Carbon-sucking trees. Mirrors in space. Oceans fertilized with urea. Some of these ideas seem better suited to the annals of science fiction than to modern-day solutions to climate change. Geo-engineering — along with nanotechnology and bioengineering — belongs to a class of scientific innovation that many fear will threaten the integrity of life as we know it. Environmentalists of the “deep ecology” school fear that an overly technical approach to climate change glosses over the real issues (human greed and overconsumption), and could drive us toward a future more Blade Runner than ecotopia.
From a deep ecology perspective, the environment is governed by a complex natural order that is superior to any human artifice. When faced with the challenge of climate change, deep ecologists believe that we must restore the world’s “natural” balance, and that overly technical solutions are an arrogant attempt to improve upon nature. Wendell Berry, Michael Pollan, and others have pointed out that many technological “solutions” address problems that were themselves created by technology, and that we’re ignoring the simple solutions that nature has already provided.
But what about all the problems that nature creates? Why don’t deep ecologists criticize the earth for smiting us with floods, fires, and diseases? That would be silly, of course, but it’s just as silly to criticize technology simply for being technology. As the Buddhist philosopher John McClellan writes,
Deep ecologists seem to have the same fear and loathing toward today’s out of control technology as humans have had until just recently toward Uncontrolled Nature, with her savage, untamed wastelands. They call technology inhuman, cruel, and heartless, using the same words we once used to describe cruel wilderness – and like humans of the 19th century waging war on wild nature, environmentalists today long only to conquer technology, to subdue and control it, as we have nature herself.
Nature is no wiser than technology, and claiming adherence to nature’s laws is an attempt to bypass the messy business of ethics and values.
So what do deep ecologists value? On the surface, they seem to value life, in all its varied forms. Their mission is to protect earth’s diverse biology from the destructive forces of humanity and technology. But there’s something nihilistic about preserving ecosystems as they are – life is constantly evolving, and deep ecologists’ attachment to one idea of nature denies whole worlds of future possibilities. Nietzsche argued that emulating nature means living a life of indifference:
“According to nature” you want to live? O you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain all at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power–how could you live according to this indifference? Living—is not that precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not living–estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And supposing your imperative “live according to nature” meant at bottom as much as “live according to life”–how can you not do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, I personally see technology as something completely natural. What’s somewhat “unnatural” is our current usage of our technology. We’re far from equilibrium in that sense.
Today we’re seeing a thorough reevaluation of what we’re doing with all our technological might.
What I think is important is to never get caught up in a moral extreme, and acknowledge that what humans want is quite nuanced, and sometimes even inherently conflicting (even in one person). Equilibrium will be found in balancing our fundamental desires, for which we have to turn to science, philosophy or theology, because it’s not easy to see in the behavior or opinions of the average westerner.
Going back to “nature” is unnatural.
The Saturn V designer, Krafft Erichke, was an advocate for an “Extraterrestrial Imperative”. What I found fascinating on his proposal (e.g., terraforming planets, space colonies, etc.), was that his assumptions were nearly identical to the deep ecology perspective (i.e., the problem is too many people and our technology is incompatible with “nature”).
His solution was certainly not deep ecology, but it shows that even the same set of initial assumptions can lead to vastly different conclusions depending on one’s outlook.
In the light of space travel, I think the more people (in a sustainable way) the better, because more people means more brains, and thus more creativity, which we’ll certainly need to get further than mars. The next solar system is well… a long distance away.
Meryn, I would challenge you to examine your definitions of natural and unnatural. I totally agree with you that we need to be conscious and deliberate about the way we use technology (and nature), but I’m not sure that I’d say our current use of technology is “unnatural” or even “unbalanced.” These terms seem empty to me — what isn’t natural? From McSweeney’s:
“Pretty much everything is natural, including this sentence. What makes it natural? The fact that it has the word ‘natural.’”
And how to be more deliberate in our decisions, to attain some form of “balance”? You mention using philosophy, theology, or science as a guide, and I’d take issue with the latter. Science is amoral — it helps us understand the world around us, but it can’t make decisions for us. The “science” never tells us to do anything, and claiming that it does is the same as claiming that nature or the earth demands a certain line of action.
I think you’re assessment of deep ecology (although maybe not deep ecologists) is a little bit off. Deep ecology doesn’t seek to put the needs of nature above humanity. It seeks to confront the extreme anthropomorphic elements of society, and as stated before, find a balance – but not to eliminate technology/humanity!
Technology, as you state, isn’t inherently good or bad. There are technologies that will help humanity and/or the biosphere, and there are technologies that will harm either/both of those as well. Deep ecology seeks to use the technologies that have benefits for humanity (ie democratic technologies) and the biosphere (ie not toxic). These technologies do not exemplify man’s domination over nature, but rather, man’s ability to recognize his place as a part of nature.
One of the biggest problems with deep ecology is that it is so theoretical, and when people try to put it into practice, they often get caught up in backwards preservationist or monkeywrenching. I think this is wrong. However, I also think that the assumptions you’re making is that humans have continually improved upon nature, which is obviously not true.
If our goal with addressing climate change is simply human survival, then I have complete faith in our species to find a solution, even if a couple billion people have to die first. However, a deep ecology approach to climate change says that we do have to address the fundamental problems with our society (including overconsumption). A simple look at the per capita CO2 emissions reflects our inefficient resource use, and that doesn’t even include the emissions we’re exporting abroad. Any “standard of living” response should only be taken with a grain of salt in that SOL is measured completely by our own standards.
Deep ecology is about celebrating both humanity and the biosphere. It’s about recognizing the failures and successes that we’ve had from the beginning of our existence through today. It does not assume some vague natural state that we must return to, but only that we can learn from the mistakes of our past, and rethink some of the approaches that we take to address these mistakes.
Kai,
I’m not assuming that humans have continually improved upon nature; rather, I’m arguing that all human activity — technology included — is necessarily a part of nature. Therefore the term “nature” doesn’t make much sense as a category to help us make decisions, since when you think about it, it includes EVERYTHING.
I don’t think man needs to “recognize his place in nature,” as you say. After all, that statement already assumes a certain separation between man and nature. I think we need to start by realizing that nature is what we make it, and that knowledge of human power should inspire us to create a nature that we want to live in.
I think the reason Kai said “recognize man’s place is nature” is because one of the most fundamental assumptions of western culture and modern society is that man is separate from nature (just look at the bible, or even the fact that we have the term ‘nature’ as an external concept). Deep ecology seeks to challenge / change that assumption. Of course then it’s reactive, so deep ecologists obviously don’t believe that man is separate from nature, but they are positing their world view in a context where the majority believe in the separation.
I wouldn’t say ‘nature is what we make it’… perhaps a better word is ‘life’ or ‘quality of existence’… we control our impact on the world outside of our bodies, and we should certainly be cognizant / ethical about that.
Yeah, mostly what Rachel said. Deep ecologists would simply reply that your assumption of human control of our surroundings (“nature is what we make it”) is incredibly anthropocentric and results in a more fundamental psychological and spiritual divide between man and his surroundings. Your assumptions that a human-created and controlled “nature” would be better or more beneficial than what evolution has created (& continues to create) is incredibly arrogant.
I’m not saying that humans don’t or shouldn’t interact with nonhuman life…we need to be far more tactful about how we do so. However, continuing a domination of nonhuman life will also continue to divide man and “nature,” something we can both agree is undesirable.
Human activity has the capacity to accelerate the change within an ecosystem at a rate much faster and with greater intensity than any other species. This capacity is not born of the functioning of our bodies, or the resources needed to sustain ourselves. With an average of 1 hectare of land per peson in the world the planet likely still has the capacity to manage these most basic impacts of human activity. The great potential for humans to heal or to harm comes from our creativity and innovation, of which techonolgy is one expression.
The history of technological advancement starts off as a rather benign influence – the creation of the wheel and the ability to harness fire, though both things that impact an ecosystem, are in general very manageable influences for most ecosystems. I don’t think that many deep ecologists sit fearful of the influence of the hammer. More recently however, we have born witness to an increasing ability of humans to effect the functioning of the planet through our technological innovations. Our influence on the planet is increasing exponentially and most people will find it difficult to argue that this influence is having a positive effect for any form of life other than human, and that even the long-term human benefits are often debatable.
Though I cannot claim to speak for a whole movement, my understanding of deep ecology is that the movement seeks not to avoid ethics or values, but instead tries to confer equal rights to the non-human parts of the natural world in order that we can include the rest of life in our values and ethics. Central to the movement is the idea that all life, including the planet as a whole, has an inherent value beyond what is deemed useful for human activity. If one humbly affords equal rights not only to humans, but to the rest of nature as well, and if one agrees that our recent influence on the planet through technology has had a net negative effect on these species, then one might begin to empahtize with the view point that we must approach our technological experimentation with a deep respect for its power to negatively effect the myriad lives on this planet.
There can be no doubt that in the most extreme viewpoints a fear of technology is expressed, coupled with a desire to eliminate human influence on the planet – just look at organizations like “The Voluntary Human Excticntion Movement”. We can’t allow these extremes to become the demonstrative illustrations of the deep ecology movement primarily because they are just that – extremes. Their ideas and actions have a place in our dialogues about environmental change, but we must be careful about the power we give them to influence constructive debate and to paint a whole movement. To think that the most techno-phobic and fearful extremes have managed to get the whole deep ecology movement labeled as nihilistic is frightful (just kidding).
Deep ecology is not synonomous with indifference, rather, it promotes the opposite – a sincere consideration and respect of all life on this planet. Human creativity and innovation as expressed through technology has demonstrated an increasing ability to negatively effect all life on the planet. I believe that one part of deep ecology is a call to raise our awareness about the negative effects techonolgy has caused and to explore new ways of using human creativity and innovation to begin healing some of the damage that has been done. The goal is to find ways to harness the positive potential of our human role in nature for the benefit of all life.
“We cannot solve problems with the same ways of thinking that we used when we created them” – Albert Einstein
it’s ridiculous to blame nature for smiting us with floods etc. no self-respecting deep ecologist would do so. we just have to live higher. in fact flooding is a case in point for the deep ecologists; we’ve brought it upon ourselves, and how ironic that we’ve tried so hard to control this supposedly inconstant and whimsical force called nature, and our efforts have brought us problems vast by comparison with the minor obstacles we sought originally to overcome that were to do with the effort needed for production.
and thus will it ever be. ‘nature’ is too big, too complex, ay too strong for us to think we can control at present or in the conceivable future. we have to stop tantruming and accept the boundaries that it sets us. we have to start to pay attention to the messages we’re all too clearly receiving.
nature is indifferent, and, knowing this we can begin to accept that all the technoolgical wrong-headedness we throw at it will simply be reflected back at us in ways we don’t at the moment understand and can’t at the moment predict. knowing nature is indifferent we can start to really understand the interwoven nature of its systems and then begin to project consequences. our science hasn’t matured enough for us to continue at current levels of consumption and successfully control nature.