Deep Ecology

[Patrick Shipsey]

I think we all know that nerdfighters tend to be environmentally active, some militantly so, so I think that this is a good way to get to the core of that discussion. The clusterfail of unproductive sophistry that was the toilet paper thread made me think about what the core differences between the two camps, both in the loo roll debate and in other environmental debates, are. Personally, I'll admit it. I balk at changing the material with which I clean my crack. But why is that? Why are some people perfectly willing to change their behavior and some people respond to that with knee-jerk sarcasm about how everything we do means "Bye-bye, trees!", or, "Oh, those poor penguins being fried by the ozone hole!" You know the kind that I mean. I think that the primary difference is a difference in what we value and a difference in what our mindset is.

If you really want to see what got me to ask the questions I'm about to asked, read the next paragraph. If you're the "tl;dr" type, skip the next paragraph. Choose Your Own Adventure on the Ning, bleeyotch.

Friends, I'm a debate nerd, and in the world of debate, we have an argument called the Kritik. You'll see where I'm going with this in a minute. Pinky promise. Kritiks were invented to call into question motivations behind a plan. The reason it's spelled with a K is that Bill Batterman (I think) invented it and he got the idea from reading a lot of German philosophy at the time. I once heard somebody say that another person had "learned too much from a deep reading of Emmanuel Kant," but I never realized that this was the kind of thing they were talking about. Anyhow, Kant held that a man could do the exact same thing two different times, and be morally right one time and wrong the other. The reason was his motivation- if the first man is opening the door for a lady in order to be a gentleman, and the second man is opening the door for a lady because he believes women to be too stupid to open doors by themselves, one is clearly in the right and the other in the wrong. (Feminists, I'm not trying to get into a debate over door-opening here, just illustrating a point.) So, there's a Kritik I'm reading a lot of literature about called "Deep Ecology". This is where it gets pertinent to the discussion.

So. Deep Ecology is a theory that says that the majority of ecology that we have is "shallow"-- that we only value the environment as far as it benefits us. Think about it. What's the most commonly-heard justification for action to fight anthropogenic global climate change? At least in the arguments I've heard, it's that it's going to kill a bunch of people. Now, that's certainly a good justification. But let's take a hypothetical. Let's pretend, for a moment, that climate change didn't hurt humans in any way. It's still occurring, it's just not hurting humans. Let's say that its impacts are restricted entirely to damaging the environment, mostly in the form of species loss. Let's also pretend that species loss didn't hurt humans either. In short, environmental destruction completely in a vacuum.

Would you still care?
Just at a guesstimation, about what fraction or percentage of the people who care about climate change that hurts humans would care about climate change that doesn't?
How bad did it hurt your eyes to see such a long sentence with only one comma?

If you wouldn't care in this hypothetical world, a lot of people would say that you're a "shallow ecologist"- someone who cares for the environment only as it affects humans. This is as contrasted with a "deep ecologist"- someone who cares for the environment, not only for its own sake, but on the same level as human life. This means that you would literally have to care for every tree that falls on the same level as a human death. And if you take John's <3 for imagining others complexly and apply that to deep ecology, then this business, ladies and gentlemen, has just gotten real. The gauntlet has been chucked, because this directly contradicts the philosophy that is most people's default, which is anthropocentrism, which says that man is special and should be valued above pretty much everything else. That's incompatible with deep ecology, but the thought immediately presents itself to me that basically any other kind of ecology would be dishonest.

So, Nerdfighters:
What are your thoughts on Deep Ecology vs. Anthropocentrism?
Are you a Deep Ecologist?
Are you an anthropocentrist?
Are you doublethinkish about it? (e.g., "I know I should be valuing the ecology as equal, but on a personal level, I just can't be bothered.")
What do you think the implications would be if all of our world leaders suddenly became deep ecologists?
On a scale of 1-10, how win is this particular chunk of brain crack?
Due to the nature of our society, is deep ecology even remotely possible anymore? I mean, can an American feasibly survive without endorsing shallow ecology in some form or another? I mean, how can we not contribute to massively overconsuming industries and society at large?
Do you think that President Obama, Al Gore, and other environmentally active politicians and public figures are deep ecologists in the true sense of the word, with all of its implications?
Do you think it's possible to REALLY be a deep ecologist, while living in a way that's inconsistent with it?

DISKUSS!

[BSmith]

Upper section of questions:
1) It would be very difficult to justify spending the money on the environment if no humans are being impacted. The money would be much better spent on things like hunger and clean water.
2) less than 1% of people would actually care enough to do anything that negatively impacts their life for something that had no impact in the first place.
3) Lack of commas doesn't phase me.


Lower section of questions:
1) I am a speciesist in that I believe that human life is more important to protect than that of an ear of corn or a cow. I think that if you subscribe to the theory of evolution, it is hard to deny that we are biologically wired to compete with other species for limited resources. Also, it is impossible to be a "deep ecologist" and consume resources since you would be denying life or resources to another species that is equal to your own.

2) No

3) Yes

4) No, I am single minded in my speciesism. I think we miss the boat if we try and equate humans with every other species.

5) I think that deep ecology contradicts the mechanism of sustaining life at all on this planet because any consumption by one species leads to the loss of that resource for another species. Therefore, it is impossible to decide who gets the resource if both species are equal.

6) 9 - I think your brain crack is a very interesting idea. I just don't think deep ecology is actually possible... especially for those who use the internet (ie: a luxury that consumes resources and harms other species unnecessarily)

7) I would argue that it has never been possible due to the competition that has always existed between species

8) No - most of them are only marginal shallow ecologists in that they will give up their positions to ensure that they stay in the political spotlight. A good example of this is that Gore and Clinton did not try and get Koyoto actually passed because they knew it would make it very very difficult for Gore to be elected president.

9) If you don't mind being a hypocrite, then yes. However, I would define a deep ecologist by their actions rather than by their words. Words mean very little to the environment.

[sabelmouse]

where do you get the idea that nerdfighters tend to be environmentally active or even interested?

[Patrick Shipsey]

My experience with talking to nerdfighters, mostly. Also, a lot of Hank and John's videos mention environmental interests a lot.

[sabelmouse]

hank and john might but i have not got the impression that most nf's give a rats arse.

[Patrick Shipsey]

Maybe we just hang out around different nerdfighters. I used to go in guns blazing, and I didn't really get a lot of discussion going. But if you broach the topic differently, you get different responses. I dunno. It might be audience, might be delivery. :D

[BSmith]

I think it's mostly the delivery :v

[sabelmouse]

here is something that has been enoying me for some time. whenever there is an article on climate change in the guardian bouty a hundred americans decent on the comment section with the following.
a. climate change does not excist, or if it does it's not manmade
b. why are you always picking on americans, we ain't never done nothing wrong
c.we saved your arses in WW2, you can't blame us for anything, ever.
d.we saved your arses in WW 2 and we want some respect now. america is the greatest country and a beaken in the dark. everything we do benefits the world and you better shut up.

scary.

and i have detected similar sentiments, though not so openly expressed, on this site which is even more shocking.

[sabelmouse]

you either care or you don't. i am not a teacher trying to gently get some primary age children interested by sowing sunflowers and watching them grow. that is john and hanks job.

i am also quite frankly a little disellutioned and fed up after so many years.

and out of patience. quite frankly if i did not have children i would not care at all. then again, there are a lot of innocent people out there affected by what we and most importantly you, the usa are doing, that are allrerady getting it and getting it worse as whole pacific islands are on the brink of destruction.
the time for discussion is over.

[sabelmouse]

i am not american and while it's funny to watch americans on tv in reality you're scary people.
the mixture of arrogance and ignorance and the way the whole world is tiptoeing around you as a country, no matter how much destruction you wreak.

i have no patience or time left to coddle people like that.

in my darker moments i think it's pretty much to late, so i am doing this more for my amusement than anything.

[Kenny]

in my darker moments i think it's pretty much to late, so i am doing this more for my amusement than anything.

Too late for what exactly? Do you really think that we've passed the point of no return, and the extinction of humanity (if not all life on the planet) is inevitable? Because if so, that's just stupid, and if not then it isn't too late, is it?

[sabelmouse]

not for the planet. the planet would be singing halleluja if we where gone.
we are like the kind of tennants you don't want to rent your house too. sure to leave it in a worse state, wreck the place and take no responsibility.

i don't know about the extinction of all humanity, some will fare better than others.

[Kenny]

In that case, how is it too late?