Chapter 4

Arne Naess’ Deep Ecology

4.1 Arne Naess’ and deep ecology movement
Determined by the pressing environmental situation, a conscious minority has
worked to raise consciousness about the planet's deterioration. These efforts range
from education and governance to the establishment of organizations. The initial
spark for awareness of these issues came with the publication of Rachel Carson's The
Silent Spring (1962), which became a best-seller in its first year. The contents of this
book served as the impetus for the establishment of Earth Day in 1970, giving voice
to a growing public consciousness about the status of the world.
In the same respect, the literature that ignited the Environmental awareness of the
people also served as the fuel for Arne Naess’ environmental thoughts to develop.
Norwegian ecophilosopher Arne Naess presented his short paper "The shallow and
the deep, long range ecology movement" during the third world futures conference in
Bucharest in 1972. This paper introduced the deep ecology and shallow ecology
movements into the area of environmentalism. A form of deep questioning about the
goals and viability of industrial growth in relation to society and the environment.
The paper also sought to articulate the philosophical and scientific conclusions and
intuitions of the current ecological revolution. A deep-seated respect or even
veneration of the wild nature, anti-class posture, local autonomy and decentralization
are among Naess' claims that "we are all similar everywhere." In general, deep
ecology advocates fighting pollution and resource depletion.1

4.2. Shallow-deep distinction

Later in the career of Arne Naess, the contrasting notions of the “deep” and
“shallow” ecology continues to develop as a means of exposing the inadequacies of
much of the existing standards and modes of thinking in relation to the
environmental issues. In order to understand this distinction, his concept of the self
must be taken into consideration. His concept of the self can be interpreted in three
ways: the ego, the self, and the Self.

1
Jamieson, Dale. A Companion To Environmental Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. 219
 "Ego" refers to the narrow, selfish self. This type of self is primarily
concerned with satisfying an individual's bodily or biological needs. In this case, the
priority is to fulfill a desire intertwined with what the body demands or considers
important. Its satisfaction, however, may not necessarily imply the well-being of
others or entities.2
Unlike the ego, the "self" is not constrained by biological requirements. The
"self" is equally concerned with the welfare of immediate family and closest friends,
which means that the immediate or nearby surroundings are cared for and nourished
in accordance with what they now feel to be significant to an individual's well-
being.3 Between the self and the ego, it's simple to see how the concept of self
widens the borders of the ego's concept of fulfillment and how the ego is prone to
reconsider itself when confronted with entities other than its self-gratifying demands.
The "Self," on the other hand, is more inclusive than the self. According to
Naess, this type of self encompasses all organisms or living forms in the milieu.
Unlike the ego, it is not constrained by the interests of an entity or the self's
immediate environment. The self strives to uphold, therefore identifying with the
total well-being of the environment.4As Naess asserts, "Individual identity, "that I am
something," is formed by interaction with a diverse array of organic and inorganic
substances. There is no such thing as an isolable I, no such thing as an isolable social
unit."5
4.2.1 Shallow Ecology movement
Shallow ecology, stood as a a belief that environmental problems could be solved
by capitalism, industry, and human-led interventions. Shallow in the sense that it
does not transcend what is presented; it does not dwell into the ultimate level in
values and conceptions of the world. Its concern is, primarily, concentrated on the
impinging implications of pollution and resource depletion in industrialized nations,
and only with minor reform of the system without fundamental changes in values and
practices. It is concerned with the health and affluence of industrial nations. As
2
Arne Naess, and David Rothenberg, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy, (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003). 174
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid. 165
5
Ibid. 164
 Naess suggests that the focus of “Ecologically responsible policies are concerned
only in part with pollution and resource depletion.”6
“The main theoretical complaint against the shallow ecology movement is not that
it is based on a well-articulated but incorrect philosophical or reli- gious
foundation. It is, rather, that there is a lack of depth—or complete absence—of
guiding philosophical or religious foundations.”7
A line of thinking holds that the structure of society provide a suitable starting
point for the solution of environmental problems, and imagines environmental
problems, and imagines environmental issues in a human-centered approach. 8 Albeit,
being anthropocentric, shallow ecology is not devoid of any value. Instead, it has the
tendency to focus on superficial solutions to environmental problems. Furthermore,
this view of ecology, for Naess, imagined mankind as a superior being within the
ecosystem and did not acknowledge the need for wider social reform. The broader
social, philosophical, and political roots of these problems were left unsolved – the
primary concern was with the narrow interests of humans, rather than nature in its
entirety.9
4.2.2. Deep Ecology movement
In contrast with the concept of “shallow ecology,” deep ecology movement
embraces its principles, that is, the dramatic reform of human behavior, as a result of
deep questioning of mainstream values, beliefs, and practices to arrive at intuitions
that are at the level of ultimate norms and hypotheses. 10 Furthermore, in order to
arrive into such, the whole process requires a person to tap on the countless other
areas within the scope of human relations. This must be considered in as much as an
individual be able to arrive at the level of realizing the “Self.” The failure to consider
the diversity and the complexity of the thought process required in arriving at a
conclusion proved to be detrimental..Thus, the whole platform loses its most crucial
and fundamental characteristics.

6
Arne Naess, “Deep Ecology Of Wisdom: Explorations in Utilities of Nature and Cultures; Selected Papers (Dorecht:
Springer, 2005) 2
7
Ibid. 51
8

9
Ibid. 16
10
 The first principle that must be considered is the concept of intrinsic relations; “all
living beings are ultimately one.”11 Placing a definite reference to the
interconnectedness of all the entities within the biospherical community. This include
the fundamental interdependence, richness, and diversity as contributing factors of
12
human and nonhuman life on earth. These factors hold the structure of the
environment and the diversity of organism within it. An important formulation in the
deep ecology mainly because the three factors served as instruments and not values
in themselves.
Another concept that deep ecology promotes is “Biospherical Egalitarianism,” the
self-congratulatory and lordly attitude toward those beings that may seem, to some
people, to be less developed, less complex, less beautiful, or less miraculous. 13 A that
follows the the first principle, that is, in order to arrive at the realization of
organismic equality, it is necessary to first understand that each being possess
intrinsic values. This, however, does not come automatically. Instead, there is a
necessity to acquire the capacity to identify strongly with certain kinds of living
beings, and to suffer what they suffer. This is hat Naess calls as the “felt nearness” of
different living beings.14 This stood as an indispensable factor in creating an ethical
conduct. On cannot devise a set of practices and norms without considering the
limited capacities, and such personal feelings, seriously.
Additionally, diversity, complexity and symbiosis is integrated into the whole
thought process of deep ecology. In order to understand these concepts, they must be
contextualized in the terms; potential and life. The term potentials connotes the
indefinite number of possibilities or capacities that an entity possesses that translates
to their growth and development. On the other hand, life refers to the vast kind of
wholeness which pertains to the network of living relations or the interdependence of
all life forms in an environmental mileau. 15 In this sense, diversity can be interpreted
as the qualitative differences of entities in the environment; complexity as the set

11
Ibid
12
Ibid. 59
13
Arne Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
 qualitatively different factors available in a given environmental milieau; and
symbiosis as the beneficial interdependence of all life forms.16
By understanding the aforementioned concepts, self-realisation, Naess’ claim that
all life forms have equal right to live, 17 can then be achieved. This means that such
rights represent an equal claim on the part of all creatures to perform certain
functions and contribute to the design of the environment. On this note, equality for
Naess might refer to an egalitarian view that each life form is crucial to the
fulfillment of other life forms' developmental potentials in nature. It is also the
egalitarian attitude that also grounds Naess’s idea that no single entity is more
important or more valuable in the environment. He argues that if it is acknowledged
that one species is more valuable than another, the more powerful beings will have
the right to damage and murder the less powerful. For Naess, heirarchy of values
does not exist in nature.18
4.2.3 Areas of contentions
In evaluating the two distinct approaches to the environmental concerns, there is a
handful of key terms and slogans from several debates that can be contrasted. The
exposition of this will clearly clarify the differences between approaches and its
principles.
4.2.3.1 pollution
The “shallow” ecological movement approaches the issue of pollution in an
anthropogenic manner and seeks the aide of technology, not in order to eradicate
pollution, but in order to spread it more evenly. This matter is evident on the way
laws in relation to the environment are structured, that is; laws only places limits on
what is permissible and what is not. Thus, polluting industries are preferably
exported to developing countries.19
On the contrary, deep ecology places a greater emphasis on evaluating the
situation in a biospheric point of view. Setting aside the human health as its primary
focus, and shifts the nexus to life in general, to include the life conditions of every

16

17
Arne Naess, Ecology community and lifestyle
18
Ibid
19
Arne Naess, “Deep Ecology Of Wisdom: Explorations in Utilities of Nature and Cultures; selected papers”
 species and system. In a simpler terms, deep ecology seeks to understand and address
the most fundamental causes of pollution, and not the superficial and immediate
effects.20
4.2.3.2 resources
In the aspect of resource consumption, the individuals that fall under the shallow
approach places a greater emphasis on the utility of resource in relation to human
beings. Associating resources as an expendable that only benefits the immediate or
present generation, and that those with the technology to exploit them holds the right
to do so. Furthermore, with this mode of thinking, arises the confidence that resource
depletion will not happen because, as the exploitation continues; it necessarily
follows that the rarity of a specified species, increases and so is its market price. This
then, triggers conservation measures and alternatives to be devised through
technological advancements in order to compensate for the shortage. Thus, with this
mode of thinking plants, animals, and natural objects are valuable only as
expenditures for humans. If some are categorized and tagged useless, they are
destroyed.21
The deep approach on the other hand, places its concerns with the resource and
the habitat for all life forms for their own sake. Natural resources are not taken as
mere expenditures for human use. Furthermore, this would lead to a critical
evaluation of the human modes of production and consumption. Thus, there arises a
greater emphasis on an approach that centers on the ecosystem at large, rather than
the consideration of mere isolated life-forms or local situations. There is a long-range
maximal perspective of time and place.22
4.2.3.3 cultural diversity and appropriate technology
In the aspect of technological appropriation and cultural diversity, the shallow
approach takes industrialization as the goal of developing countries. Furthermore,
taking the western technological advancements to be compatible with cultural
diversity, together with the conservation of positive elements of present non-
industrial societies. There is a low estimate od deep cultural differences in non-

20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
 industrial societies which deviate significantly from contemporary western
standards.23
On the contrary, the deep approach takes into consideration non evasive means in
reaching out with non-industrial cultures. An approach that is detached from the
economic ideologies with that of the developed countries. Furthermore, seeking to
understand cultural diversity as an analogue on the human level to the biological
richness and diversity of life-forms. Thus, a greater priority is given to cultural
anthropology in general education in industrial societies.
4.2.3.4 land and sea ethics
In relation to the land and aquatic health, individuals that subscribe to the shallow
mentality, landscapes, ecosystems, rivers, and other whole entities of nature are
conceptually cut into fragments, thus disregarding larger units and comprehensive
gestalt. Furthermore, the derivatives of these fragmentations are then regarded as
properties and resources for individuals to dispose. Subsequently, conservation
becomes an argumentation which follows the structure of utility. The social costs and
long term global ecological costs are set aside. The implications of wildlife
management then shifts its focus and aim as the conservation of nature for the future
benefit of the human race.
In the deep approach, the general thought is that, the earth does not belong to
human beings alone. Instead, human beings, like other entities, are mere inhabitants
of the land, using resources in order to satisfy vital needs, and that, non-vital needs
come in conflict with the natural role of man.
4.2.3.5 education and scientific enterprise
The shallow approach addresses degradation of the environment and resource
depletion by imploring the aid of more experts that can provide the necessary
opinions and advice on how to sustain economic growth while maintaining a healthy
environment. However, this only requires and solicits further advancements in
manipulative technologies which seeks to “manage the planet” when global
economic growth makes further damage to the environment.24

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
 Deep approach on the other hand, requires the adoption of sane ecological
policies. This also posits that education must be built around these policies, and
concentrate on an increased sensitivity to non-consumptive goods, and on such
consumables where there is enough for all. Education, therefore, must refrain from
overemphasizing the consumption of materials with price tags.25

25
Ibid.