Deep ecology

Deep ecology is an environmental philosophy promoting the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, plus a restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas.

Environment
Environment in
Part of a series on
Green politics

Deep ecology argues that the natural world is a subtle balance of complex inter-relationships in which the existence of organisms is dependent on the existence of others within ecosystems. Human interference with or destruction of the natural world poses a threat therefore not only to humans but to all organisms constituting the natural order.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain basic moral and legal rights to live and flourish, independent of its instrumental benefits for human use. Deep ecology is often framed in terms of the idea of a much broader sociality; it recognizes diverse communities of life on Earth that are composed not only through biotic factors but also, where applicable, through ethical relations, that is, the valuing of other beings as more than just resources. It describes itself as "deep" because it regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than those of mainstream environmentalism.[1] The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes), since deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole. The philosophy addresses core principles of different environmental and green movements and advocates a system of environmental ethics advocating wilderness preservation, human population control, and simple living.[2]

Origins

In his original 1973 deep ecology paper, Arne Næss claims to have been inspired by scientists – ecologists – who were studying the ecosystems throughout the world. Three people in the 1960s who were considered foundational to the movement in a 2014 essay by George Sessions were author and conservationist Rachel Carson, environmentalist David Brower, and the biologist Paul R. Ehrlich. He considers the publication of Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring as the beginning of the contemporary deep ecology movement.[3]

Other events in the 1960s which have been proposed as foundational to the movement are the formation of Greenpeace, and the images of the Earth floating in space taken by the Apollo astronauts.[4]

Principles

Deep ecology embraces both the science of ecology and environmental ethics, that is, proposals about how humans should relate to nature.[5] It is also a social movement based on a holistic vision of the world.[1] Deep ecologists hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole, and criticise the narrative of human supremacy, which they say has not been a feature of most cultures throughout human evolution.[4] Deep ecology presents an eco-centric (earth-centred) view, rather than the anthropocentric (human centred) view, developed in its most recent form by philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. Proponents of deep ecology oppose the narrative that man is separate from nature, is in charge of nature, or is the steward of nature, or that nature exists as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. They believe a different economic system must replace capitalism, as the commodification of nature by industrial civilization, based on the concept of economic growth, or 'progress', is critically endangering the biosphere. Deep ecologists believe that the damage to natural systems sustained since the industrial revolution now threatens social collapse and possible extinction of the species. They are striving to bring about ideological, economic and technological change. Deep ecology claims that ecosystems can absorb damage only within certain parameters, and contends that civilization endangers the biodiversity of the earth. Deep ecologists have suggested that the optimum human population on the earth, without fossil fuels, is 0.5 billion, but advocate a gradual decrease in population rather than any apocalyptic solution. [6]. Deep ecology eschews traditional left wing-right wing politics, but is viewed as radical ('Deep Green') in its opposition to capitalism, and its advocacy of an ecological paradigm.

In 1985 Bill Devall and George Sessions summed up their understanding of the concept of deep ecology with the following eight points:[7]

  • The well-being of human and nonhuman life on earth is of intrinsic value irrespective of its value to humans.
  • The diversity of life-forms is part of this value.
  • Humans have no right to reduce this diversity except to satisfy vital human needs
  • The flourishing of human and nonhuman life is compatible with a substantial decrease in human population.
  • Humans have interfered with nature to a critical level already, and interference is worsening.
  • Policies must be changed, affecting current economic, technological and ideological structures.
  • This ideological change should focus on an appreciation of the quality of life rather than adhering to an increasingly high standard of living.
  • All those who agree with the above tenets have an obligation to implement them.

Stephan Harding, author of 'Animate Earth', proposes three aspects of the concept of 'deepness':-

  • deep experience
  • deep questioning
  • deep commitment

Development

The phrase "Deep Ecology" first appeared in a 1973 article by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss,[8]. Næss referred to 'biospherical egalitarianism-in principle', which he explained was 'an intuitively clear and obvious value axiom. Its restriction to humans is … anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the life quality of humans themselves... The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man from himself.' [9] Næss added that from a deep ecology point of view "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species".[10] As Bron Taylor & Michael Zimmerman have recounted, 'a key event in the development of deep ecology was the “Rights of Non-Human Nature” conference held at a college in Claremont, California in 1974 [which] drew many of those who would become the intellectual architects of deep ecology. These included George Sessions who, like Naess, drew on Spinoza’s pantheism, later co-authoring 'Deep Ecology - [Living as if Nature Mattered]' with Bill Devall; Gary Snyder, whose remarkable, Pulitzer prize-winning 'Turtle Island' proclaimed the value of place-based spiritualities, indigenous cultures, and animistic perceptions, ideas that would become central within deep ecology subcultures; and Paul Shepard, who in 'The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game', and subsequent works such as 'Nature and Madness' and … 'Coming Back to the Pleistocene', argued that foraging societies were ecologically superior to and emotionally healthier than agricultur[al societies]. Shepard and Snyder especially provided a cosmogony that explained humanity’s fall from a pristine, nature paradise. Also extremely influential was Edward Abbey’s 'Desert Solitaire', which viewed the desert as a sacred place uniquely able to evoke in people a proper, non-anthropocentric understanding of the value of nature. By the early 1970s the above figures put in place the intellectual foundations of deep ecology.'[11]

.

Sources

Science
Old-growth forest in Biogradska Gora National Park, Montenegro

Devall and Sessions identify the 'new physics' as a major source of deep ecology, especially in its abandonment of the illusion of objectivity on which the materialist paradigm was founded. They cite this as evidence that humans do not stand aloof from nature, but are an integral part of its interactions. [12].[13] The science of ecology is also acknowledged as an important contributor to deep ecology, providing a holistic view of nature lacking in reductionist science.[14].Duvall & Sessions demonstrate that the work of many ecologists has encouraged the adoption of an 'ecological consciousness', quoting Aldo Leopold's view that such a consciousness 'changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it.' [15] Deep ecologists reject any mechanical or 'computer' model of nature, and see the earth as a living organism, which should be treated and understood accordingly. [16]

Philosophy

Arne Næss used Baruch Spinoza as a source, particularly his notion that everything that exists is part of a single reality.[17] Others have copied Næss in this, including Eccy de Jonge[18] and Brenden MacDonald.[19]

Aspects

Environmental education

In 2010 Richard Kahn promoted the movement of ecopedagogy, proposing using radical environmental activism as an educational principle to teach students to support "earth democracy" which promotes the voting rights of animals, plants, fungi, algae and bacteria. The biologist Dr Stephan Harding has developed the concept of 'holistic science', based on principles of ecology and deep ecology. In contrast with materialist, reductionist science, holistic science studies natural systems as a living whole. 'We encourage … students to use [their] sense of belonging to an intelligent universe (revealed by deep experience),' Harding has written,'for deeply questioning their fundamental beliefs, and for translating these beliefs into personal decisions, lifestyles and actions. The emphasis on action is important. This is what makes deep ecology a movement as much as a philosophy.[20]

Spirituality

Næss criticised the Judeo-Christian tradition, stating the Bible's "arrogance of stewardship consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation".[10] Næss further criticizes the reformation's view of creation as property to be put into maximum productive use.

Criticisms

Eurocentric bias

Guha and Martinez-Allier critique the four defining characteristics of deep ecology. First, because deep ecologists believe that environmental movements must shift from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric approach, they fail to recognize the two most fundamental ecological crises facing the world today, 1) overconsumption in the global north and 2) increasing militarization. Second, deep ecology's emphasis on wilderness provides impetus for the imperialist yearning of the West. Third, deep ecology appropriates Eastern traditions, characterizes Eastern spiritual beliefs as monolithic, and denies agency to Eastern peoples. And fourth, because deep ecology equates environmental protection with wilderness preservation its radical elements are confined within the American wilderness preservationist movement.[21]

Knowledge of non-human interests

Animal rights activists state that for an entity to require intrinsic rights, it must have interests.[22] Deep ecology is criticised for insisting they can somehow understand the thoughts and personal interests of non-humans such as plants or protists, which they claim thus proves that non-human lifeforms have conciousness. For example, a single-celled bacteria might move towards a certain chemical stimulation, although such movement might be rationally explained, a deep ecologist might say that this was all invalid because according to his better understanding of the situation that the intention formulated by this particular bacteria was informed by its deep desire to succeed in life. One criticism of this belief is that the interests that a deep ecologist attributes to non-human organisms such as survival, reproduction, growth, and prosperity are really human interests, which is known as anthropomorphism or a pathetic fallacy, in which "the earth is endowed with 'wisdom', wilderness equates with 'freedom', and life forms are said to emit 'moral' qualities".[23][24]

Deepness

When Arne Næss coined the term deep ecology, he compared it favourably with shallow ecology which he criticized for its utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to nature and for its materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.[25] William D. Grey believes that developing a non-anthropocentric set of values is "a hopeless quest". He seeks an improved "shallow" view.[26] Deep ecologists point out, however, that 'shallow ecology' - resource management conservation - is counter-productive, since it serves mainly to support capitalism - the means through which industrial civilization destroys the biosphere. The eco-centric view thus only becomes 'hopeless' within the structures and ideology of civilization. Outside it, however, a non-anthropocentric world view has characterised most 'primal' cultures since time immemorial, and, in fact, obtained in many indigenous groups until the industrial revolution and after. [27] Some cultures still hold this view today. As such, the eco-centric narrative is in not alien to humans, and may be seen as the 'normative' ethos in human evolution. [28] Grey's view represents the 'reformist' discourse that deep ecology has rejected from the beginning. [29]

Misanthropy

Social ecologist Murray Bookchin, interpreted deep ecology as being misanthropic, due in part to the characterization of humanity by David Foreman of Earth First!, as a 'pathological infestation on the Earth'. Bookchin mentions that some, like Foreman, defend misanthropic measures such as organising the rapid genocide of most of humanity.[30]. However, Bookchin's critique is not valid as Foreman's statement clashes with the core narrative of deep ecology, the first tenet of which stresses the intrinsic value of both nonhuman and human life. Deep ecology is neither misanthropic nor ecofascist, expressing the value of human life against the culture of industrial civilization, which is seen as inherently destructive to humans and nonhumans alike. The term 'human' is carefully distinguished from the term 'civilized' which, contrary to customary usage, is seen as implying 'domesticated' and therefore 'dehumanized'.[31] Deep ecology might be characterized as 'anti-civilization' but by no means 'anti-human'. Arne Naess suggested a slow decrease in human population over an extended period, not genocide.[32] Bookchin's second major criticism is that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. He suggests that deep ecologists fail to recognise the potential for human beings to solve environmental issues.[33] This criticism is also invalid, as deep ecologists identify industrial civilization, with its class hierarchy, as the sole source of the ecological crisis.[34] The eco-centric worldview precludes any acceptance of social class or authority based on social status.[35] Deep ecologists believe that since ecological problems are created by industrial civilization, the only 'solution' is the deconstruction of the culture itself.[36]

Sciencism

Daniel Botkin concludes that although deep ecology challenges the assumptions of western philosophy, and should be taken seriously, it derives from a misunderstanding of scientific information and conclusions based on this misunderstanding, which are in turn used as justification for its ideology. It begins with an ideology and is political and social in focus. Botkin has also criticized Næss's belief in the concept of the "balance of nature", and the contradiction between his argument that all species are morally equal and his disparaging description of pioneering species.[37] Deep ecologists, however, argue that a concern with political and social values is primary, since the destruction of natural diversity stems directly from the social structure of civilization, and cannot be halted by reforms within the system. Far from 'beginning with an ideology' deep ecology grew directly out of the science of ecology, and the work of ecologists such as Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, John Livingston, and many others. It is based on a sound understanding of ecological principles.[38] Naess's concept of the 'balance of nature' reflects an ethical view of the disproportionate consumption of natural resources by a single species.

Peter Singer critiques anthropocentrism and advocates for animals to be given rights. However, Singer has disagreed with deep ecology's belief in the intrinsic value of nature separate from questions of suffering.[39] Zimmerman groups deep ecology with feminism and civil rights movements.[40] Nelson contrasts it with "ecofeminism".[41] The links with animal rights are perhaps the strongest, as "proponents of such ideas argue that 'all life has intrinsic value'".[42]

David Foreman, the co-founder of the radical direct-action movement Earth First!, has said he is an advocate for deep ecology.[43][44] At one point Arne Næss also engaged in direct action when he chained himself to rocks in front of Mardalsfossen, a waterfall in a Norwegian fjord, in a successful protest against the building of a dam.[45]

Some have linked the movement to green anarchism as evidenced in a compilation of essays titled Deep Ecology & Anarchism.[46]

See also

References
  1. Smith, Mick (2014). "Deep Ecology: What is Said and (to be) Done?". The Trumpeter. 30 (2): 141–156. ISSN 0832-6193. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  2. John Barry; E. Gene Frankland (2002). International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. Routledge. p. 161. ISBN 9780415202855.
  3. Sessions, George (2014). "Deep Ecology, New Conservation, and the Anthropocene Worldview". The Trumpeter. 30 (2): 106–114. ISSN 0832-6193. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  4. Drengson, Alan; Devall, Bill; Schroll, Mark A. (2011). "The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy)". International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 30 (1–2): 101–117. doi:10.24972/ijts.2011.30.1-2.101.
  5. 'For Naess, ecological science, concerned with facts and logic alone, cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live in relation to these facts. For this, he said, we need ecological wisdom, which Naess calls ecosophy: an evolving personal philosophy of being, thinking and acting in the world that embodies our personal experience of connection with nature.' Stephan Harding 'Deep Ecology in the Holistic Science Programme' Schumacher College.
  6. 'This does not imply misanthropy or cruelty to presently existing humans' Deep Ecology for the 21st Century Ed. George Sessions p.88
  7. Devall, Bill; Sessions, George (1985). Deep Ecology. Gibbs M. Smith. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-87905-247-8.
  8. Næss, Arne (1973). "The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movements. A summary" (PDF). Inquiry. 16 (1–4): 95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682. ISSN 0020-174X. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
  9. Arne Naess 'The Shallow and the Deep Long Range Ecology Movements' 1973
  10. Næss, Arne (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy Translated by D. Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 166, 187. ISBN 0521344069. LCCN 88005068.
  11. Taylor, B. and M. Zimmerman. 2005. Deep Ecology" in B. Taylor, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, v 1, pp. 456–60, London: Continuum International.
  12. 'both the mystical traditions and the 'new physics' serve to generate … 'ecological awareness' that is, the fundamental relatedness of all things - or more accurately, all events.' From 'The Intuition of Deep Ecology' by Warwick Fox, qtd in 'Deep Ecology' by Duvall/Sessions 1985 P90
  13. 'instead of saying 'an observer looks at an object' we can say, 'Observation is going on in an undivided moment involving those abstractions customarily called 'the human being' and 'the object he is looking at.' From 'Wholeness & The Implicate Order' by David Bohm 1980 P37
  14. 'Ecological knowledge and the life style of the ecological field-worker have suggested, inspired, and fortified the perspectives of the Deep Ecology movement .. all over the world the inspiration from ecology has shown remarkable convergences. The survey does not pretend to be more than one of the possible condensed codifications of these convergences.' Arne Naess 'The Shallow and the Deep Long Range Ecology Movement' 1973
  15. 'we are only fellow-voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution,' Aldo Leopold qtd in 'Deep Ecology' by Duvall/Sessions 1985 P85.
  16. 'There are no shortcuts to direct organic experiencing' Morris Berman, qtd in 'Deep Ecology' by Bill Devall & George Sessions 1985 P89
  17. Naess, A. (1977). "Spinoza and ecology". Philosophia. 7: 45–54. doi:10.1007/BF02379991.
  18. de Jonge, Eccy (April 28, 2004). Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Philosophy). Routledge. ISBN 978-0754633273.
  19. MacDonald, Brenden James (2012-05-14). "Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity -- Schizophrenics and Others Who Could Heal the Earth If Society Realized Eco-Literacy". Trumpeter. 28 (1): 89–101. ISSN 1705-9429.
  20. Stephan Harding 'Deep Ecology in the Holistic Science Programme' Schumacher College (undated)
  21. Guha, R., and J. Martinez-Allier. 1997. Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South, pp. 92-108
  22. Feinberg, Joel. "The Rights of Animals and Future Generations". Retrieved 2006-04-25.
  23. Joff (2000). "The Possibility of an Anti-Humanist Anarchism". Retrieved 2006-04-25.
  24. Pister, E. Phil (1995). "The Rights of Species and Ecosystems". Fisheries. 20 (4). Archived from the original on 2006-08-22. Retrieved 2006-04-25.
  25. Devall, Bill; Sessions, George. Deep Ecology: Environmentalism as if all beings mattered. Retrieved 2006-04-25.
  26. Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology by William Grey
  27. 'long-established indigenous cul�tures often display a remarkable solidarity with the lands that they inhabit, as well as a basic respect, or even reverence, for the other species that inhabit those lands. Such cultures, much smaller in scale... than modern Western civilization, seem to have maintained a relatively homeostatic or equilibrial relation with [the landbase] From 'The Spell of the Sensuous' by David Abrams.
  28. 'For the primal mind there is no sharp break between humans and the rest of Nature. Many deep ecologists feel sympathetic to the rhythm and ways of being experienced by primal peoples.' From 'Deep Ecology' by Duvall/Sessions 1985 P97.
  29. 'by 'reformist' we mean attempts to address some of the environmental problems in this society without challenging the main contradictions and assumptions of the prevailing worldview' from 'Deep Ecology' by Duvall/Sessions 1985 P52
  30. name="Bookchin 1987"
  31. 'Beneath the veneer of civilization...lies not the barbarian and animal, but the human in us who knows the rightness of birth in gentle surroundings, the necessity of a rich nonhuman environment ...There is a secret person undamaged in every individual, aware of the validity of these, sensitive to the right moments in our lives.', from 'Nature & Madness' by Paul Shepard. 'We perceive the dark side of our present condition as our failure to adhere to the standards of "civilization". Crime, tyranny, psychopathology, addiction, poverty malnutrition, starvation, war, terrorism, and other forms of social disintegration seem to be the weakness and flaws in our ability to live up to the expectations of being civilized.' Paul Shepard ibid
  32. 'Deep Ecology … gives priority to human population as a problem and calls for a gradual decrease … this does not imply misanthropy or cruelty to presently existing humans...' 'Deep Ecology for the 21st Century' Ed. George Sessions 1995 P88. 'Population reduction … might … require a thousand years' Arne Naess 1989. 'The stabilization and reduction of the human population will take time. Hundreds of years! Interim strategies need to be developed. But in no way does this excuse the current complacency.' Arne Naess in 'Deep Ecology for the 21st Century' 1995 P69
  33. Bookchin, Murray (1987). "Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement". Green Perspectives/Anarchy Archives.
  34. 'civilization is based on a … clearly defined hierarchy … Violence done by those higher in the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible ...' from 'Endgame' by Derrick Jensen, Vol 2, 2006 P18
  35. 'Anti-class posture. Diversity of human ways of life is in part due to … exploitation and suppression on the part of certain groups... The principles of ecological egalitarianism and of symbiosis support the same anti-class posture. The ecological attitude favors the extension of [these] principles to any group conflicts, including those ... between developing and developed nations. The … principles also favor extreme caution toward any over-all plans for the future, except those consistent with wide and widening classless diversity' Arne Naess 'The Shallow and the Deep Long Range Ecology Movement.' 1973
  36. 'If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and degrade the planet until it … collapses.' from 'Endgame' by Derrick Jensen, Vol 2, 2006
  37. Botkin, Daniel B. (2000). No Man's Garden: Thoreau and a New Vision for Civilization and Nature. Shearwater Books. pp. https://archive.org/details/nomansgardenthor0000botk/page/42 42, 39]. ISBN 978-1-55963-465-6.
  38. 'The emergence of ecologists from their former relative obscurity marks a turning point in our scientific communities. But their message is twisted and misused. A shallow, but presently rather powerful movement, and a deep, but less influential movement, compete for our attention.' From 'The Shallow and the Deep Long Range Ecology Movement' by Arne Naess 1973
  39. Kendall, Gillian (May 2011). The Greater Good: Peter Singer On How To Live An Ethical Life. Sun Magazine, The Sun Interview, Issue 425. Retrieved on: 2011-12-02
  40. Alan AtKisson. "Introduction To Deep Ecology, an interview with Michael E. Zimmerman". In Context (22). Retrieved 2006-05-04.
  41. Nelson, C. 2006. Ecofeminism vs. Deep Ecology, Dialogue, San Antonio, TX: Saint Mary's University Dept. of Philosophy
  42. Wall, Derek (1994). Green History. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07925-9.
  43. David Levine, ed. (1991). Defending the Earth: a dialogue between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman.
  44. Bookchin, Murray; Graham Purchase; Brian Morris; Rodney Aitchtey; Robert Hart; Chris Wilbert (1993). Deep Ecology and Anarchism. Freedom Press. ISBN 978-0-900384-67-7.
  45. J. Seed, J. Macy, P. Flemming, A. Næss, Thinking like a mountain: towards a council of all beings, Heretic Books (1988), ISBN 0-946097-26-7, ISBN 0-86571-133-X.
  46. Deep Ecology & Anarchism. Freedom Press. 1993.

Bibliography
  • Bender, F. L. 2003. The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology Amherst, New York: Humanity Books.
  • Katz, E., A. Light, et al. 2000. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • LaChapelle, D. 1992. Sacred Land, Sacred Sex: Rapture of the Deep Durango: Kivakí Press.
  • Passmore, J. 1974. Man’s Responsibility for Nature London: Duckworth.
  • Taylor, B. and M. Zimmerman. 2005. Deep Ecology" in B. Taylor, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, v 1, pp. 456–60, London: Continuum International.
  • Clark, John P (2014). "What Is Living In Deep Ecology?". Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy. 30 (2): 157–183.
  • Hawkins, Ronnie (2014). "Why Deep Ecology Had To Die". Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy. 30 (2): 206–273.
  • Sessions, G. (ed) 1995. Deep Ecology for the Twenty-first Century Boston: Shambhala.

Further reading
  • Gecevska, Valentina; Donev, Vancho; Polenakovik, Radmil (2016). "A Review Of Environmental Tools Towards Sustainable Development". Annals of the Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara - International Journal of Engineering. 14 (1): 147–152.
  • Glasser, Harold (ed.) 2005. The Selected Works of Arne Næss, Volumes 1-10. Springer, ISBN 1-4020-3727-9. (review)
  • Holy-Luczaj, Magdalena (2015). "Heidegger's Support For Deep Ecology Reexamined Once Again". Ethics & the Environment. 20 (1): 45–66. doi:10.2979/ethicsenviro.20.1.45.
  • Keulartz, Jozef 1998. Struggle for nature : a critique of radical ecology, London [etc.] : Routledge.
  • Linkola, Pentti 2011. Can Life Prevail? UK: Arktos Media, 2nd Revised ed. ISBN 1907166637
  • Marc R., Fellenz. "9. Ecophilosophy: Deep Ecology And Ecofeminism." The Moral Menagerie : Philosophy and Animal Rights. 158. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
  • Sylvan, Richard (1985a). "A Critique of Deep Ecology, Part I.". Radical Philosophy. 40: 2–12.
  • Sylvan, Richard (1985b). "A Critique of Deep Ecology, Part II". Radical Philosophy. 41: 1–22.
  • Tobias, Michael (ed.) 1988 (1984). Deep Ecology. Avant Books. ISBN 0-932238-13-0.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.