Week 6 Bio: Thoughts on "8 points Deep Ecology pattern"
Thoughts on 8 points of Deep Ecology
I found this nice image and it sums up what I think the 8 points of deep ecology tries to sum up: that we are part of a larger environment and not everything on our earth is meant for human utility, not everything is a product waiting to be used.
Other key points are that the richness and diversity of life is a merit in and of itself - this should be true even if we don't see in our short-sightedness how this is actually better for us and the environment. If it looks like a net loss rather than a net profit, then we should either give it time, because in the long run it's probably better, or we should re-evaluate what the real costs of profits are. Losing the richness of diversity on our earth isn't worth it.
I agreed with the point about diversity of life, about reining in the excessive actions of humans which interferes with the environment, and even to an extent about how untenable it is to continue to overpopulate the earth while also keeping these habits. That last point is a bit more controversial and I wouldn't go so far to say that it should be policy though.
The seventh point the authors make is probably the point I agree with most and have the most hope for, that we should focus on the quality of our lives rather than an "increasingly higher standard of living" - big does not mean great.
I do think there is a paradigm shift occurring about that last point - more people recognize that our lives are not measured by material things alone, having meaningful relationships is far more rich and great than owning a yacht. Of course not everyone is on board with that idea.
Two points read together prove to be more difficult I think: Point 8: that if you subscribe to points 1-7 then it is your obligation to directly or indirectly participate in implementing the necessary changes. And Point 3: "humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs".
The difficult part is determining on a personal level what are one's "vital needs", and this is probably a continual process that is never ultimately and finally determined, but also looking at others' lives and saying what is "vital" for them. Then we get into arguments such as: why are you judging me? who are you to say what is vital to me? who gave you the power to say that or make policy around that? etc.
Directly or indirectly participating in implementing the changes is also a contentious issue as not everyone agrees with the best way to engage in the political process (which I believe we all engage in whether we think we do or not). Is anarchy okay? and if so, what lines do we draw? is violent anarchy okay? what about fascism, as a classmate mentioned -- is it better in the long run for people and the planet that there be a totalitarian overthrow and strict regulation of human interference on our environment?
I'm still trying to figure out how I want to be and who I want to be politically, but one thing I do know is that the personal is political. I have faith in the fact that my personal choices do amount to something which can be good or bad, and I also believe there is enough openness to my life - lifestyle, habits, & way of being - that it's not too late to make better choices. I've noticed that the more outside myself I can get the better -- the more likely I am to adapt to better fit the environment. Because as the image suggests, I am not at the top of this pyramid with animals and plants beneath me - I am in the middle of it alongside animals and plants. I hope one day my lifestyle better reflects that!
Other key points are that the richness and diversity of life is a merit in and of itself - this should be true even if we don't see in our short-sightedness how this is actually better for us and the environment. If it looks like a net loss rather than a net profit, then we should either give it time, because in the long run it's probably better, or we should re-evaluate what the real costs of profits are. Losing the richness of diversity on our earth isn't worth it.
I agreed with the point about diversity of life, about reining in the excessive actions of humans which interferes with the environment, and even to an extent about how untenable it is to continue to overpopulate the earth while also keeping these habits. That last point is a bit more controversial and I wouldn't go so far to say that it should be policy though.
The seventh point the authors make is probably the point I agree with most and have the most hope for, that we should focus on the quality of our lives rather than an "increasingly higher standard of living" - big does not mean great.
I do think there is a paradigm shift occurring about that last point - more people recognize that our lives are not measured by material things alone, having meaningful relationships is far more rich and great than owning a yacht. Of course not everyone is on board with that idea.
Two points read together prove to be more difficult I think: Point 8: that if you subscribe to points 1-7 then it is your obligation to directly or indirectly participate in implementing the necessary changes. And Point 3: "humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs".
The difficult part is determining on a personal level what are one's "vital needs", and this is probably a continual process that is never ultimately and finally determined, but also looking at others' lives and saying what is "vital" for them. Then we get into arguments such as: why are you judging me? who are you to say what is vital to me? who gave you the power to say that or make policy around that? etc.
Directly or indirectly participating in implementing the changes is also a contentious issue as not everyone agrees with the best way to engage in the political process (which I believe we all engage in whether we think we do or not). Is anarchy okay? and if so, what lines do we draw? is violent anarchy okay? what about fascism, as a classmate mentioned -- is it better in the long run for people and the planet that there be a totalitarian overthrow and strict regulation of human interference on our environment?
I'm still trying to figure out how I want to be and who I want to be politically, but one thing I do know is that the personal is political. I have faith in the fact that my personal choices do amount to something which can be good or bad, and I also believe there is enough openness to my life - lifestyle, habits, & way of being - that it's not too late to make better choices. I've noticed that the more outside myself I can get the better -- the more likely I am to adapt to better fit the environment. Because as the image suggests, I am not at the top of this pyramid with animals and plants beneath me - I am in the middle of it alongside animals and plants. I hope one day my lifestyle better reflects that!
Comments
Post a Comment