Commentary on the Article entitled: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment by Wendy Ambrosius

        Inasmuch as the present ecological condition demands a serious approach into solving the crisis that is apparent, deep ecology is offered as a viewpoint that allows human beings to view the world around him that can help address such crisis. In essence, deep ecology is a return to the religious roots of dealing with nature (environment) that aims to treat such with a form of reverence via endowment of intrinsic values. Much of the world has been exploited through anthropocentrism and through a solely instrumental view of the world; however, deep ecology aims to contend the pervading “excessive human interference” to nature.

               The article pointed out the 8 principles of deep ecology which are:

1.     Both human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value (not mainly for instrumentalization).

2.      Diversity of both human and nonhuman life makes up the intrinsic value.

3.      Humans can only use nature fit for their vital needs (survival).

4.      Both human and nonhuman life can flourish through a decrease in human population.

5.      There is an excessive human interference in the world.

6.      Shift in policies is crucial and especially those that value the environment.

7.      Life, as quality and its appreciation, trumps the need for a higher standard of living.

8.      Action is necessary when one subscribes to the 7 principles.

All of these principles are pegged on two fundamental notions that a) value has to be steered away from the monopoly or in the favor of man and b) there is a need to apparently “slow down” or “depreciate” the life that man is experiencing now. The former is a necessary countermeasure to the current situation to steer away from the dominating anthropocentrism to that of placing all other nonhuman life or entities as having intrinsic values outside than their instrumentality. However, the “controversial” part is when the principles speak of a seemingly “anti-human” and “anti-progress/development” stance in facing the crisis. Even though that there is a need to reevaluate the dominating anthropocentrism and instrumentality towards nature, the negation offered in the principles needs further clarification of what is truly meant. The article did clarify that “human interference is too excessive, but never once says that it needs to be eliminated all together.”

The criticisms posed towards Deep Ecology do have a bearing as “human flourishing” is somewhat compromised especially that which human’s ability to improve one’s standard of living of which can be synonymous to fulfilling his evolutionary capacity. And the shaky contending part here is the notion that a seemingly move to “depreciate” human life is equivalent to how deep ecology espouses a better quality of human life. Human beings are known to improve one’s state of living due to its capabilities to manipulate the world. Advancements in all manner, including those of technology and production processes will be reconfigured to suit a kind of lifestyle that does away with excessive human interference. It is as if that a certain mode of ascetism is needed to address the ecological crisis. In this movement, then humanity has to lessen the mechanisms that he has established; however, it is possible, that within this process of attempted “devolution”, man will forcibly create certain conditions that will exacerbate the reduction of the human population. (As there are already events, manmade even, that creates an avenue of population reduction such as wars, food shortages, and diseases) For example, when agriculture has to produce in such a manner that it has to meet a certain degree of sustainability and without excess and granting the conditions of supply chains, some parts of the world will surely experience large scale famines. Be it that the goal of a better environment is when there is a fairly significant reduction of the human population, but the ethical implications of creating an enabling environment for human population reduction especially from catastrophic policy changes or overhauling of critical economic structures, are imminent. Fair to mention as well that in engineered social and economic conditions to serve deep ecology’s principles creates an ethical dilemma especially that lives will be compromised along the way.

Another criticism that bears significance is that intrinsic value cannot be taken for itself in concrete terms other than having a profoundly spiritual bond with something. Although reverence to nature itself can lead to human’s having a caring disposition towards nature, it is to some degree that coining the term “mystical” to such approach makes sense. In avoiding the mystical element in caring of nature, there has to be something concrete to where humans can anchor their “care” towards nature and that is reverting back to instrumentality but with a touch of “responsibility” as the consequence of unfettered human interference will lead to the annihilation of humanity itself. Thus, it would be easy to grasp the notion of caring for the environment when at the end of the day, humans still can benefit from such action. In this pursuit of caring the environment, I would subscribe to a preservation effort but not without the possibility of having to use nature again. This may sound still in being a conservationist, but the inherent motive lies in the protection of nature and the avoidance of massive scale exploitation.

               The article did mention the religious roots to the exploitation of nature (Christian Ethos) and the saving of it (Taoist Ethos). Christianity was already known for having been guided by an instrumentalist perspective especially on the naïve take on being granted by God “dominion” over creation and with a forgotten take on stewardship. However, domination was appealing as it jived along the struggle within the milieu wherein a predominantly Christian Europe sought to justify colonization and conquest as both a need to survive and a divine mandate. Subjugation of nature by mastering over it was not a question as the sciences were also brewing as a discipline. Nature did experience exploitation in a massive extent, and another horrendous part of such perspective when fellow human beings of different races were subject to domination. Although religion can be the expression or the justification to the exploitation of nature, the need to use nature still prevails as the main driver of excessive human interference.

               In addressing the need to have an appropriate ethos, the Taoist’s perspective proved to be the main expression (religious) of deep ecology’s principles. There are 7 identified Taoist ethos and these are a) simplicity, b) sensitivity, c) flexibility, d) individual’s independence, e) focus, f) ideal of cultivation, and g) discipline. All of these provide the appropriate framework for a human being to be in harmony with nature.

               The Taoist ethos does provide a way for humans to get in touch with nature (environment); however, there is no recommendation whatsoever as to “devolve” in terms of existence such as throwing away what humans reached as civilization. Yet, reading the Tao Te Ching does offer hints of reducing the population as can be read from Chapter 80. Though “reducing the size and population” was intended as a suggestion for harmonious living with others so as not to provoke war with other nations or groups, it has subtly tackled on the possibilities of conflict in the first place. Also, even though that the reduction was meant so that there are few people who can use their weapons, fewer people mean there is no need to expand one’s territory to usurp another territory or resources. The avoidance of conflict with others as there is no reason to hoard over resources to cater to a growing population is what deep ecology proposes since a bigger population equates to bigger consumption and the impending inevitability of conflict.

               Inasmuch as the Taoist ethos is the appropriate disposition for an individual to carry in order for deep ecology to come in smoothly, longing for humanity’s realization for such takes time and even education is not keeping in pace with the alarming rate climate change is at. Inculcating the Taoist ethos can be as effective as supplanting it as a religion for people to follow; however, that is even too farfetched to simply program societies with such values when the current conditions are too tempting not to overthrow. The inherent power structures within the world still plays a key factor in the shift towards embracing deep ecology’s tenets. It is hard to have an impoverished nation to adopt to the call of simplicity when resources for them are scarce. It is also hard as well for the large economies to forego their machineries as it can be catastrophic for their economies and their population. Those who have the capacity to initiate green actions are not pushing for such as they are still lured by the riches offered through the exploitation of resources and as can be evidently seen by even entertaining the thought to extract resources from other planets (which in turn will be the new arena wherein a certain planet’s ecology will be at stake).

               Again, the Taoist ethos proves to be critical values system to adopt, but as long as existing systems still enables exploitation of resources and with the growing human population, preservation is still farfetched and deep ecology will remain mantras to carry for small band-aid initiatives.