The rather lengthy intro of Arne Naess’ Ecology Of Wisdom‘, while fairly repetitive, establishes a strong foundation of his fundamental beliefs. His unique home of Tvargastein and his passion for deep inquiry have culminated in a worldview in which he regards humans as, not superior, but equal to all other organic beings. His set of platform principles, namely deep ecology, is a framework for people to develop their own ecologically responsible philosophies. He coins these personal philosophies as Ecosophies: “All philosophies of life consist of basic value norms and basic hypotheses about the nature of the world. When these philosophies take careful account of ecological responsibilities, they become ecosophies” (Drengson, 2016, p.17).
Diversity in philosophy is celebrated within Deep Ecology. Quoting Naess, “There is no absolute truth and we must instead work together and respect each other’s methods and views to reach an integrated whole.” As I ponder on this I am reminded of certain indigenous practices I’d been exposed to whilst reading Karen Bakker’s book The Sounds of Life. An example that comes to mind is the Iñupiat (indigenous alaskan) fisherman who, in 1978, protested against the Whaling Commission’s ban on subsistence whaling in the Arctic. They argued that the number of whales left was far greater than the Commission’s calculations. Western reductionist science had already drawn its conclusions however, and the traditional, holistic knowledge of the Iñupiats were dismissed. While the techniques of data gathering scientists placed human perception at the centre of experience, the Iñupiats chose instead to listen closely to what their aquatic counterparts were communicating. Fascinatingly so, they had learnt to retrieve important information regarding whale activity by “placing the end of an oar up to their jaw, with the paddle in the water (Bakker, 2022, p.33).” An Iñupiat hydrophone? Methods such as these gave them an advantage over the Whaling Commission’s scientists and an Iñupiat-led bio-acoustic operation inevitably disproved the erroneous calculations. Their culture ultimately suffered unnecessarily as a result of industrial whaling and western ignorance. Returning to Naess’ quote, we see here how an integrated method using advanced western technology, indigenous knowledge and biocentrism became the most ideal solution.
Society has previously impacted the environment negatively by having a ‘consumption only’ relationship with the spaces it inhabits, driven by economic convention. By displacing indigenous peoples from these spaces, humanity discarded valuable, generational knowledge concerning a symbiotic relationship with our environment that made without the use of harmful technology. By simply listening to the whole (their extended selves?) and remaining a humble member of a wider gestalt, indigenous communities realised access to immense information that science is only now proving, many of which use obstructive techniques. Perhaps with the knowledge indigenous communities hold, we can refashion our utility of technology and science to restore said symbiosis.
On a more critical note, Naess’ suggested 4th principle of Deep Ecology states that we must “reduce our numbers” which I believe tows the line of ethical narrow mindedness. Without thorough context it fails to acknowledge the lack of education and healthcare in developing countries, that Naess may have had in his home of Norway. The prevalence of discrimination, marginalisation, lack of legal rights, fair education, inequality of opportunity and poverty globally strips people of the basic needs required for mental clarity. According to the UN, 71 percent of the world’s population live in countries where inequality has grown and “In 2018, the 26 richest people in the world held as much wealth as half of the global population” (n.d.). When such disparities exist it makes it somewhat unjustifiable to ethically condemn those with unsatisfactory living conditions. In this sense, privilege then becomes a pre-requisite for deep inquiry. Perhaps I would put greater importance on the relationship between social justice and environmental change if I were to rewrite the principles of Deep Ecology divulged in the book’s overture.
Added note from further reading: Given the wider context of the book, this ^ idea is implied and there is mention of this later however – “When basic needs are met human development is about being more, not having more.” (Earth Charter Initiative, 2000, cited in, Drengson, 2016, p.29)
Bibliography
Bakker, K. 2022. The Sounds Of Life. 1st ed. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p.33
Drengson, A. 2016. Introduction. In: Naess, A. Ecology Of Wisdom. Drengson, A and Devall, B. Great Britain: Penguin Classics, p.17
Earth Charter Initiative, 2000. www.earthcharterinaction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html, quoted in: Drengson, A. 2016. Introduction. In: Naess, A. Ecology Of Wisdom. Drengson, A and Devall, B. Great Britain: Penguin Classics, p.29
Nations, U. (n.d.). Inequality – Bridging the Divide. [online] United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging-divide#:~:text=From%201990%20to%202015%2C%20the [Accessed 12 Feb. 2024].