Deep Ecology and Its Relation to the Third World-Guha
Deep Ecology and its Relation to the Third World
This paper will begin with an exposition of the article, “Radical Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique” written by Ramachendra Guha, a sociologist and historian involved in ecological conflict in the East and the West. In this article, he refers to American environmentalism as “deep ecology”, a modern theory founded by Arne Naess. Guha’s argues that based on a comparison of the concepts of deep ecology and other cultural environmentalisms, deep ecology is strictly rooted in American culture and thus, leads to negative social consequences when it is applied to the Third World. This argument will be achieved by first defining deep ecology and its principles. Next I will offer Guha’s critique of deep ecology which consists of four points and then, I will identify the factors that differentiate it from other social and political goals belonging to other cultural environmental ethics. After this, I refer to David M. John’s “The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments,” to object to Guha’s critique as an accurate description of deep ecology. Finally, I will respond to this objection using Guha’s “Deep Ecology Revisited,” arguing that Guha’s critique concerning that deep ecology leads to negative social consequences on the Third World is accurate. First, according to Naess, deep ecology is the second of two ecological movements, the first being “shallow ecology”. This concerns a fight against pollution and resource depletion in order to protect the health and wealth of society. In view of this, shallow ecology only values the environment in so far as its destruction has an effect on human welfare. Hence, humans are extrinsic and superior to nature and nature is only of instrumental value to us. However, this ecology exclusively concerns developed countries. In contrast, deep ecology is a branch of ecological philosophy that questions how anthropocentric
This paper will begin with an exposition of the article, “Radical Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique” written by Ramachendra Guha, a sociologist and historian involved in ecological conflict in the East and the West. In this article, he refers to American environmentalism as “deep ecology”, a modern theory founded by Arne Naess. Guha’s argues that based on a comparison of the concepts of deep ecology and other cultural environmentalisms, deep ecology is strictly rooted in American culture and thus, leads to negative social consequences when it is applied to the Third World. This argument will be achieved by first defining deep ecology and its principles. Next I will offer Guha’s critique of deep ecology which consists of four points and then, I will identify the factors that differentiate it from other social and political goals belonging to other cultural environmental ethics. After this, I refer to David M. John’s “The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments,” to object to Guha’s critique as an accurate description of deep ecology. Finally, I will respond to this objection using Guha’s “Deep Ecology Revisited,” arguing that Guha’s critique concerning that deep ecology leads to negative social consequences on the Third World is accurate. First, according to Naess, deep ecology is the second of two ecological movements, the first being “shallow ecology”. This concerns a fight against pollution and resource depletion in order to protect the health and wealth of society. In view of this, shallow ecology only values the environment in so far as its destruction has an effect on human welfare. Hence, humans are extrinsic and superior to nature and nature is only of instrumental value to us. However, this ecology exclusively concerns developed countries. In contrast, deep ecology is a branch of ecological philosophy that questions how anthropocentric
Bibliography: Guha, Ramachandra, “Deep Ecology Revisited”, In The Great new Wilderness Debate, (Athens, Georgia: Georgia Press), 1998. pp.271-279. Johns, David M., “The Relevance of Deep Ecology”, In The Great new Wilderness Debate, (Athens, Georgia: Georgia Press), 1990. pp. 246-270. [ 2 ]. Arne Naess, “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecological Movement”, In Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, Sixth Edition, Pojman, Louis P., and Paul Pojman, Towson University: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012, p.130 [ 3 ] [ 32 ]. Ramachandra Guha, “Deep Ecology Revisited”, In The Great new Wilderness Debate, (Athens, Georgia: Georgia Press), 1998 1998, p.274 [ 33 ] [ 34 ]. Guha, “Deep Ecology Revisited”, 1998, p.274