I have some issues with some aspects of Deep Ecology. Some people within that perspective seem to think non-conscious parts of nature have intrinsic value.
Theirs is an implicitly theological perspective in that they believe either that (1) value exists independent of humans and other conscious beings, and/or (2) that the Earth itself and the universe itself has a type of consciousness, and therein a basis of value independent of humans and all other conscious beings.
But, despite that reservation, my views jibe with those of Deep Ecology in so far as we might be wise to value as much of the non-conscious life within nature as we can.
That approach seems wise, not because we don’t want to hurt a river’s or a mountain’s feelings, but because the ecosphere is so complex that we can’t be sure about how much of nature we can damage without harming humans and other conscious creatures.
Whether it’s the bees that are dying off, aquifers being depleted, or the loss of biodiversity, no human mind seems quite sure about how many pieces of nature we can rip out before the whole structure collapses, depriving humans and other animals of our life support system.
But maybe it doesn’t matter whether someone has a dualist form of ecology (consider James Lovelocke or Frijof Capra) or a materialist form of ecology, such as myself. Maybe we can follow a precautionary principle by striving to preserve nature, regardless of whether we believe Earth itself has intrinsic value and needs us to take care of ‘her.’ Further that precautionary principle might apply whether or not or not we deem the universe itself has consciousness and a will.
As you say, ecology is enlightened self-interest. Critics of ecology might think folk such as me are sacrificing life’s pleasures and our self-interest just so we can be self-righteous and holy.
But life is more fulfilling thru ecology, which for me has been a drastic improvement over the frustrations associated with being a materialistic and cynical worshiper of power and status.
Ecology is an emerging spirituality via which to outgrow theology as well as secular humanism, which are two sides of the same coin of our exaggerated sense of our species’ importance.
But that doesn’t mean we should not value human life. And it’s not a zero-sum choice between caring about ‘animals’ and caring about people. One of the ways I’m reminded of this humans-vs-animals goofiness is when people say vegans, such as myself, care more about chickens or pigs than we care about members of our own species.
In my opinion, veganism enhances one’s regard for humans. And when it comes to human survival and quality of life, we improve our prospects by outgrowing our arrogance as a species.
Leave a Reply