Deep Ecology: Should We Embrace This Philosophy?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEEP ECOLOGY: SHOULD WE EMBRACE THIS PHILOSOPHY? By Gert Petrus Benjamin Louw Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Philosophy University of South Africa Supervisor: Professor M.E.S. van den Berg March 2016 © University of South Africa 2016. SUMMARY The planet is in a dismal environmental state. This state may be remedied by way of an integrated approach based on a holistic vision. This research examines which ecological ideology best suits current conditions for humans to re-examine their metaphysical understanding of nature; how we can better motivate people to embrace a more intrinsic ecological ideology; and finally, how we can motivate people to be active participants in their chosen ideology. I will attempt to show that Deep Ecology is the most suitable ecosophy (ecological philosophy) to embrace; in doing so I will look at how Oriental and occidental religion and philosophy altered (and continues to alter) the way we perceive nature. I will show how destructive, but also caring and constructive, humanity can be when interacting with the environment. The Deep Ecological and Shallow Ecological principles will be look at, as well as criticism and counter-criticism of these ecosophies. KEY TERMS : Deep Ecology, Shallow Ecology, anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, extrinsic values, intrinsic values, motivational drive, ecosophy © University of South Africa 2016. DECLARATION I declare that ‘DEEP ECOLOGY: SHOULD WE EMBRACE THIS PHILOSOPHY?’ is my own work, and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for examination at this or any other higher education institution. SIGNED: 000000___000000000 21 March 2016 G.P.B. LOUW DATE i © University of South Africa 2016. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 01 CHAPTER 2 – RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL FORMATION OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES 2.1 INTRODUCTION 10 2.2 HOW RELIGION SHAPES OUR THINKING 15 2.2.1 Occidental religion – Christianity 17 2.2.2 Mid-Eastern religion – Judaism and Islam 29 2.2.3 Eastern religions – Taoism and Buddhism 36 2.2.4 A new religious thinking? 42 2.3 HOW PHILOSOPHY SHAPES OUR THINKING 45 2.3.1 Eastern and Western philosophical thinking 46 2.3.2 Dichotomisation 50 2.3.3 The anthropocentric nature of Western philosophy 53 2.4 SUMMARY 58 CHAPTER 3 – HUMANITY’S FAILURES AND SUCCESSES WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION 3.1. INTRODUCTION 60 3.2. HUMANITY’S FAILURES AND SUCCESSES 62 3.2.1 Population 63 3.2.1.1 Europe 66 3.2.1.2 Asia (Near-East, Far-East) 68 3.2.1.3 Oceania 74 3.2.1.4 Africa 75 3.2.1.5 North and South America (Americas) 78 3.2.2 Water 80 ii © University of South Africa 2016. 3.2.3 Climate change 81 3.2.4 Loss of biodiversity 82 3.2.5 Deforestation and desertification 83 3.2.6 Ocean acidification 85 3.2.7 Depletion of marine resources 86 3.2.8 The phosphorus and nitrogen cycles 86 3.2.9 Ozone layer depletion 87 3.2.10 Fracking 89 3.3. SUCCESSES AND OTHER ISSUES 91 3.4. SUMMARY 93 CHAPTER 4 – DEEP ECOLOGY VERSUS SHALLOW ECOLOGY 4.1 INTRODUCTION 95 4.2 ORIGIN AND TENETS OF DEEP ECOLOGY 96 4.3 SHALLOW ECOLOGY 107 4.4 CRITICISM 110 4.4.1 Ecofeminist critique 113 4.4.2 Social ecological critique 114 4.4.3 Anti-human critique 116 4.4.4 Biocentric egalitarianism and the self 118 4.4.5 Normative status 122 4.4.6 Mysticism and anti-rationality 123 4.4.7 Vegetarian critique 123 4.5 SUMMARY 126 CHAPTER 5 – THE MOTIVATIONAL FORCE DRIVING PEOPLE TO ACT ECOCENTRICALLY 5.1 INTRODUCTION 129 5.2 MOTIVATION: ITS ESSENCE AND ITS THEORIES 133 iii © University of South Africa 2016. 5.3 MOTIVATIONAL INITIATIVES 161 5.4 SUMMARY 169 CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION 176 BIBLIOGRAPHY 192 iv © University of South Africa 2016. Abstract The planet finds itself in a dismal state, arguably brought about by the environmental misconduct from the side of humanity over the course of centuries. An ancient tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism depicts human beings’ suffering as exemplifying hungry ghosts trapped in a state of incessant greed and insatiability, which at its core reflects a desperate attempt to maintain a sense of self that is out of accord with basic reality (Pope 2011:171). How can we address and remedy this dualistic problem with regard to the state of the environment and the way in which human beings conduct themselves? The state of crisis in which both humans and the environment find themselves need not continue. Recuperation for both is possible, if only we will alter our way of thinking and provide a chance for the ecosystems to heal. There is a significant obstacle regarding an effective way to bring about this recuperative process. In this regard Conradie and Field (2002:3) say that if we want to have a healthy and sustainable environment, in which the intimate connections between all concerns are emphasised, then we will need an integrated approach based on a holistic vision regarding environmental awareness. They are of the opinion that such a vision can be fashioned through the perceptions we have about our external world (both animate and inanimate phenomena), and that we can respond to the environmental and intrapersonal challenges facing us by adopting such a holistic approach. The question to be considered is whether this holistic approach is the only approach to be adopted in such a scenario? I will argue throughout my research that such an approach is a favourable one for the purpose of addressing the planet’s environmental predicament. I will also argue that dualism is a less favourable path to follow to the extent that it contributes greatly to the environmental problem at hand. I will however concede that a holistic approach may create dialectical thinking between concepts such as Eastern and Western, anthropocentric and ecocentric, religious and non-religious, as well as intrinsic and extrinsic thinking. I do however want to make it clear that I am not disregarding one position in favour of another because I acknowledge that there are instances where the lesser favourable concept (under certain circumstances within a certain geographical area, for example) may be conceived to be actually the favourable one (under the same v © University of South Africa 2016. circumstance within a different geographical location). In other words, when I evaluate opposites I am trying to conserve the integrity of the opposite rather than to create a convenient reduction thereof. According to Okita (2009) it is vital to examine the metaphysical understanding of nature because the way we deal with nature is significantly influenced by our perceptions of nature (ecological ideologies). The way many people currently perceive nature, which is reflected by their practices, will patently not suffice. Presently there are many ecological ideologies from which individuals may choose when they embark on a path of re-examining their metaphysical understanding of nature. This leads to an important threefold question around which this research is constructed: Which ecological ideology best suits current conditions? Then, how can we better motivate people to embrace the correct ideology? And finally, how can we motivate them to be active participants in their chosen ideology? I will attempt to show that there is indeed one such ecological ideology which I hope everyone will embrace. This philosophy is known as Deep Ecology (DE), and as will be shown in a later chapter, DE embodies the psychologising of an egalitarian and holistic environmental philosophy founded on a phenomenological methodology. But this is not the only methodology on which such an environmental philosophy can be founded. In a subsequent chapter, I will point out that Kretz (2009:116-117) argues convincingly that there are multiple methodological reasons, such as the following, on which a re-conceptualisation of the ecological self (in favour of a holistic environmental philosophy) may take place: . Thinking about the nature of ecological relations allows for a moral landscape. Such a moral landscape may addresses the ecological dimensions of what it is to be human and may serve to shows how the failure of many humans to understand themselves ecologically has contributed directly to the current ecological crisis. Thinking about the ecological self has pragmatic benefits because it situates humans in a way that facilitates our survival and the survival of other organisms. And lastly, the ecological crisis requires new ways of motivating beneficial ecological action. vi © University of South Africa 2016. I will substantiate my choice of ecosophy (ecological philosophy) by following a rhetorical path, during which I will show why it is essential to embrace this philosophy. My path will commence from the point where I will look at how religion and philosophy, from both Oriental and occidental perspectives, have altered (and continues to alter) the way we perceive nature, whether in a constructive or destructive fashion. I will then show how destructive, but also caring and constructive, humanity can be when it comes to how we interact with the environment. This will culminate in an overview of the principles of Deep Ecology, contrasting it with what is known as a Shallow Ecology. I will also entertain the criticism and counter-criticism of Deep Ecology. Before concluding this research, I will touch on how we may motivate otherwise inactive individuals to become more pro-active in embracing an ecosophy such as Deep Ecology as being a viable eco-philosophy. These are important aspects to explore if we want to create a platform on which humanity can start to peruse the aim of restoring our planetary imbalance.