Portland State University PDXScholar

Political Science Faculty Publications and Presentations Political Science

Summer 1992 The Practical Relevance of Deep Ecology

David Johns Portland State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/polisci_fac

Part of the Environmental Policy Commons, and the Political Science Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Citation Details Johns, D., (1992). The Practical Relevance of Deep Ecology. Wild Earth, 2: 62-68.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. The Practical Relevance of Deep Ecology

by David Johns have the right to so alter the composition of the biomass that we damage, in Leopold's As proponents of Deep Ecology and words,"the integrity, stability and beauty" of Biocentrism have begun to define both a vi­ the ecosystem. The basis for this value may sion. for the future and a critique ofthe existing lie in the experience of self-actualizatjon­ humarl relationship with the rest ofnature, they identification with nature as the real commu­ have often been the subject of criticism from nity of which one is a part. Whether it is the Third World and from leftists in the devel­ termed a transcendence of alienation iii its oped world concerned with Third World is­ various forms or healing a crippled heart, the sues. They are commonly charged with failing thrust is that hUIruin life is no more valuaQle to adequately take into account the complex­ than any othe: fo~ oflife, life .being btoa~J ity of the human social dynamic involved in idea and therefore suspect. construed to 'lnclude plants, animals, ecosys­ destruction of the environment; ignoring that Deep ecology is obviously rooted in the tems, rivers, mountains, the earth. human societies are under the control of elites culture of those .who espouse it; that is true of Flowing from this understanding is the who benefit from the degradation of nature every movement. The very process oftran­ recognition that in much of the world almost while most people suffer; failing to recognize scendence or dialectical working through as­ any human impact damages the biosphere.' In that much degradation in the Third World is sumes a history. But to point out the origins many ecosystems human livelihood - beyond directly attributable to an international politi­ of a particular historical experience does not very minimal numbers and very limited tech­ cal-economy dominated by the rich countries; invalidate it. nology - is simply not compatible with and proposing misanthropic solutions which There is no question that the circum­ maintaining the integrity of the biosphere. would exacerbate further the problems of the stances of development in the United States Integrity here means wilderness, that is "self­ poor. Critic,s have charged that biocentrism has - including the pattern of settlement over the willed land," self-regulating, not transformed essentially North American roots and is huge geographical area available - have by human atterqpts to control it. ~ss of in­ therefore elitist, and that biocentrism focuses helped shape U.S. deep ecologists' response tegrity is obvious when one looks at the fate narrowly on the issue of wilderness preserva­ to environmental degradation. In the face of of other large mammals. Ecosystems must tion to the exclusion of human problems. Some its rapid destruction, it was possible to see normally be healthy to support them. Their have called deep ecology/biocentrism irrel­ clearly what was being lost an~ what remained disappearance is an indication of degradation. evant to the most important problems facing to be saved. And we were rich'enough to be Grizzly Bears, Orangutans, TIgers, elephants the world, namely overconsumption, over­ able to afford it. In this last respect the wil­ and many other species cannot easily coexist population, militarism and related problems. derness may "fit in" our consumer societY's with humans in large numbers or with very These criticisms need to be addressed. cultural categories as another commodity. exploitative technologies. Many ecosystems Movements for biosphere preservation, to be NOtwithstanding this seeming incorporation of cannot easily accommodate significant human relevant, must address issues within a global wilderness into the existing order, in mpst re­ presence without seriouS deterioration in di- . framework. That can only be done in con­ spects it does not "fit." From tHe very begin­ versity and balance. Recognition' of other junction with other movements around the ning and increl)Singly, the wilderness system, species, of ecosystems and the Earth as valu­ globe. Only through a genuine amalgamation wildlife refuges, and old-growth forests have able in and of themselves, indivi4ually and of the various and specific historical experi­ been attacked by those who say they interfere collectively, apart from their usefulness to ences can we chart a new direction(s) for hu­ with an economy based on endless growth. humans, means that in practice much of the man .. sociely. Cross cultural criticisms ¥e The real issue, however, is whether a Earth cannot be used for permanent human extremely valuable because they help clarify position that calls for returning large areas of settlement. assumptions of other traditions or cultures. the Earth to wilderness is wrong-headed in Existing devastation and the spread of substance. Related is the question of how humans into new areas makes the task of pro­ WILDERNESS: ORIGINS AND humans should interact with those portions of tecting areas still in thelr natural state urgent. VALUES the biosphere not preserved as wilderness. Returning large areas to wilderness is only peep ecology has been criticized for The deep ecological support for wilder­ slightly less urgent. equating environmental protection with wil­ ness is predicated upon an important fact and While preservation of wilderness may derness preservation and for failing to recog­ related value: the Earth can support a limited seem to be the oveniding focus of deep ~l­ nize the impact of its commitment to amount of biomass, and the more of it is'COlD­ ogy, deep ecologists recognize that humans wilderness in the Third World. Preservation posed of humans or turned to human use, the have their place in nature as well. Where it is of wilderness is viewed as a North American less is available for other life; humans do not appropriate for humans to settle, the issue of

62 WILD EARTH SUMMER 1992 how to combine livelihood with ecosystem one's own self ane! community it is odd to forces that produce t.'J.ese. Ihere IS some merit integrity is a major emphasis. Reestablishment suggest they are unconcerned WIth hu...'Ilan to such criticism b:lt it is usua:Iy overstated. of real community. embedded in the :ocal cOr.lr.J.unity. Some enviroIl.'Ilenta:ists do see the problem as ecosystem, is a prior!ty of t.1.e deep eco:ogy snply tou ma.'1y people behaving stupidly. movement. It may be a valid criticism that SOuRCES OF E~VIRONMENTAL without a.'1y regard for the nature ofthe system much of the thinking in this area is fuzzy or DEGRADATION in which people live ane! the fact 1.1.at It vic­ naive, but wilderness is not the only goal of Another criticism made of deep eco:ogy timizes most people as weI: as natu...'"e. I I deep ecologists. Given the c11derstaIfdi.'1g of ~s that It focuses on humans m general as the Most proponents of deep ecology, how­ 1:' hlllIllUllrest-of-nature re:atlOnships that deep pror.ler.l, obscuring the real causes of env".ron­ ever. recognize !he great mequallty that eXlsts ecologists espouse that to be effective in mental degradatIon, !l3II1ely· overconsumption in t.1.e w0rld with regard to consumptlOn, and allowing nature to heal itself one must also heal and militanzation a.'1d the unde:-lying social the great diEerences in the eX!sting power of va.';ous groups to shape a society'S relat:on­ ship WIth nature. Jeep ecology advocates ac­ knowledge t.1.at most people are victimizing (of ,. natu:e) victL'Ils (of the socia: order); and that problems m:lst address the issues of class, e gender, and ethnicl!y. Deep eco:oglsts rec­ =t: og:1ize that all forms of domination are linked. ~~ as is evidenced b the ongoing debate between $, deep ecology and socIal ecology, between deep "'i ecology and eco-fen1inism, between deep ~. ecology and marxisr.J. and other socia:isms.

.~ he question is :-eally one of emphasis and I I' prioritY' do we focus on the threat to Ea.'1h as . a whole or to a part of It (humans); where do ~ I' ! . we bring ourselves to bear on the juggernaut .' ·1 carrying oct such destruction. The nature of the linkages between varI­ ous forms of domination IS certamly not settled, but deep ecology may be distinct in believing that the resolution of eqUIty issues a.'Ilong humans will not actomaticaEy result in 11.'1 end to hu...'Ilan destruction of the bio­ t: sphere. One can envisio!1 a SOCIety without .~ I ' class dIStinCtions, without patriarchy, and with f' (~ cultural autonomy, !hat still attempts to manage :!. I .~ the rest of nature in :ltilitarian fashion WI!h resu:ting detenoration ofthe bIosphere. Such a society wo:lid probably be iess destructIve ! because much of the technology of the ilist 300 years is incompatib~e with a truly egalitanan ! SOCIety ane! much oft.1.e alienation t.1.at distorts the expression ofhuman energy into schemes of c{)ntrol woU:d not eXlst. But t.1.e end of domi nation m huma.'1 relatIOns IS not enough to protect the la.-ger biotic community. Only be­ ! haVIor shaped by a bl0centric view can do t...1.at. I For eXlU!1ple, deep ecologists would point I O:1t that b terms of th~ integrity of an ecosys­ I I tem. it makes littie dlEerence whether an old­ growth forest is destroyed ~o build one huuse ! for a NorthAmerica.'1 or fifty simple structures i!1 the ':bird World. Fro:n a stnct!y human standpoint the latter is much more justifiable than the former. Deep eco!ogists widely agree that fewer humans (and especia:Iy less exten­ sive occupation of the globe) and equitable ane! drastically curta:led consumption are essential to restoring the 'Jalance of the pla.'1et. Over­ population remal!1S a sensitive issue and : will return to it below Jim Nollman

Wild Earth 63 [

~ 1 While those of us engaged in political the international market. If we treat the poor OVERCONSUMP110N I activity in North America are used to con­ as the problem, rather than the system that fronting the issue ofjobs versus environment, constrains their choices, we will fail. We must In what ways, then, is a biocentric system It is important to understand that in the Third forge alliances with those who oppose the of values meaningful 'in dealing with I,I World 'jobs" often equates with actual sur­ existing order·-albeit on the basis ofits injury overconsumption and militarization? La's i vival. Sparing old-growth in the US within to the poor, to women, to oppressed ethnic begin with overconsumption. The very the existing eCQnomic structure may cause groups. The work ofEPOCA[Environmental meaning of overconsumption differs depend- • hardship for a few loggers. Sparing tropical Project On Central America] in Nicaraguan ing upon whether one takes a bio- or anthro­ I forests within the existing economic structure reforestation efforts and in Central America pocentric view. A biocentric view, by giving may mean immediate hunger for many land­ generally, and the RainforestAction Network moral consideration to other species and ee6- i less peasants. (Clearing tropical forests may and Greenpeace campaigns directed at the IMF systems, sharply limits human conswnption­ mean eventual hunger as well, depending on [International Monetary Fund] and World not only as individuals or groups, but as a the quality ofthe land cleared) Critics of deep Bank, are examples of environmental action species, i.e., it implies a limit on human ecology argue that efforts to protect wilderness with at least some of the necessary elements. nwnbers - much more than an anthropocen­ in the Third World cost the poor; that this ap­ In the short term -- given the continued tric view which sees value in nature only in­ proach is just one more example of imperial­ existence of an international political system sofar as it is useful to humans. ism - the same imperialism that pushes the committed to growth and great ineqUality, Ifnon-human nature is valued for itself, poor and others into the wilderness in the first given an international state system in which then human consumption that disrupts it is place. Wildemess proponents do need to heed those who would resist such domination must wrong: it constitutes overconsumption. Most this criticism. adapt to it to survive - how do we resolve modem forms ofagriculture, forestry, mining. Wilderness is needed in the Third World conflicts between particular groups ofhumans, energy extraction and use, housing. transpor­ as much as it is in Europe and other long­ often the most oppressed, and other species? tation and the like clearly can be called settled parts of the globe; but it is necessary to Even if wilderness advocates do attempt to overconsumption. understand that the structure of imperialism ensure that preservation measures are not taken In a human-centered system of values, often makes the manner in which wildemess at the expense of the oppressed, they will not overconsumption is primarily seen as a social is protected in the Third World unjust from a always be able to protect both the environment problem, a problem of distribution'between human standpoint. Environmentalists must and the poor. There is no getting around these wealthy and poor, a problem of economic begin to take this into account. How? First, uncomfortable questions and previous at­ ownership. Overconsumption occUrs when by understanding how imperialism created and tempts to address them are not adequately some consume more than they need it the ex­ continues to feed much of the dynamic that developed. pense of those who do not have What they threatens ecosystems in the Third World, from Arne Naess has suggested that conflicts need Generally speaking. materia1 growth and the-Amazon to Malaysia; by understanding between humans and other species can be re­ rising levels of consumption are equated with how countries that have broken ot are at­ solved by balancing the competing interests quality-of-life improvement; the poor can tempting to break from their historical place based upon how "near and vital" the interests become better off through economic growth in the existing structure find themselves, in an are to the species involved. Given the large and/or through more egalitarian distribution. effort to survive, adopting environmentally numbers of Homo sapiens and their extensive To this end technology and social orgaIlimtion destructive economic strategies; and by un­ settlement, it is difficult to see how this would need to be applied. Such a view does not ad­ derstanding how the wealth extracted from lead to a redress of the current imbalance un­ mit to any fjrrite limit on conswnption nor does the Third World makes possible the culture of less one takes a global perspective. Globally it consider injury to the biosphere except il:l­ consumption in the First World. there can be little question, for example, that sofar as it may affect the continued use of the Second, based upon the understanding humans need to give way to Tigers, Chimps, biosphere for human benefit. just set out, we must acknowledge the limits Grizzlies and other species. With five billion Even "weak anthropocentrism" - a view of what can be achieved to protect the envi­ people and only small populations of other that is sensitive to long range sustainability-' r9nment within the framework of a system species, restoring ecosystems to diversity can can and does justify monoculture, high use of based on endless material growth and extreme only mean movement in one direction: more energy, massive reclamation projects, con· socio-economic mequality. Only by pushing room for other species. But the impact on version of self-regulating ecosystems into beyond the limits of what is acceptable to the humans of making room for other creatures agricultural land and so on. Such a value existing political-economic order can con­ will not affect all humans equally. Specific system continues to view nature as primarily straints on ecological-political choices be humans will have to make way. How are the a resource and only places limits on con­ transcended. costs to be spread? . sumption so as to niaintain sustainability.of Finally, we must recognize that we cannot If one takes a slrictly local perspective, exploitation. In contrast, constraints imposed alter the existing biocidal order without broad­ trying to balance the interests ofa local human by regarding the ecosystem and other species based support. Only with an understanding of population with the interests of a local non­ as valuable in and of themselves sharply nar­ human social relations can we develop suc­ human population, an assessment ofcompet­ row the range ofappropriate human behavior: cessful strategies for protecting the Earth·s ing interests gives a result less favorable to if it injures the biosphere, don't do it. diversity. To move beyond the.existing order, non-human life. If one accepts extensive hu­ The distinction between the two views is we neeq to understand who our potential allies man presence as given, human interests in their seen to be much deeper when we examine the are, as well as what the obstacles are. The poor, existing livelihood must be weighed without roots and social function ofhigh consumption we must remember, go to the rainforest to farm taking into account significant human numbers levels. On a psychologicalleve~ much con­ because they have been driven off land they elsewhere or lack of others elsewhere. The sumption is a result ofalienation, from nature formerly cultivated by the wealthy, who can pressure on already diminished populations of and self (nature within). Endless accumula­ make higher profits producing cash crops for other species would continue to grow. tion and the distractions it offers are essential

64 WILD EARTH SUMMER 1992 features of developed societies and of upper gulf between humanity and nature, and with Insofar as pacifist values are taken up by those classes elsewhere in the world. Such attempts an ungrounded faith in the human mission to "outside" these structures, they provide some to substitute possessions for empowerment, manage the planet. check. But because they are human-centered sense of place, and authentic relationships are Some anarchist, marxist and feminist - the point of opposing mihtarization is to never satisfactory. A hunger for more remains. theory does suggest that part ofrealizing one's end human waste and suffering - it is easy to On a social level, consumption is used by fullest humanity, i.e., part of the process of neutralize them by appeal to other human elites to manage large segments of the popu­ transcending alienation, involves embracing values, other forms of suffering even worse lation. Give people enough stuff and they forget one's place in nature. With these views, non­ than war or the costs ofdeterrence. The other theirpainandpowerlessness. The poormake do alienated being rnay requil;e recognizing the great weakness is that much pacifist thinking with the promise of some distant level of natural as well as the human community as does not address adequately the roots of mili­ consumption and in the meantime tum to other valuable. However, where one simply values tarism, something I shall attempt to do below. forms of distraction, often drugs qua drugs. the human interest in non-alienation, dualism If one values nature in and of itself, then Dominant Western and liberal capitalist and anthropocentrism remain, and serve as a human goals and needs are placed within the views do not acknowledge such a thing as theoretical foundation for structures ofcontrol. context of a larger community. The value overconsumption. To liberalism, high levels of This is not to say feminist, anarchist or placed on the integrity of that community consumption are viewed as a measure of the other critical social theory is fundamentally militates heavily against any human-centered success of our civilization and individuals incompatible with biocentrism; but insofar as rationalization for exploitation. A biocentric within it, representing the triumph of control such theories accept the assumption that the view limits the conversion of biomass to hu­ and technique, of humans over nature. Liber­ rest of nature exists solely for humanity's use, man use. Such a view poses a threat to the alism embraces dualism, hierarchy, atomism, they fail to address a central form of domina­ survival of particular social systems and even aH tbe machinery of control; nature is fodder, tion. If species hierarchy is justified, then hi­ the historical system of social systems; but it the "other," something to be mastered and erarchy is justified. Thus much of what such does not pose a threat to the survival of the managed. Man (intentional masculine) is the critiques abhor follows from any human­ species, as some would argue. Quite the op­ centerpiece of the universe. centered view. posite - the threat to both us and the planet Many human-centered theories do rec­ Biocentrism draws a clear line. To reject comes from this system of systems. ognize the roles that high levels of consump­ the human/nature dualism is to reject the "tri­ Because modem militarism is particularly tion play in many societies. The marxisms of umph" of the e~ghtenment attempt to control virulent, attempts to understand this blight are Reich, Marcuse, Gorz and others are con­ nature. It is to reject the triumph of know 1- often limited to the modem period. Certainly cerned with how high· consumption both re­ edge and technique and analysis over earth the combination of enlightenment arrogance sults from and further feeds alienation. But wisdom, understanding and.cOnnectedness. It with science and technology, embedded in the most marxist views remain wedded to some is to reject the focus on things rather than re­ international political economy resulting from kind of control over nature and thus embrace lationships. By rejecting these and valuingnature the European expansion, has produced a dan­ dualism as well as open-ended material growth in and of itself, a biocentric view limits human gerous world. But we must look deeper into through progress in technology and social or­ consumption more fundamentally than any human history to grasp the underlying dy­ ganization. Marxism espouses an unlimited anthropocentric view can; it does so by thor­ namic of militarism. Though it has reached faith in human intelligence and rationality: the oughly rejecting the roots of such consump­ new proportions, militarism is an essential evolution of human consciousness will keep tion. In its place biocentrism values the web feature of something very old: civilization. It pace with any problems. But marxism does of life, as well as its parts, ofwhich we are one. is inseparable from social systems based upon reject the view of the world as essentially at­ hierarchy (class, gender and ethnic), control omized. As Oilman has ably demonstrated, MILITARISM of nature, and denial of self. It is an essential Marx saw things as constituted by their rela­ feature of societies where the state exists, tionships and the field of relationships. One As with overconsumption we might ask where the state attempts to substitute itselffor cannot change nature without changing oneself what system of values would constrain mili­ authentic puman community, and where lim­ nor change an element in a system without tarism more: human or biosphere centered? ited conflict between communities has been changing the system. A profound ecological By recognizing the value of nature and other replaced by the institutionalized conflict of truth is recognized in such a perspective. species apart froin their usefulness to humans, center and periphery and ofcompeting centers. Much radical feminist ~ory rejects all a significant constraint is imposed on the The history of civilization, beginning with its institutionalized hierarchy. According to many conduct of warfare and more importantly the emergence in the Neolithic, is the story of the feminists, the social problem is not so much economic activity essential to preparation for human attempt to control nature through who has poweI; but power or domination itself. war. Indeed, the consumption of ''resources'' technology and social organization. This at­ Relationships and community are essential to create and maintain the industrial capacity tempt to control nature splits us from it and values in this understanding. Both feminists geared to arms production - for whatever becomes the driving force behind a social de­ and those concerned with domination based purpose - assaults the biosphere, even more velopment that includes patriarchy, class on ethnic differences have shown how the than war itself: All human-centered value domination, statism and militarism. category of "the other" runs throughout civi­ systems necessarily fall prey to the easy ratio­ Though most (but by no means all) hu­ lization,justifYing oppression and exploitation nalization ofrnilitarism. man-centered value systems eschew milita­ of anything that falls within it. Many human centered value systems, rism, they almost all hold civilization as a Thus, several anthropocentric world­ religious and secular, are critical of militari­ crowning achievement. Some value systems views do object to Cartesian dualism and lib­ zatlOn; but all are largely ineffective. The praise the military spirit. Most condemn it as eral atomism. But nature and other species failure comes in part from the wedding of a necessary evil; i.e., they justifY it even as they remain excluded from the community either values to structures of power -church or state condemn it. The point here is that civilization explicitly or by silence. One is left with the - that depend upon force for their survival. is based upon and constituted by relationships

Wild Earth 65 ------"'lIII, of domination that necessarily produce the Biocentrism offers a direction for human munity. But this is an argument against 181ge conflict and inequality which make militarism society based on finding our place in nature. concentrations of people, not necessarily inevitable. Human-centered critics maintain Such a transformation, if effected world-wide, against the overall size of the human popula­ a fervent faith in the human mission to manage, would be as fundamental as the Neolithic or tion. Such a notion coufd simply lead to in the human ability to disentangle what is industrial revolutions. turning the planet into one large countryside inextricably linked. They speak from within of villages, with little room for wilderness. It the perspective of civilization, and cannot see OVERPOPULATION is also questionable whether the planet could the need to transcend the precarious ground on support five and a half billion people in vil­ which they (we) teeter. The debate over human population is lages, i.e., without the highly organized Critical theory shares much in common particularly passionate and wide ranging. My structures and technologies that are based on with liberal theory in this area. Some marxist purpose here is to explicate the differences a human domination of other humans. (William analysis of the genesis of modem militarism biocentric approach makes to ecosystem deg­ Catton and others have argued persuasively is sound. The notion that many human ills radation. Even as it limited overconsumption, that even with high energy economies we would be solved with the end of class society a biocentric approach would result in reduced cannot sustain existing numbers; the structures is also appealing. But the end of class is not human numbers. For biocentrists, human re­ that support - and exploit - them are not the end of the state nor of domination, and production is not an absolute right, b~t is sustainable, built as they are on phantom car­ hence not the end of social systems that pro­ constrained by the overall value accorded to rying capacity. Moreover these economies duce militarism. (Nor is the end of capitalism ecosystem diversity and integrity. Thus from have so degraded the Earth that real, i.e. long­ the end ofclass.) The control of nature and of a blOcentric view what is important is that term, carrying capacity has been reduced.) social and cultural evolution are values deeply dams kill rivers, whatever the human purpose The notion that population concentrations embedded in most marxism. So although behind them: whether to irrigate 10,000 sub­ limit human autonomy, i.e. freedom of col­ Marxism has developed useful models for sistence farms or a single agribusiness enter­ lective and individual action in a wide variety understanding social transformation, the as­ prise growing com for hog feed. ofways, needs further exploration. Qearly the sumptions, perspective and content of the Anthropocentric approaches to popula­ large existing human populations are an inte­ transformative vision are very much within the tion vary, but none offers significant biosphere gral part ofthe hierarchical order of industrial human- centered tradition. protection. Die-hard enlightenment groupies society. Human history suggests iliat large Some feminism gets much closer to the argue there is no such problem as overpopu­ human populations make hierarchy inevitable. source of the problem in its critique ofhierar­ lation. They believe we will always find ways A powerful implication of this is that large chy generally, and particularly its under­ to support human numbers without destroying human populations may so restrict human standing of the centrality of patriarchy to the life-support system of the planet. Others perceptions and ability to act that devolutionib1 militarism and to producing humans amenable see environmental degradation not as a result strategies are inevitably frustrated. The re~o­ to domination. At times, however, feminist of population per se but of the level and type lutionary process in the modem period is a theory falls into a kind of intra-specific dual­ of consumption, as if human numbers made good analogy. While the rhetoric of revolu­ ism, i.e., human males are the problem (at the no difference. They see existing human tion has touched the human yearning for both same time claiming that females created ag­ numbers as manageable with egalitarian con­ hberation and bread, the outcome ofrevolution riculture, which became the economic foun­ sumption, implying much reduced levels in the has invariably meant stronger centralized in­ dation for the emergence of hierarchy), developed world. While this might reduce the stitutions and more hierarchy (and greater ignoring that systems adapt to and alter the overall impact, how much is questionable; and exploitation of the earth). Recent human his­ environment, and individuals adapt to (even with continued population growth that differ­ tory lends itselfto the conclusion that attempts while they resist) the roles created by the ence could easily be eaten up again. Still oth­ to reform large (in terms ofpopulation density) system's division of labor. Even where this ers, mostly in the developed world, are hierarchical societies don't result in less hier­ dualism is not at issue, most feminism, like concerned about overpopulation in the Third archy, notwithstanding stated goals. Large marxism, remains human centered. Feminist World because it threatens limited resources human numbers may make it impossible to values such as community, spontaneity, and which those in the developed world would like impl~\llent policies needed to allow Earth to integration of emotion and intellect militate to continue to consume disproportionately to heal, Le. policies that reduce population, con­ against the worst features of mainstream hu­ protect their lifestyles. sumption, etc. man-centered values, but still fail to take ac­ Certainly all the above approaches might Throughout human history egalitarian count of our flawed relationship with nature, allow the preservation of wilderness for hu­ and nature-embedded societies have been which underlies the social structures that man needs, ranging from solitude to biological conquered or destroyed by more "advanced", produce militarism. sustainability. But the narrow protection they hierarchical societies. In the world today, any Marxism, feminism and other critical offer is inadequate to preserve ecosystem in­ society can protect nature only at its own peril. social theory have contributed to understand­ tegrity. And under the press of increasing To do so, it must resist the enormous pressure ing the dynamic of our civilization, but they numbers, preservation and long-term concems ofa world economic system driven by greed. tend to miss the point that ifnonhuman life is are put aside, and an unending series of"fixes" And resistance itself requires resources. not valued for itself, then life is not valued for is pursued. Rivers are dammed and ''replaced'' Deep ecologists recognize that the nega­ itself. Any system of values that does not with fish hatcheries and recreation areas. tive human impact on the rest of nature is at­ transcend nature-as-other cannot limit de­ The only anthropocentric approach to tributable to particular forms of social struction of the biosphere as effectively as one population that is wary oflarge numbers is that structure, and that human numbers are shaped that embraces all life as intrinsically valuable. thread of the anarchist tradition which recog­ by such structures as well as by biological Nor can sUch a value system help to heal the nizes that democracy and freedom, autono­ factors. Social structure influences, if not fundamental split in the human psyche which mous collective and individual action, are only determines, cultural beliefs concerning birth, makes possible civilization and militarism. possible in a human-scale, face to face com- the desirability of children and so on, as well

66 WILD EARTH SUMMER 1992 15 affecting more directly the need for children unique (every species and ecosystem is, as utes the costs and benefits of the new adap­ work, provide for their J1arents, etc. Struc.­ even humanists would admit), but better. In tive strategies unequally, favoring the decision affects relative human health, i.e. both short, the same arrogance, the same split that makers and shapers ofa society's values. birthrates ai1d death rates. Changed structures has brought us to the current crisis. Culture, then, allows us to trade our place 00 result in changed population munbers, in nature for larger human numbers spread VALVES AND CULTURE < density, etc. over the entire planet, converting large But while structure clearly shapes popu­ All value systems are part of a broader amounts of the biosphere to our purposes, so lation, population also shapes structur6. The cultural framework that mediates human be­ long as we are willing to pay the price of the emergence ofhurruin hierarchy and its evolu­ havior by shaping personality and thought. various forms of domination and alienation. . lion are in significant part responses to popu­ Culture organizes human experiences and The plasticity with which evolution has en­ lation pressure. gives it meaning. Biocentric values are no dowed us allows us to create alienating and Mark Nathan Cohen has argued that when exception - they are part of a larger cultural biocidal sociocultural systems, but .does not migration for dealing with increased numbers framework, albeit an emergent one which in­ require it; such systems are not natural in the is no longer possible, one alternative is more cludes an understanding of the role of cul­ sense of necessary or in the sense of being in intense exploitation of the limited area avail­ ture generally as well as the critique of tune with our deepest nature. (We should not able. More intense exploitation involves particular cultures. forget that while cancer is part of nature, it kills technology and social organization based on To point to the Neolithic as the origin of its host.) There are other cultural possibilities, increased division of labor, social differentia­ the culture of control is not enough. A including biocentric ones. Indeed, for most of tion, and ultimately hierarchy and domination. biocentric view places these events in a larger the time humans have been around we have The means developed to exploit and control context. It is necessary to understand how the lived in communities that included the rest of nature involve the control ofpeople by an elite. capacity for culture itself and the resulting nature. We can do so again. this time with full The structures and technologies resulting from plasticity in human behavior, thought and knowledge of the alternatives and their price. adaptation to population pressure (and other emotion. and our ability to learn and pass on To limit our biocidal possibilities is not un­ factors), in turn both allow and require larger learning (attitudes and world views as well as natural, as Baird Callicott quite rightly argues, populations, greater growth, which in tum technical or social information), enables us to because cultural systems always limit behav­ tends to lead to breakdown or more intense divide ourselves. This capacity for culture ior Culture is always prescriptive. forms of exploitation based on greater hierar­ allowed human populations threatened with Deep ecology does not deny or seek to chy and differentiation. This is not merely a localized overshoot in the Neolithic to increase end human cultural evolution, but to see that vicious circle but a downward spiral. the human carrying capacity by altering both human cultural evolution does not end or im­ Thus, large human numbers not only their behavior and the environment substan­ poverish biological evolution. Deep ecology convert great amounts of Earth's biomass to tially. The split itselfwas probably never very calls for human cultures that are respective of human use, they also contribute to the prolif­ obvious, partly because changes were cumu­ the biosphere, for cultural evolution within a eration of structures of control. These struc.­ lative over a long time. Moreover, the very broader biospheric evolution, an evolution in tures, in tum. make it difficult to organize for capacity for culture allows us to deny the es­ which humans are a part, not would-be direc­ significant reform-which both human lib­ trangement, even requires such denial for both tors. We are not wise enough to be directors; eration and ecological health require. It is psychological and social reasons. And the true wisdom is the recognition of place and difficult to overcome the inertia of socializa­ emerging social dynamic ofhierarchy distrib- process. So it is not human cultural evolution tion, and even if large numbers could be awakened, they might not be able to effect change. Not only because of the violent re­ sistance of the political-economic hierarchy, but because reform programs would only work populations small enough to not need IleXlreruave economic and political institutions to survive. A life-centered or planet-centered value system requires that we transcend the split with within our own psyches and in our relationships: how we consume and the biosphere. Far fewer humans; far levels Qf consumption for many, much IUIIDro'vea levels for others; the re-creation of IlaulheIltic cormnunities that reintegrate the into nature -- these are a few of the .imJpliCCltiOltlS of such an ethic. In contrast, a human-centered approach on wiser ifnot greater human control. its more progressive forms we hear words 'stewardship' rather than 'ownership'. underlying the concept of stewardship of ~resourc::es. as well as the concept of ownership resources, is the notion we are not only Wild Earth 67 that deep ecologists see as the problem, but the particular paths taken over the last several Lalld .Ethics thousand years. There are alternatives to the carnage, both of the biosphere and other cul­ tures, that civilization brings. The To say that much of what we call civili­ zation must somehow be fundamentally transformed is to say that the human social and cultural dynamic founded on and constituted Language of Owning by various relationships ofdomination must be overcome. It may represent a kind ofreturn to the past, but in the service of the future. For the last several thousand years our species has behaved much like one might expect adoles­ cents from a severely dysfunctional family to by Eric T. Freyfogle act. We must go back to where things went wrong ~ to the origins of our estrangement -­ Last fall, when the yellows and oranges words about ecology followed by words about and pick up from there. In doing so we would began to creep onto the Illinois plains, a weary private property. The lawmakers, it seemed, make use ofall that has occurred in the interim. caravan of state lawmakers pulled into the were in luck, for they could agree with every· We have already paid dearly for the lessons. college town where I teach. They came to hear one. The state could protect wetlands, but only The roots ofbiocentrism are deep and its what the people had to say about wetlands and when the endless budget crunch left money to emergence in modem form is a result of both whether the state ought to protect them. buy the land. the resilien~ ofearth wisdom and the current Illinois's landscape once boasted ex­ Twenty years ago a hearing like 'this crisis - just as surely as human centered panses of wet meadows and wooded flood­ would have fostered sharp debate on the value values and cultural systems are a result of the plains, lands that for millennia added richness of marshes and floodplains. Back then wet· Neolithic crisis. and stability to the tallgrass prairies and the lands were worthless until drained or filled. By accepting biocentric limits on our oak-hickory forests. These days only scattered But on this crisp September eveI).ing in cen· behavior we undermine the wall we erected wetlands remain. Six wet acres out of7 have tral illinois, no farmer stood up to discredit the between ourselves and nature and the resulting been drained or filled, or so we're told by the now-clear lessons of ecology. 11Je language culture of domination. In doing so we accept US Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmen­ of interdependence has spread too wide. "The constraints on overconsumption, militarism tal leaders put the figure higher, at something issue was no longer one ofscience, it was abow and human numbers that no human centered like 10 acres out of every 11. land ownership and the many things that pri. system ofvalues could impose. Domination and Many at the wetlands hearings wanted to vate ownership means. hierarchy, the attempts to control that give rise to talk about ecology. Local environmentalist At one time, public lands seemed to offer high levels ofconsumption and militarism, will Bruce Hannon spoke from the head and from the key to a healthy Earth strategy. Long be· be unshakable problems until we recognize we the heart as he related the Illinois version of fore the Wilderness Act ofl964, lovers of wild cannot substitute our intellect for nature. the standard wetland tale-the ,tale of water areas were pushing hard to pr9tect our nation ~ ALLIANCES quality, wildlife habitat, silt-removal, and forests, grazing lands, and other public spaces. abundant beauty. Hannon was followed by But it is clear now that a sound Earth requires Wilderness is the result of four billion Virginia Scott of the Illinois Environmental more than just well maintained public frag­ years of evolvmg Earth wisdom. The land Council, who spoke more stridently, about ments, more than islands ofhealth surrounded ethic espoused by Aldo Leopold is not com­ short-sightedness, destruction, and greed. by an ailing countryside. The push for land patible with most of the existing human order. On the north side of the ballroom floor health is turning toward private land, the kind But we will lose the battle for the planet unless the first four rows were filled with somber men ofland that Illinois fanners own and put to hard we realize that it is not some generalized and in suits. These were farmers and they had annual use. amorphous anthropocentrism or egocentrism come because the state's remaining wetlands When Illinois farmers talk of private that is the problem. Human alienation has its are mostly in farmers' hands. Some came as property, they draw upon an age-old vocabu· roots in a particular historical dynamic that prosperous grain harvesters; others faced hard lary and tradition. To America's founders must be understood to be overcome. We can­ times and knew personally the ecop.omic private land offered protection against an not dismiss the struggles over human social storms that have bruised and battered the overreaching state. Property served as a SOllI'a structure and realize a deep ecological vision. Midwest's small towns. of strength to resist intrusions on liberty, a That vision in the hearts of a few will not be These men were there to speak, not about source of independence in the face ofvenal it) enough. Nor can we wait for all persons to ecology and interdependence but of world and vested interest. fmd their way through their unrootedness. In foodstocks, of centennial farms, and of con­ Today our culture carries on this 18tlJ between is a strategy of pursuing alliances fiscation-without-compensation. Above all, century, ideology. Our inherited sense oj against common economic, political, social they came to talk about private property, and property sticks with us, and its fiber is strong and cultural structures, aiways keeping a how and why it must be protected against enough to resist prodding into the ecological healed Earth as our central goal. limits on what landowners can do. Like the age. As we move to protect the Earth, one of environmentalists, their words were earnest, our biggest tasks will be to grab hold of this David Johns is a some time teacher of passionate, and clear. concept of property and give it a vigorom politics who planer trees in Portland. Oregon. This, then, was the evening's dialogue, shake. So long as private ownership means

68 WILD EARTH SUMMER 1992