Deep Ecology

One of the components of Deep Ecology that I find particularly useful is that it contains certain ethics/philosophy that translate directly into lifestyle choices. Even though this approach moves away from having humans at its center, it still ties in the need for human beings to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives. I agree with Deep Ecology’s emphasis on self-realization, but in this view, it has less to do with the individual pursuit and more with the “process of self-examination in which people come to understand themselves as part of a greater whole” (DJ 216). In my understanding, when the criteria of this statement are met, the human is following a path that moves within certain ecological boundaries; however, these boundaries are meant in no way to hinder the growth of that person. I think this type of development suggests a community beyond the self that is important for human growth but is often overlooked in those societies that hold individualism as the highest form of self-realization. According to the Deep Ecology approach, living minimally or adopting “lifestyles that ‘tread lightly on the Earth’” (DJ 218) are the underlying features constructing this path to self-realization. To me, one of Deep Ecology’s strengths as a set of ethics is that it provides this fairly straightforward foundation, which can easily translate into everyday decisions, namely, eliminating the waste in daily life.

That said, as I look back over the paragraph I’ve just written, there might be something too abstract about Deep Ecology, or if not abstract, something too extreme to be an approach that can be used by large groups of people. As DesJardins mentions, “self-realization” is already such an ambiguous concept and its role in an ethical approach also seems problematic. But I do think that by including self-realization Deep Ecology does move away from some of the problems that non-anthropocentric ethical arguments face, that being a complete revision of the human-animal relationship that places humans at the same moral standing as animals. Although the approach still does this, by including the “self-realization” component the ethical approach provides humans with an already widely accepted purpose of life (finding the Self).

Animals and "The Cove"

Various blends of anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric ethics characterize the environmental ethics standpoints of the people in The Cove, which, to me, immediately indicates the obvious complexity of determining what rights animal have. One general observation about the people in the film making these non-anthropocentric arguments was that most of them were white and appeared to be relatively wealthy or middle-class (I’m assuming this class category because of the type of employment each held such as former dolphin trainer, representative of animal rights organizations, well-known surfers and even Hayden Panietierre). With that social background, it seems reasonable that many of these people are at liberty to adopt a more “extreme” set of ethics that gives animals like dolphins the same moral status. Social conditions do seem to play an important role in what ethical framework appears reasonable and also speaks to the type of creatures certain people choose to protect. The place of the dolphins in the film largely centered on their use in entertainment and I think that for many people, this still provides the background for their desire to grant a dolphin moral standing.

Although I think that we could be more respectful to animals and acknowledge their importance in our lives, I find extending complete moral standing to them problematic. Fully applying non-anthropocentric ethics also might be difficult given the ambiguity about which organisms have enough of a life to be granted moral standing. Do we grant moral standing to the chicken’s unfertilized egg, which could imply that we can no longer eat that egg even though doing so harms neither chicken nor egg? In my own experience on a farm, being able to watch a calf through its life cycle, ending with its slaughter on our farm or at the local processor, seems to have a significant amount or respect tied into the process. With that in mind, if we find that full adoption of animal rights is impossible, perhaps a transition to this sort of human-animal relationship would be more reasonable. In nature, animals eat other animals and have a dependence on one another that embodies this respect, but the way human industry goes about production (factory farms, growth hormones, etc.), in contrast, contradicts any sort of respect for animal itself and instead disconnects the entire process from that obvious human-animal interdependence.

The Land Ethic

In Ecology of a Cracker Childhood Janisse Ray’s outlines an important aspect of the land ethic, that being the need to connect with one’s environment, regardless of what it may be. She reveals how place is an essential part of her identity, which suggests that her idea about the Self extends beyond an abstract pile of character traits and moves identity into something more concrete (place), but still equally complex. By doing this, Ray implies that we should have an instinctual desire to avoid damaging or destroying those places that connect so intimately to ourselves. In the text, she points to how early Southern settlers ignored what should have been an reciprocal relationship between themselves and the land (using as a resource, but avoiding apocalyptic damage), but instead used the land without thinking of it as a part of themselves, of their own lives and histories. By including sections (set off by the pinecones) that outline the extensive damages caused by people, she indicates how dangerous that disconnect between the land and the human identity can be for, most obviously, the land, but also for the people themselves. Ray reflects on the absence of this connection in father’s childhood and the possible ethical and personal limitations that caused within her father, writing, “Suppose someone had found my father the boy and said, If you look closely, you will find palmetto bugs hardly bigger than apple seeds, and their iridescent black shells are walking onyx…Suppose. What then?” (216).

With that in mind, exposure to this connection seems to be the most important, if not the simplest, way to instill a commitment to preserving and ensuring the health of the land/environment. I can relate to Ray’s grounding of environmental ethics in the childhood memories that reveal the role of place in identity, but in more of a typical way. Growing up on a small farm allowed me to explore and appreciate nature in more of a subconscious way. I realize now how this naturalized connection to the land and to animals greatly influenced how I understand environmental issues. I also can see how even the simple interactions with nature (like Ray’s fascination with the pitcher plant) can naturally, if not dramatically, shape the environmental ethic to be less human-centered.