November
25, 2009 - A little philosophizing won’t hurt
our sensitivity towards the environment. In fact, some people believe
that our Planet Earth’ ecology could be helped to a degree with
musings in some depth on the subject of life as lived by every creature.
For musings of that sort meet Mr. Arne Naess, the Norwegian guru on
“Deep Ecology.” And what does deep ecology mean? I am
not too sure but I have the feeling that deep ecology is the truth,
only the truth and nothing but the truth of the environment. Following
are some of his ponderings.
1, “The flourishing of human and non-human life on earth
has inherent value. The value of non-human life-form is independents
of the usefulness of non-human world to humans.
So far, in most places around the world, people give little regard
for non-human living things, especially animals, small or big, if
the animal in question has no direct value as food or of any other
economic value to them. In truth though, all animals, even the most
insignificant, have definite roles in the food chain hierarchy. Which
means the moment a particular species is wiped out from an area, there
is bound to be a ripple up and down the food chain. The trouble with
that is the resulting effect may take a while to become visible. That
is part of the reason why people get complacent about ecological disasters
in the making.
2, “Richness and diversity of life-forms are also values
in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and non-human
life on earth.
Imagine our earth were full of Homo sapiens and only them, no other
animals or plants, except just one crop that they depend on for their
food. Even forget the fact that humans will need the fish, the mutton,
the milk, fruits for their nourishment. A planet without the tapestry
of variety of living things could be too unexciting and too barren.
Deep ecology believes deeply that diversity, in and of itself, is
a must-have situation in our world. Diversity enriches nature itself.
3, Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity
except to satisfy vital needs.
That is precisely where things started to go all wrong: humans wanted
more and continue to consume more than they needed for their basic
needs. Consumerism must have been going on even during prehistory.
Instead of Wal-Mart, people in the past might have had a choice
of nuts and berries for gourmet lunches. Today, with 6-million people
eager to partake in the universal appetite for more shopping, it
may not be any longer a question of meeting essential needs. It
has become more of meeting people’s much extended needs.
4,” Present human interference with the non-human
world is excessive and the situation is rapidly worsening”
As the human population inexorably goes up, mans’ interference
with non-humans is getting meaner and more sophisticated. In ancient
times man just killed animals more or less for food only. The methods
people used then to do so was like child’s play compared to
know. Today, pollution alone kills lots of animals like fish. Climate
change is one good example of insatiable thirst for oil.
5, “In view of these points, policies must be changed.
The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological and
ecological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply
different from the present and make possible a more joyful experience
of the connectedness of all things.”
So it will be up to the people of the world to choose between quality
on the one hand and higher standard of living on the other (there
is a difference you know), and between big on the one hand and great
on the other. There is a difference there too.
Conclusion: if you subscribe, even to a limited
degree to what the philosopher, Mr. Arne Naess has been trying to
say to us, then you have an obligation, directly or indirectly,
to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
This is an issue where everyone is supposed to be a philosopher
on the one hand and a vigilante on the other. Welcome to the world
of philosopher kings. |
