Talking Deep about Ecology

Fr. Urbano L. Pardillo Jr.

11489820

Introduction

The eminent truth about environmental and ecological destruction should

bring us into a realization to look into its causes and solutions. This

realization calls for an exigent action since the human beings are greatly

involved with it or at least humanitys future are at stake. Any threat to the

environment also threatens the lives in the systemic nature. But, how should

we approach the problems of environmental and ecological destruction?

What kind of reasoning and valuations should we use so as to emphasize the

need to stop the environmental crises? We all know that the answers to this

questions are not merely scientific, or philosophical but also cultural and

political.

In this essay, I am going to examine the proposals and solutions of

Robyn Eckersley in her article Ecocentrism Explained and Defended and

Arne Naess article The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology

Movement. A Summary. After examining their proposals, I shall offer my

own insight into the discussion on Deep ecology.

Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism is an approach used by Eckersley to address the environmental

issues. This position is against the anthropocentric worldview which has been

at fault for the environmental destruction. According to Eckersley, it is based

on an ecologically informed philosophy of internal relatedness, according to

which all organisms are not simply related to their environment but also

constituted y those environmental interrelationships. It is not against science

but it is against scientism which is the conviction that empiric-analytic

science is the only valid way of knowing.

Moreover, Eckersley added that ecocentrism recognize the

interrelatedness of all phenomena together with its prima facie orientation of

exclusiveness of all beings. This means that ecocentrism is far more

protective of the Earths life-support system than the anthropocentric

perspective.

Eckersley also introduces the three varieties of Ecocentrism. They are

(1) Autopoietic Intrinsic Value theory, (2) Transpersonal Ecology, and (3)

Ecofeminism. The Autopoietic Intrinsic value theory represents an approach

on the intrinsic value of entities that display self-production and self-renewal.

These entities are primarily and continuously concerned with the

regeneration of their own organizational activity and structure. This is an

axiological approach. Secondly, Transpersonal Ecology does not go with the

axiological approach, rather, it goes with the cosmological approach. It is a

cultivation of a wider sense of self through the common or everyday

psychological identification with other entities. Lastly, Ecofeminism proceeds

from a process oriented, relational image of nature and seeks mutualistic

social and ecological relationships based on a recognition of the

interconnectedness, interdependence and diversity of all phenomena.

Deep Ecology
Deep Ecology is a movement in environmental philosophy which share a

dislike on the anthropocentric value system in approaching the

environmental issues. Arne Naess invented the term Deep Ecology in

contrast to Shallow Ecology. Shallow ecology according to Naess are the

movements that concern only with the peripheral effects of environmental

crises such as pollution and resource depletion. However, Deep Ecology digs

deeper into the root causes of the problems. Thus, it offers a rejection of the

man and environment image in favor of the relational, total-field image. In

principle, it is called biospherical egalitarianism. It is the equal right to live

and blossom.

Talking Deep about Ecology

If the human person is measured by reason, to find an appropriate reasoning

for his choices and actions determines his nobility. If we are to care for the

environment, it has to come with an appropriate reason why we should do it.

The environment is in deep trouble. As rational people, we are the only ones

capable of reflection, of bending back on our thoughts and logic to find ways

to do something to find remedy on the problem. But how should we approach

the problem? This becomes a question because coming from an

anthropocentric worldview with the ingrained superiority of the human

nature it has deluded itself to think that everything is subject to domination

and exploitation. Arne Naess is correct when he said that this

anthropocentric worldview has to be rejected in favor of the Biospherical

Egalitarianism or an ecocentric view. Ecocentrism like Deep ecology is a

radical approach as it goes against the popular mindset and practice of

people. But, every rational discourse on approaches to address

environmental issues has to be proffered in order for people to act. From a

philosophical understanding, I think it should be not enough that we shall

only limit only on the shallow concerns. We should dig deeper. Activism,

anyone?