects, the creative and the created – natura naturata. The latter are the existing beings in their capacity of being there, temporarily. There is creativity but not a creator. The verb “to nature” (naturare) covers both aspects in its dynamic aspect…From God's essence follows his existence, but only existence as essence. “God's power is nothing except God's active essence (2P3Sch).” It's manifestations are the “modes,” the individual beings. (p.237)

Spinoza’s immanent God was not the God of the Old or New Testaments, and therefore, he was branded an atheist. Naess describes how theologians even considered him ‘diabolical’, “insofar as his constant eulogy of God masked his terrifying aberrations.” (p.237) Naess adds: “In accordance with the immanence theory, every actual existing being partakes in the infinite power of God. This power, the only power that exists, is distributed unequally among natural beings, humans being the most powerful.”(p.237) This is why love for other finite beings can be interpreted as ‘the understanding love of God’ (amor intellectualis Dei). 

     One can see how this conception of God or Nature could provide ‘a set of ultimate premises’ that may drive one to want to care for and protect the environment and other living beings. Spinoza’s thoughts on being in union with nature and others, as well as his thoughts on being active, can also provide an incentive for joining environmental activism groups. Naess writes of Spinoza: “He says explicitly that he strives to attain a stable mental state characterized by the knowledge of the union that the mind has with the whole of nature. And he seeks to do this with others not alone: ‘to strive that many acquire it with me’.” (p.241) Naess continues: “Activeness…makes for joy according to Spinoza. It expresses the nature of the active being, the being as far as it is in itself (in se), and the more directly it expresses its unique nature, the greater the joy.” (p.242) Additionally, science seems to back Spinoza. Naess explains: “Nature, as conceived by many ecologists and expressed philosophically by James Lovelock and others, is not the passive, dead, value-neutral nature of mechanistic science, but is akin to the active, ‘naturing’ nature of Spinoza. It is all-inclusive, creative (as natura naturans), infinitely diverse, and alive in the broad sense of Spinozistic so-called panpsychism.” (p.244-245)

     Overall, as we come to the end of our harrowing journey, we are at least left with some inspiration, hope, and knowledge that may aid us in the trials to come. Though we have learned about much of the damage we've already caused and about many terrible possible outcomes of the current environmental crises, we have also learned new ways of thinking about our responsibilities and possible actions we could take to prevent the worst of those possible outcomes. I think that we have landed at a moment in history that demands that we not lose hope and continue the good fight because too much is at stake. We must do all we can for those who cannot, both human and non-human, until we can do no more. For my part, I hope to find a career in either environmental education or environmental policy after completing my master's degree. As far as my personal philosophy is concerned, I believe in Spinoza’s God and I take a more holistic approach to environmentalism – though I cannot say if I prefer the ecocentrism of Aldo Leopold or the deep ecology of Arne Naess because I find merit in both. I can say that I do not take an anthropocentric approach to environmental issues, though human suffering does matter.

Poetic ecology and the biology of wonder

"The real disconnect is not between our human nature and all the other beings; it is between our image of our nature and our real nature."

https://www.threads.net/@mariapopova/post/C0ekyxqOV_k/

Surging U.S. Oil Production Brings Down Prices and Raises Climate Fears

.,,the comeback in U.S. oil production poses big risks, too. More supply and lower prices could increase demand for fossil fuels when world leaders, who are meeting in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, are straining to reach agreements that would accelerate the fight against climate change. Scientists generally agree that the world is far from achieving the goals necessary to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming, which is caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal…

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/business/energy-environment/us-oil-production-record-climate.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Surging U.S. Oil Production Brings Down Prices and Raises Climate Fears

“Abate”

"… It's abundantly clear that coal, oil and gas are breaking the climate system; it's also abundantly clear that the people who own coal, oil and gas reserves don't care. In an effort to keep burning them, so they can continue to collect the returns, they propose building vast engineering projects alongside fossil-fuel generating plants, to capture the carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream. That is, they want to "abate" the damage of their product.

It doesn't really work—one attempt after another has been abandoned, and Stanford's Mark Jacobson has shown why in a series of seminal papers. As the New York Times explained earlier this year, "after taking into account the energy used to capture and isolate CO2 from flue gas at a fossil fuel-burning industrial plant, the carbon capture system would reduce the plant's net emissions by only 10 to 11 percent, not the estimated 80 to 90 percent cited by proponents."

But even if you could physically make it work it would still be absurd, at least on our planet, which in 2023 has figured out how to cheaply capture the power of the sun to produce energy. If coal or gas-fired power is already considerably more expensive than solar energy, imagine what happens to that cost differential if you add an enormous complex of pipes and pumps to take the co2 and pump it off to some abandoned salt mine for storage.

In fact, the cost of doing this is so prohibitive that no coal or oil or gas company or utility wants to pay for it themselves—instead, they use their political power to make taxpayers foot the bill, so they can keep selling their product. In order to secure Joe Manchin's vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden had to lard it with billions of dollars in funding for this particular boondoggle…"

—Bill McKibben

https://open.substack.com/pub/billmckibben/p/unabated?r=35ogp&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Crazy idea

"We are seeing the consequences of the crazy idea that there can be unlimited economic development on a planet with finite natural resources...Decisions are made for short-term gain at the expense of protecting the environment for the future. Then there is our greedy lifestyle, our reckless burning of fossil fuels, the demand for meat, poverty – and, of course, we must also tackle corruption." - Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, and UN Messenger of Peace.

https://www.threads.net/@janegoodallcan/post/C0R3jbqL2nP/

Peaceful coexistence

The Banff Wildlife Crossings Project was implemented in Banff, Alberta.

Combined with fencing to keep the animals off the road, the structures have reduced animal-vehicle collisions in the area by more than 80% (>96% for elk and deer alone).

More details/photos: https://bit.ly/46Xp1Sq

https://www.threads.net/@davidattenborough_fans/post/C0U_ixwvdHL/

SLOs

Our administrative overlords have required us to submit boilerplate about our learning outcomes. I think this course is aiming at these:

 PHIL 3340, Environmental Ethics SLOs

* Heighten students' awareness of the salient issues and challenges emerging from the ever-increasing (and increasingly-deleterious) impact of human activity on the natural world.

* Impress upon students the potentially-dire ecological implications of anthropogenic impacts for all of life (human and otherwise) in the near and distant future. 

* Encourage students to reflect urgently on what steps individuals, institutions, and societies must take if these impacts are to be reversed, neutralized, minimized, or mitigated. 

* Prepares environmental career specialists to delve more deeply into research and applied strategies for ameliorating catastrophic climate outcomes and ecological disruptions

* Prepare non-specialists to participate competently in  the democratic process, in the quest for effective amelioration at the level of public policy and personal conduct.

A note from the University of Montana's environmental philosophy graduate program

The U of M's program is seriously hands-on:

Do you have students thinking about graduate school in environmental philosophy? The University of Montana might just have the program for them.   We boast a four-decade history of teaching environmental philosophy, and our stunning campus in Missoula is the perfect backdrop for all things philosophy and environment. Plus, UM is academic home to some of the nation’s leading environmental scholars.

Grad students learn from our expert faculty, and whether they are aiming for a philosophy Ph.D., law school, or a career in an environmental field, they won’t spend all their time sitting in classrooms. They will be out in the world, exploring nearby tribal reservations and taking trips to the breathtaking Yellowstone National Park. Our students intern with local nonprofits and public interest organizations. Then they dive into civic engagement projects that bring about real change.

The University of Montana’s M.A. has "distinctive program status" in the western region, which means students from 15 western states can enroll at just 150% of in-state tuition.   Want to know more? Tell your students to mark their calendars for an information session on Zoom, happening at 6 p.m. MST Monday, Dec. 4, 2023. Register through this link or contact christopher.preston@umontana.edu.

Continuing Our Journey - Environmental Ethics Independent Study Week 10

      This week we read chapters five and six in Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction and another selected work from The Ecology of Wisdom. In chapter five of Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Robin Attfield discusses the need for 'sustainability and preservation'. He begins by defining sustainability and describing its origins: “The sustainability of a practice or society means its capacity to be practised or maintained indefinitely, and the main point of the early advocacy of sustainable forms of society (on the part of Herman Daly and others) was the importance of recognizing limits to certain forms of growth, including ecological limits. These forms of growth included growth of production and of population.” (p.61) However, he reminds us that the sustainability of a practice does not necessarily make it good or morally right. 

Attfield then explores the issue of development alongside the need for sustainability. He states: “[G]iven the importance of development in the distinctive sense of moving away from poverty, hunger, disease, and kindred evils, and enhancing well-being, it was recognized in the Brundtland Report of the United Nations (UN) sponsored World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)...that sustainability needs to be blended with development in what the authors called ‘sustainable development’.” (p.62) This is especially vital for developing countries of the world, and will, unfortunately, take time and money to implement. Therefore, the Brundtland Report “favored the introduction of sustainable agriculture and fisheries, sustainable energy generation, and, importantly, the gradual stabilization of population levels…” (p.63) Attfield adds: “The goals of poverty reduction and species preservation need to be jointly honoured (an ethically defensible approach), and where possible pursued together (as in forms of ecotourism which provide livelihoods for people of a biodiverse area at the same time as promoting preservation).” (p.64) Though it took quite some time to achieve any substantial agreement on the international level, in 2015 the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the UN General Assembly was a great victory on this front. “These goals…embody all three of the dimensions of sustainable development, the environmental, economic, and social dimensions, together with their inter-linkages.” (p.66) Along with these vitally important SDGs, Attfield recommends “all parties bear in mind…the Precautionary Principle, which advocates action to prevent outcomes from which there is reason to expect serious or irreversible harms, even in advance of scientific consensus being reached.” (p.69)

And, I could not agree more with this recommendation. 

     Moving from the subject of sustainability to that of ecological preservation, Attfield acknowledges that some individuals are “more hesitant about goals to preserve biodiversity, even if they accept such environmental goals as the goals to limit carbon emissions and to replace energy generation from fossil fuels with electricity from renewable sources.” He states this as the reason to explore the global problem of biodiversity loss and its potential solutions more fully. He writes: 

The extent and scale of biodiversity loss should first be remarked. Losses to biological diversity (animals, plants, and other creatures) have become so vast that the rate of loss may already be exceeding the rate of diversification implicit in the evolutionary process itself. Of an estimated total of nine million species, something like a quarter are at risk of extinction over the coming three decades…Losses are particularly striking in vulnerable areas such as wetlands, estuaries, coral reefs, and rainforests, where species diversity is at its greatest. At the same time, deforestation is…affecting global climate, and thus multiplying global climate change for creatures of every species. (p.71)

     Attfield then focuses on some of the arguments for preserving biodiversity. He explains that “some thinkers take the view that the reason for preserving biodiversity is its aesthetic value for human beings…But these grounds at best justify localized preservation, and are prone to fluctuate with the waxing and waning of human tastes.” (p.72) Another argument, that Attfield finds far more impressive is “the argument that compares living nature to a genetic library, and the destruction of forests to burning a library of volumes that remain unread. This is in part an argument from the value of scientific study…[and] also an argument from the uses that widely result from the study of wild species.” (p.72) However, the argument I personally find most persuasive is the argument that “relates to the dependence of humanity on non-human nature.” I think this argument is most in line with the understanding of a broader self that Arne Naess espouses. Additionally, it is disheartening on several levels to learn that “warfare is among the biggest threats to natural systems.” (p.76) However, this is one thing that we, as humans, can control.  

     In chapter six, Attfield dives into the various social and political environmental movements. The first movement he discusses is the Deep Ecology movement. Attfield writes: 

Deep Ecology commendably stresses the long-term, global, and inter-species aspects of environmental concern…[Additionally,] this platform favours equality within and between species, upholds diversity both of life-forms and of cultures, rejects all forms of exploitation, and supports the broadest possible interpretation of the fight against pollution and resource depletion. Further, it fosters human societies in which multiple forms of work are respected and integrated. (p.77) 

As previously mentioned, “the value-theory of Deep Ecology is based on self-realization,” and an understanding of the self as going beyond the skin to include the environment on which we rely, and to which we relate. (p.78)

     Another environmental movement that Attfield discusses is ecofeminism. He explains:

Francoise D’Eaubonne devised the word ‘ecofeminism’ as long ago as 1974, for reflection and activism related to the intersection of feminism and environmental thought. In its early days, ecofeminism developed insights such as that of Simone de Beauvoir, who had earlier maintained that patriarchal (or male-dominated) systems treat women and nature alike as ‘other’. These insights were taken further by Karen Warren, who stressed the links connecting exploitative relations between men and women and exploitative relations between humanity and nature. These, she claims, are closely associated forms of oppression, and neither can be overcome without due attention being paid to the other. 

     And. though these concepts add a great deal to the understanding of relationships between humans and between humans and nature, Attfield concludes:

[T]here does not seem to be the strong systemic correlation between the exploitation of nature and of women that some ecofeminists claim. Nevertheless, ecofeminists, in diagnosing these kinds of exploitation, have come up with valuable correctives to much previous thinking, not least about the environment. They have, for example, criticized an excessive emphasis on dualisms, and the kind of thinking that regards pairs of apparent opposites as mutually exclusive and conflicting…Ecofeminists have also valuably foregrounded the role of emotions such as compassion, and decried excessive emphasis on reason, not least in ethics…[They have also] criticized instrumentalist and egoistic attitudes to everything other than the self, as detrimental to the kind of sensitive relations with the natural world necessary for its protection. (p.80-82)

     Attfield next discusses the Social Ecology movement. Started by Murray Bookchin, the Social Ecology movement regards ecological problems “as fundamentally social in nature.” (p.83) However, as with ecofeminism, though this movement may bring important issues to the fore, such as the ‘hierarchies of domination’ prevalent in human societies that could explain, in part, our need to dominate nature, this movement does not seem to promote biodiversity preservation. And, in this way, does not seem to understand the interconnectedness of nature. Attfield further points out: “The dangers [of this movement] emerge more clearly in the light of Bookchin’s suggestion that humanity should take charge of the progress of evolution through systematic genetic engineering…This suggestion amounts to advocacy of a domination over nature that is both dangerous and arrogant, just as it has been since Enlightenment thinkers first proposed it.” (p.83-84)

     Next Attfield presents the Environmental Justice Movement, “A movement that campaigns against discrimination against disadvantaged groups or communities, for example with regard to exposure to radioactivity and the siting of toxic and other waste ‘facilities’.” (p.84) This movement deals with the unfair distribution of pollution into underprivileged areas, both within countries and internationally, as when the Global North sends its polluting materials to the Global South. This process of unfair distribution of toxic materials has been termed ‘environmental racism’ by James Sterba. The Environmental Justice Movement works to ensure that those from underprivileged areas are given a say in decisions about where to place dump sites and other pollution issues. However, this movement tends to fail to emphasize future generations and non-human interests. 

     Lastly, Attfield discusses the Green movement. He writes:

Green political movements have prioritized various themes of the movements discussed in this chapter together with policies of sustainability, climate change mitigation, and adaptation, and of resistance to pollution and polluting processes…[T]hey characteristically support energy generation from renewable sources, and oppose the mining and extraction of fuel, particularly through new technological processes such as fracking, holding that coal, gas, and oil are best kept in the ground…[Most importantly] they are widely prone to oppose the assumption that economic growth is to be welcomed. (p.87)

However, some have questioned how “political environmentalism is compatible with liberal democracy.” As Attfield points out: 

Some forms of liberalism insist on market economies being untrammeled. But there are other forms, such as that of John Stuart Mill, which recognize limits to growth, and goals such as the preservation of wildlife and of related habitats (whether for the sake of our successors or of wildlife itself). These forms are less intransigent while remaining committed to liberal freedoms such as freedom of speech. In exercising the liberal right to vote, people are free to support this kind of liberalism, and in this way the tensions are capable of being overcome. (p.89)

     In The Ecology of Wisdom, our reading for this week was “The Basics of the Deep Ecology Movement.” Naess begins by explaining: “Supporters of the deep ecology movement refer approvingly to A diversity of philosophers, cultural traditions, and religious trends.” (p.105) Therefore, defining the movement's “essence or core,” or pinpointing the “definite general philosophy of deep ecology,” is not something Naess is prepared to do. However, he does state:

In order to facilitate discussion about the deep ecology movement among philosophers, it may be helpful to distinguish a common platform of deep ecology from the fundamental features of philosophies and religions from which that platform is derived, provided it is tentatively formulated as a set of norms and hypotheses (factual assumptions). The term platform is preferred to principle, because the latter may be misunderstood to refer to ultimate premises. Furthermore, the formulations of a platform should be short and concise (as synopsis), whereas the fundamental premises are Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, or of other religious kinds, or they are philosophical with affinities to the basic views of Spinoza, Whitehead, Heidegger, or others. (p.105-106)

He explains that though the supporters of deep ecology may have extremely different views fundamentally, they can still agree on “sets of penultimate views as formulated as a kind of platform they have largely in common.” (p.106)

     Interestingly, Naess uses criticism of deep ecology from Robin Attfield to help explain why understanding the difference between a supporter's ultimate principles and the movement’s platform is vital to the validity of one’s criticism. “For example, in the introduction to Ethics of Environmental Concern, Robin Attfield says: ‘I do not accept, with the so-called “deep, long-range ecology movement,” the view that our principal loyalty should be focused not on fellow-humans or fellow creatures but on the biosphere as an organic whole.” (p.107) However, as Naess points out, this is not the ‘principle loyalty’ of every supporter of the deep ecology movement, nor does it express itself in the ‘eight-point proposal’ for the general platform of the movement. This amounts to Attfield criticizing the foundational beliefs (‘fundamental premises’) of a particular supporter of the deep ecology movement, not the movement itself. Naess provides an Apron diagram (link included) to help one further understand the premise-conclusion element of his argument. (p.107) His argument is that Attfield is attacking at level 1 and not level 2. He explains that this “discussion has four levels: (1) verbalized fundamental philosophical and religious views, (2) the deep ecology platform, (3) the more or less general consequences derived from the platform – guidelines for lifestyles and for policies of every kind, and (4) prescriptions related to concrete situations and dateable decisions made in them.” (p.106) And, understanding which level is being criticized, allows one to respond more appropriately. 

     After explaining the ‘levels of derivation’, Naess then presents his ‘eight-point proposal’ for the level 2 platform principles. They are as follows: 

1. The flourishing of human and non-human life on earth Has inherent value. The value of nonhuman life-forms is independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life-forms are also values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. 

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease. 

5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

6. In view of the foregoing points, policies must be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present and make possible and more joyful experience of the connectedness of all things. 

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great. 

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes. (p.111-112)

     Though Naess provides clarification for all of these points in this chapter, I would like to focus on just one as it is an oft-quoted criticism of this movement. Point four is often misrepresented as a call to reduce the current population by some nefarious means; however, this is not the case. In his first sentence of clarification on this point, Naess states: “The stabilization and reduction of the human population will take time.” (p.113) What we are discussing here are actions such as increasing access to education for girls and women around the world, increasing access to contraception worldwide, enshrining a woman’s right to choose around the world, and other such proven methods to stabilize and decrease populations. Naess does, however, emphasize: “But the longer we wait, the more drastic will be the measures needed.” (p.113) To me, this is not a threat, but a realization that as we continue to deplete resources and wreak havoc on the natural world, our choices will dwindle in tandem. 

     Naess closes by explaining that, aside from how to approach various criticisms, understanding these ‘levels of derivation’ and establishing the ‘eight-point principles’ for the movement’s platform can help supporters of the movement and others recognize where their differences lie. He calls attention to the fact that, if asked about their deep ecological beliefs, “supporters of the deep ecology movement state beliefs on which they base some or all of their ‘eight-point beliefs.’ These normally, but not always, have the character of ultimate beliefs, making out premises for their eight-point beliefs. That is, from their former beliefs, the eight-point beliefs follow as conclusions and are therefore accepted as premises.” (p.116) Additionally, disagreements between supporters tend to take place at the levels of three and four, in their normative conclusions and what particular actions or policies should be advocated. Therefore, understanding this information may make disagreements within the movement easier to resolve as well. 

Next week we will finish Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction and read another selection from The Ecology of Wisdom.