I think of myself more as a practitioner and explorer of contemplative living than a photographer. Photography is one tool I use for contemplative practice. At its most basic, contemplation is a way of being that involves bringing present, loving attention to what is. Recently, I’ve been writing about ecology and my new course, PLACE, is along those lines. In a previous post, I introduced the field of contemplative ecology, as presented by Douglas Christie, in his book, Blue Sapphire of the Mind. Contemplative ecology brings present, loving attention to the ecological world, the world we inhabit every day. Today, I’d like to discuss the concept of deep ecology.
Before I get into this big topic, let me explain that this isn’t a new subject for me. Almost 15 years ago, I completed a Masters Program in Earth Literacy at Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods College in Indiana. It was through this program that I was introduced to the writings of Thomas Berry, a Passionate Priest and self-described geologian. Berry was an expert in the history of geological processes and spoke in terms of an historical and big picture view of the earth. He talked of the need to “reinvent the human,” because the issues we’re facing, environmental and more, are beyond our present cultural traditions and competence. He said,
- Economically, we need “local subsistence economies where humans become acquainted with other species in their bioregion.” By doing this, we’ll develop relationships whereby there is sustainable, mutual support with all species.
- Legally, we need to acknowledge and establish rights for the geological and biological aspects of our communities, on par with human rights.
- Culturally, we need to make sure that technologies are in harmony with the natural world. This is not a romantic view of nature, rather, it’s acknowledging that nature is “violent and dangerous as well as serene and benign.”
- Ethically, we need to see that humans are not separate from but integral to all life systems. We live in a single community, and our well-being depends on the well-being of the community.
- Cosmologically, we must understand how we got here from the beginning of the Universe. We are made from the stuff of stars. And, the direction of evolution is based on three principles: differentiation, subjectivity, and communion. I discussed these in a previous post.
In light of this radically broader sense of “self” developed by Thomas Berry, what then is deep ecology?
According to The Foundation for Deep Ecology, The term, deep ecology, was introduced In 1973 by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. Environmentalism was emerging as a grassroots movement, following the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. Alarm bells sounded about the detrimental environmental effects of modern industrial technology. However, these ideas were not entirely new. Writers and activists like Gifford Pinchot, Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and Aldo Leopold were previously pioneers in the movement towards a conservation philosophy.
Naess contrasted the “long-range deep ecology movement” with the “short-term shallow ecology movement.” He encouraged deep questioning of purposes and values, as well as fundamental root causes of environmental concerns. The short-term, shallow approach promoted technological fixes and efficiencies rather than redesigning our systems based on preserving the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems. Exactly what Thomas Berry proposed.
The main premise of the deep ecology movement is recognition of the inherent value of all living beings. Naess proposed a set of eight principles necessary to protect the integrity of Earth’s ecological communities. Supporters of deep ecology are not anti-human, as is sometimes suggested. Rather, deep ecology respects the intrinsic values of richness and diversity. This naturally leads to a critique of industrial monocultures, where the Earth is seen only as a collection of raw materials to be used to satisfy consumption and production. Monocultures destroy cultural and biological diversity in the name of profit.
Deep Ecology principles led to studying the culture and philosophies of aboriginal and indigenous people. They emphasize learning from the wisdom of places and the beings who inhabit them. Supporters of deep ecology emphasize place-specific, ecological wisdom. As Naess said many times, the more diversity, the better. David Abram is one person currently writing and teaching about deep ecology through his many books. His essays on deep ecology can be found here.
So, humility is an essential piece of deep ecology. True humility, which is also a contemplative habit, doesn’t mean that one is subservient or less than; rather, it’s about adopting a stance of equanimity. It’s seeing the intrinsic worth of everything, including ourselves. We demonstrate humility through love, respect, service, and compassion for others, as well as ourselves. Humility is the essence of being who we really are or perhaps in letting other beings be who they really are.
Deep ecology reflects humility in its vision of humans as being only one part of an intricate web of life. There’s love and respect for the sacredness and mystery of all creation, and there’s recognition that this world is not separate from us but a part of us. Through humility, we see all of life as gift. We know that our actions reverberate throughout the web of life and so maximizing economic self-interest takes on a whole new meaning.
- If I poison the air or land or water I’m poisoning myself.
- If I take more than my fair share, I’m depriving someone or something else or abusing the land.
- When choosing a job, I need to ask myself if it’s true to my natural purpose in life? Will it leave the world a better place? Does the fulfillment of the job create harm for other beings?
- When choosing food to eat, I need to ask if toxins were used on the land to grow the food? Were the farmers who grew the food paid a fair wage? How far has this food traveled to get to me? Do I recognize the gift that this food is? This food is the soil, the land, and the farmer who grew it and it becomes a part of me once I eat it. If it is poisoned, I am poisoned.
I realize the inherent privilege in these principles. Not everyone has the option to make these choices, but many of us do. How will this change our economic systems? The word “economy” is equated with “the management of the resources of a community, country, etc, with a view to its productivity”. The word is also connected to prosperity or earnings. Maximizing economic self-interest in the sense of deep ecology involves a sense of cooperation with all members of a community, human and non-human, when making decisions. Costs and benefits would not be strictly monetary but would take into account relationships, justice, use of scarce resources, waste produced, and the health of the land, air, water, fauna, and flora.
A Case Study
Ten years ago, while living in Indiana, I wrote a paper on mercury contamination in the State’s waterways. At that time, over half of Indiana’s waterways were considered unsafe for human consumption of certain fish because of high mercury levels. I’ll summarize my findings here to show how decisions were not made from a deep ecology perspective.
At the time, Indiana ranked fourth in the nation for mercury pollution. In 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) requiring a 66% reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by the year 2018. With emission credits, this would probably not be achieved until 2025. It has been heavily criticized as not being strong enough and nine states have adopted much more stringent rules, including coal states Illinois and Pennsylvania. Another eleven states are working on more stringent rules. (Hoosier Environmental Council)
There was a hearing with the plan to adopt the proposed rule, however, several organizations, led by the Hoosier Environmental Council, were proposing a more stringent rule that would lead to a 90% reduction. After a lengthy hearing and passionate arguments, the board voted 7-4 to adopt the EPA rule, but not the more stringent one. Apparently, Indiana’s already very low electricity rates were a significant economic advantage for the state and they didn’t want to risk losing that advantage. Also, while the Hoosier Environmental Council reported that pollution-control technology was available for low capital investment, low operating costs, and quick installation, a representative of the Indiana Energy Association reported that controls would cost the industry $207 to $373 million annually through 2010. (Guinane) Since recreational fishing brings in $518 million annually these costs do not seem unreasonable.
The arguments put forward focused on costs to the energy corporations and effects on the most vulnerable human populations, particularly low-income people who would be affected by higher electricity rates and, on the other side, pregnant women and children, who are affected by the mercury contamination of fish. No one mentioned the effects of mercury contamination on the land, air, plants, or wildlife.
With the expanded sense of self developed through deep ecology, let’s examine mercury contamination from this perspective. While 6,000 tons of mercury is released into the atmosphere annually in the U.S. through natural processes, human processes release an additional 2,000-3,000 tons. (Foulke) This mercury is deposited on land and water, and when entering lakes and rivers it is converted through a chemical process to methylmercury, a neurotoxin. Methylmercury accumulates with increasing toxicity through the food chain so that larger fish like bass and trout can have levels one million times that of the water. People and wildlife that eat these fish are vulnerable to the risks of mercury exposure such as harm to the nervous, cardiovascular, and reproductive systems. There is special concern for children and unborn children because they are still developing.
Humans are the cause of mercury contamination and we have the consciousness to know that we are the cause. We can either stop the contamination or stop eating the contaminated fish. But if we think in terms of the fish or other wildlife that eat fish, we see a whole other side of the story. Everything in the aquatic ecosystem is affected by mercury exposure at some level or another. There is no link in the food chain not affected. Studies have shown elevated mercury levels in fish-eating birds, songbirds, mammals, insects, and invertebrates. While pregnant women and children can make informed decisions not to eat certain fish, other wildlife cannot. The elevation of mercury in any form of wildlife has been shown to affect ability to reproduce, growth, development, behavior, and even caused death. These animals did not ask for this type of life. Are their rights being ignored? Absolutely. Whether one believes in the rights of these animals or not, the threat to biodiversity in our waterways, not just in Indiana but also in the world, is very real. The good news is that some states have made significant progress in reducing mercury emissions and have seen equally significant progress in the health of their waterways.
In Indiana, where electricity rates are low and pollution is high, it would be a clear advantage to use the existing pollution control technology. Electricity rates would still be below the national average and according to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, for every $1 invested in air quality improvement there is a $6 rate of return. The technology is there and action is needed, not only for the sake of our own health and our children’s health, but also for the sake of our wildlife and waterways.
Separateness is a human creation and divisions between humans, nature, and the divine (or mystery) have resulted in enmity and degradation. An eloquent essay by Donella Meadows describes earth as being “formed whole and continuous in the Universe, without lines.” She says that if we believe in a planet with lines or separateness, which is delusional thinking, then we poison the earth, and consequently, ourselves.
“We are not different from, separate from, in charge of, superior to, or inferior to the natural world. We are part of it. Whatever we do to nature, we do to ourselves. Whatever we do to ourselves, we do to the world.” (Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, Hartmann 169)
It all comes down this. We are are the Earth! Poet William Blake expressed this idea in his poem “Heaven in a Wild Flower,”when he saw the world in a grain of sand. Today our world skews towards human individuality and self-interest as being all-important, while we’ve lost our compassion for and connection with the natural world. It’s important to recognize our human uniqueness and individual purpose in life, yet it’s equally important to understand that everything has uniqueness and that purpose is meant for service to the whole, not just to self. Our perceived detachment or separation from the world is causing us to destroy our world. Our children are screaming this to us, and we need to listen.
What we do to others we do to ourselves.
If we recognize all of life as a gift, we’ll learn to praise and value it. We’ll feel compelled to take care of our Earth. This is the heart of deep ecology. In my new workshop, PLACE, beginning April 1st, we’ll situate ourselves in our own local communities and examine our relationships within that community. Learn more here and/or sign up now.
Bibliography
Meadows, Donella. Lines in the Mind. Timeline (ISSN 1061-2734) Nov/Dec 2005. Pgs. 3-4. Issue No. 84. Foundation for Global Community. Palo Alto, CA 94301-1097.
To read more from Thomas Berry, I recommend The Great Work and Dream of the Earth.
Abram, David. Depth Ecology
Hartmann, Thom. The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
Mercury in Indiana Articles
Brigham, Mark, Krabbenhoft, David, Hamilton, Pixie. “Mercury in Stream Ecosystems – New Studies Initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey”. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 016-03. March 2003. U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed 8 May 2007. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-016-03/index.html
Foulke, Judith E. “Mercury in Fish: Cause for Concern?” FDA Consumer; Sep. 1994; 28, 7; ProQuest Science Journals, pg. 5.
Guinane, Patrick. “Plan would cut mercury emissions 66% by 2030”. Northwest Indiana. Posted online 3 May 2007. http://www.nwi.com/
Hoosier Environmental Council. “Mercury Hearing on May 2, 2007”. Fact Sheet. Accessed 9 May 2007. http://www.hecweb.org/
National Wildlife Federation. “Mercury and Wildlife”. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2013/DecJan/Conservation/Mercury-and-Wildlife
Pelicaric, Veronica. “Presence of the Other”. The Wolf. Spring 2007, Vol. 18, No. 2. Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service.
Smith, Pamela. What Are They Saying About Environmental Ethics? New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1997.
Vivian, Tim. “Building and Upholding the Blessed Community: In Praise of Wendell Berry”. Anglican Theological Review. Pgs. 827-853