Arne Naess - Ecology, Community and Lifestyle - Outline of An Ecosophy (1989) PDF

Ecology, community and lifestyle
Ecology, community
and lifestyle
OUTLINE OF AN ECOSOPHY
ARNE NAESS
Council for Environmental Studies
University of Oslo
Translated and revised by

DAVID ROTHENBERG
Department of Philosophy
Boston University
I CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, VIC 3166, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org
© Cambridge University Press 1989
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1989

First paperback edition 1990
Reprinted 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001
This work contains translations of some parts of the fifth edition

of 0kologi, samfunn og livsstil (© Universitetsforlaget 1976)
Typeset in Monotype Times 10/13pt
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Naess, Arne.
Ecology, community and lifestyle.
Translation of some parts of: 0kologi, samfunn, og livsstil.
Bibliography: p.
Includes Index.
I. Human Ecology - Philosophy. I. Rothenburg, David, 1962-
II. Title.
GF21.N342513 1989 304.2'01 88-5068
ISBN 0 521 34406 9 hardback

ISBN 0 521 34873 0 paperback
Transferred to digital printing 2003

to Peter Reed
1961-1987
'and you, my mountain, will you
never walk towards me?'
Kevork Emin
Contents
Translator's preface xii

Introduction: Ecosophy T - from intuition to system. 1
- by David Rothenberg
1 Beginning with intuitions 2
2 Interpretation and precisation in Naess's philosophy 5
3 Clarification of terms in translation 7
(a) Milieu/environment 7
(b) Self-realisation 8
(c) Derivation 10
(d) Identification 10
(e) Intrinsic value 11
(f) Depth 12
4 Where do we place deep ecology? 14
1 The environmental crisis and the deep ecological movement 23
1 The gravity of the situation 23
2 Production and consumption: ideology and practice 24
3 Our ecological knowledge is severely limited;
ecopolitical consequences of ignorance 26
4 The deep ecology movement 27
5 A platform for the deep ecology movement 29
6 How the themes of deep ecology are presented in
what follows 32
2 From ecology to ecosophy 35
1 The terms ecology, ecophilosophy, ecosophy 35
(a) Ecology 35
(b) Ecophilosophy and ecosophy 36
Contents
(c) The dangers of 'ecologism': seeing ecology as the

ultimate science 39
2 Normative evaluation 40
(a) Objective science cannot provide principles for action 40
(b) Norms and hypotheses; Normative systems 41
(c) The generalist in us 44
(d) Conservation biology 45
3 Objective, subjective, and phenomenological
descriptions of nature 47
4 Primary, secondary, and tertiary qualities:
do they exist in nature? 51
5 Protagorean 'Both-and' theory 54
(a) The relational field 54
(b) The world of concrete contents 56
6 Gestalts and gestalt thinking 57
7 Emotion, value, and reality 63
8 From emotion to evaluation 65
3 Fact and value; basic norms 68

1 Announce your value priorities forcefully 68
2 Total systems; norm system models in pyramidal form 72
3 Ecological system thinking 78
4 The search for ultimate goals: pleasure, happiness,
or perfection? 80
5 Self-realisation as top norm and key term for an ultimate
goal 84
4 Ecosophy, technology, and lifestyle 87

1 Ecosophical consciousness and lifestyle 87
2 Mutual help towards ecosophical lifestyle:
The Future in Our Hands' 88
3 Effects of change of mentality 91
4 Technology and lifestyle 92
(a) The non-existence of purely technical advance 93
(b) The environmental crisis can be technically
resolved . . .' 96
(c) Soft technology and ecosophy 97
(d) The invasion of hard technology in the Third World 100
(e) Ecosophy and technology: a summary 102
Contents ix
5 Economics within ecosophy 104

1 The contact with total views 104
2 The neglect of economics within the deep ecological
movement 105
3 'as seen from a purely economic standpoint. . .' 106
4 An economic policy system fragment 107
5 Gross National Product (GNP) 110
6 Arguments for ignoring GNP in the industrialised countries 111
(a) Historical background for the overevaluation of GNP 111
(b) GNP is not a measure of welfare: why not? 112
(c) GNP growth favours hard and distant technologies 113
(d) GNP growth favours wants, not needs 113
(e) GNP discriminates against people working at home 114
(f) GNP growth supports irresponsible and
unsolidaric resource consumption and global pollution 114
(g) The irrelevance of economic growth 114
(h) Misplaced attempts at salvation of GNP 114
(i) Employment and growth 116
7 Basic notions in economic welfare theory 116
(a) The notion of economic welfare 116
(b) From welfare theory to normative systems 119
(c) Welfare to Self-realisation: from W to T 120
8 Life quality research: deep interviews 121
9 Shadow-pricing nature 123
10 Summary 128
6 Ecopolitics within ecosophy 130
1 The ecological movement cannot avoid politics 130
(a) All is politically relevant, but not all is politics 130
(b) Power analysis is necessary 131
(c) The politicisation of conservation 132
2 The three poles of the political triangle - the blue, the
red, and the green; the limitations of triangular analysis 133
3 Checklist of ecopolitical issues and their expansion 135
4 More comments on the basic ecopolitical areas of
pollution, resources, and population 138
(a) Pollution 138
(b) Resources 139
(c) Population 140
Contents
5 Strengthening the local and the global 141

(a) Self-determination 141
(b) Self-reliance 143
(c) The realisation of local communities 144
6 Direct action; norms of Gandhian nonviolence 146
7 The rich and the poor countries: from exploitation to
mutual aid 150
8 Critiques of the Limits to Growth approach 151
9 Are Green political parties desirable? 153
10 The deep ecological movement and the big political issues 156
(a) The basic ideological choices 156
(b) Socialism and ecosophy 157
11 Bureaucracy 158
12 The deep ecological movement and the peace movement 160
13 Green political programmes from day to day 160
14 Concluding remarks 162
7 Ecosophy T: unity and diversity of life 163
1 The universal right to self-unfolding and the correlative
intrinsic value of every life form 164
(a) Ecosophy ties together all life, and all nature 164
(b) The unfolding of potentialities is a right.' 164
(c) Life as a vast historical process 165
(d) The universal right to live and blossom 166
(e) The uniqueness of humankind must not be
underestimated 169
2 Identification, oneness, wholeness, and Self-realisation 171
(a) Identification and alienation; ideas of oneness and
wholeness 171
(b) Identification and Self-realisation 173
(c) That which is not of value to any human being
is of no value at all' 176
(d) Friluftsliv: exuberance in nature 177
3 Cruelty in nature; the tragedy and the comedy of life 183
4 An historical perspective I: the Bible 183
5 An historical perspective II: from Plotinus to Descartes 189
6 Our self-respect is not solely due to our own significance:
the Milky Way also stimulates respect 191
7 Nonviolence and the philosophy of oneness 193
Contents xi
The systematisation of the logically ultimate norms and

hypotheses of Ecosophy T 196
(a) The idea of models of logical relations 196
(b) Formulation of the most basic norms and hypotheses 197
(c) Norms and hypotheses originating in ecology 199
(d) The meaning of diversity, complexity, and symbiosis
in the context of Self-realisation 200
(e) Derivation of the norms of the local community 204
(f) Minimum conditions and justice: classes; exploitation 206
(g) The overview of Ecosophy T in diagram form 208
The future of the deep ecological movement 210
Bibliography 214
Index 218
Translator's Preface
The book before you is entitled Ecology, community, and lifestyle. It is

not a direct translation of Arne Naess' 1976 work, 0kologi, samfunn, og
livsstil, but rather a new work in English, based on the Norwegian, with
many sections revised and rewritten by Professor Naess and myself, in an
attempt to clarify the original work as well as bring it up to date.
But this is not as straightforward as it might sound. The project
involved cornering Professor Naess in between his numerous interconti-
nental travels, then escaping the problems of busy Oslo to various
mountain retreats scattered throughout the country. As the student, I
then questioned the professor on the original manuscript, he responded,
and together we reworked the manuscript to make it flow smoothly in
English and in the 1980s. After being thwarted by blizzards, breaking a ski
or two, locking ourselves out of the wood supply by mistake, we finally
emerged with the manuscript in its final form.
But even now there is much more we would like to add! In a developing
field like ecophilosophy, there can only be an introduction, not a conclu-
sive summary. So we apologise to those who feel key issues may have
been left out, and we also apologise to our editors for trying to work too
much in. At Cambridge University Press, Dr Robin Pellew, Susan
Sternberg, Alan Crowden, and Peter Jackson have all been especially
understanding. Daniel Rothenberg provided insightful criticism of the
introduction.
Thanks to Cecilie Schou-S0rensen and Barbro Bakken for typing
portions of the manuscript, and to the Council for Environmental Studies
at the University of Oslo, without whose support the book would never
have become available in English. Under the direction of Paul Hofseth
and Ola Glesne, their encouragement testifies to a belief that philosophy
has relevance to practical work on problems in the breach between man
and nature.
Translator's preface xiii
The Ecophilosophy Group, composed of Esben Leifsen, Peter Reed,

and myself, provided a forum for the exchange of ideas at the aforemen-
tioned institution. It is a tragedy that our work had to be broken up: Peter
Reed died under an avalanche in the Jotunheimen mountains last April.
His critical, sharp thinking in ecophilosophy crystallised many of our
intuitions, and thus added structure to many of the topics discussed in this
book. It is dedicated to his memory.
David Rothenberg
Department of Philosophy
Boston University
September 1987
Introduction
Ecosophy T: from intuition to

system
The system begins with the immediate . . . The beginning of the
system is the absolute beginning . . . How does the system begin
with the immediate? Does it begin with it immediately? The answer
to this question must be an unqualified no.
S0ren Kierkegaard
Concluding
Unscientific Postscript
We feel our world in crisis. We walk around and sense an

emptiness in our way of living and the course which we follow. Immediate,
spontaneous experience tells us this: intuition. And not only intuition,
but information, speaking of the dangers, comes to us daily in staggering
quantities.
How can we respond? Has civilisation simply broken away hopelessly
from a perfection of nature? All points to a bleak and negative resigna-
tion.
But this is only one kind of intuition - there is also the intuition of joy.
Arne Naess gives a lecture somewhere in Oslo. After an hour he
suddenly stops, glances quickly around the stage, and suddenly leaves the
podium and approaches a potted plant to his left. He quickly pulls off a
leaf, scurries back to the microphone, and gazes sincerely at the audience
as he holds the leaf in the light so all can see. 'You can spend a lifetime
contemplating this', he comments. 'It is enough. Thank you.'
In 1969, Naess resigned his professorship in philosophy after over thirty
years of work in semantics, philosophy of science, and the systematic
exposition of the philosophies of Spinoza and Gandhi. The threat of
ecocatastrophe had become too apparent - there was much public outcry
and protest. Naess believed philosophy could help chart a way out of the
chaos. Because for him it had always been not just a 'love of wisdom', but
a love of wisdom related to action. And action without this underlying
wisdom is useless.
Information leads to pessimism. Yet it is still possible to find joy and
wonder in immediate experience. The problem is how to make it easier
for people to 'begin immediately'. 'I began writing Ecology, Community,
2 Introduction: Ecosophy T-from intuition to system
and Lifestyle because I was pessimistic', he reflects. 'And I wanted to

stress the continued possibility for joy in a world faced by disaster.'
Naess offers in this book the basis of a new ontology which posits
humanity as inseparable from nature. If this ontology is fully understood,
it will no longer be possible for us to injure nature wantonly, as this would
mean injuring an integral part of ourselves. From this ontological begin-
ning, ethics and practical action are to fall into place.
So Naess's system begins with an immediate reconsideration of 'what
there is', how we perceive things around us. There can be no more
spontaneous beginning than this. But the problem, which Kierkegaard
points out above (in reference to philosophical systems in general),
appears at once - just how does it begin? It cannot begin at once because
it must be studied, considered, and perhaps internalised. Only then can
we use it in a spontaneous manner.
In this introduction I try to review the background of Naess' system,
some of its particulars, and an overview of its position among other
philosophies of environmentalism, in order to soften its beginning.
1 Beginning with intuitions

Naess' result is not a work of philosophical or logical argumenta-
tion - I t is primarily intuitions', he says. These are intuitions developed
over a long life spent in nature. Arne recalls their beginnings:
From when I was about four years old until puberty, I could stand or sit
for hours, days, weeks in shallow water on the coast, inspecting and
marvelling at the overwhelming diversity and richness of life in the sea.
The tiny beautiful forms which 'nobody' cared for, or were even unable
to see, were part of a seemingly infinite world, but nevertheless my
world. Feeling apart in many human relations, I identified with 'nature'.1
Much later in life Naess will write that the young child's world is that
which is close and easily apprehendable around him.2 It is an easy time to
feel that one's identity is tied to immediate nature. But it was in his teens
that Naess's awareness expanded to include a bond with people who lived
their lives near to nature:
When fifteen years old I managed through sheer persistency of appeals
to travel alone in early June to the highest mountain region of Norway-
Jotunheimen. At the foot of the mountain I was stopped by deep rotten
snow and I couldfindnowhere to sleep. Eventually I came across a very
old man who was engaged in digging away the snow surrounding and in
part covering a closed cottage belonging to an association for
mountaineering and tourism. We stayed together for a week in a nearby
hut. So far as I can remember, we ate only one dish: oatmeal porridge
with dry bread. The porridge had been stored in the snow from the
Beginning with intuitions 3
previous autumn - that is what I thought the old man said. Later I came
to doubt it. A misunderstanding on my part. The porridge was served
cold, and if any tiny piece was left over on my plate he would eat it. In
the evenings he would talk incidentally about mountains, about
reindeer, hunting, and other occupations in the highest regions. But
mostly he would play the violin. It was part of the local culture to mark
the rhythm with the feet, and he would not give up trying to make me
capable of joining him in this. But how difficult! The old man's rhythms
seemed more complex than anything I had ever heard!
Enough details! The effect of this week established my conviction of
an inner relation between mountains and mountain people, a certain
greatness, cleanness, a concentration upon what is essential, a
self-sufficiency; and consequently a disregard of luxury, of complicated
means of all kinds. From the outside the mountain way of life would
seem Spartan, rough, andrigid,but the playing of the violin and the
obvious fondness for all things above the timberline, living or 'dead',
certainly witnessed arich,sensual attachment to life, a deep pleasure in
what can be experienced with wide open eyes and mind.
These reflections instilled within me the idea of modesty - modesty in
man's relationships with mountains in particular and the natural world
in general. As I see it, modesty is of little value if it is not a natural
consequence of much deeper feelings, a consequence of a way of
understanding ourselves as part of nature in a wide sense of the term.
This way is such that the smaller we come to feel ourselves compared to
the mountain, the nearer we come to participating in its greatness. I do
not know why this is so.3
We need to compare ourselves with the mountain - this is not meant to
be a grand metaphor for a possible humanity, like Nietzsche's Uber-
mensch ('six thousand feet above men and time!'), but an actual, living
mountain: a model of a nature in which we can fully exist only with
fabulous awe. The possibility of modesty is the most human of characteris-
tics. But why is the link between people and nature so central?
Naess would, in time, try to discover 'why this is so' by elaborating a
philosophy that leads from the immediate self into the vast world of
nature. It is this which is presented in this book. The intention is to
encourage readers to find ways to develop and articulate basic, common
intuitions of the absolute value of nature which resonate with their own
backgrounds and approaches.
The recognition of the problem and its subsequent study using
philosophical methods is called ecophilosophy. More precisely, it is the
utilisation of basic concepts from the science of ecology - such as
complexity, diversity, and symbiosis - to clarify the place of our species
within nature through the process of working out a total view.
4 Introduction: Ecosophy T—from intuition to system
Ecophilosophy leads in two directions. It can be used to develop a deep

ecological philosophy, as philosophers continue to elaborate these basic
notions and their connections. And it can lend support to a growing
international deep ecology movement, which includes scientists, activists,
scholars, artists, and all those who are actively working towards a change
in anti-ecological political and social structures.
In an attempt to categorise what it is that binds supporters of this
movement together, a platform of deep ecology has been developed,
which appears in chapter 1. It consists of eight common points to guide
those who believe that ecological problems cannot be solved only by
technical 'quick-fix' solutions. In practice this can mean simply trying to
see a particular problem from the point of view of other interests than our
own (i.e. other species, or ecosystems themselves) or it can be an opening
to a full scale critique of our civilisation, seeking out false conceptions of
reality at the core.
But in any case this platform is meant as a kind of resting point for
agreement; a place where those who desire the type of change argued for
in this book can look upon to realise where they stand, what it is they share
in common in their beliefs.
And such deep matters should not be oversimplified. A recurring
theme in this book will be to introduce two basic ecological principles into
a philosophical review of our society: unity and diversity. And as the poet
A. R. Ammons warns: 'oneness is not useful when easily derived,
manyness is not truthful when thinly selective.' 4
Some kind of agreement is essential if people are to act together
towards change in a group, but their differences in perspectives and
means for reaching agreement should not be lost in the oneness. The
environmental movement will be strongest if it can be shown that its
concise set of principles can be derived from a variety of world-views and
backgrounds. The more philosophical, religious, and scientific evidence
can be found to support the normative values of environmentalism, the
more important and universal the movement will be.
The philosophical side of ecophilosophy investigates the particular
methods of viewing the world that lead different individuals to something
like the platform of deep ecology. Naess calls this reasoning process
ecosophy, if it becomes articulated in a philosophical manner.
A good portion of this book is devoted to the presentation of Naess's
own system of reasoning that leads to the platform, an Ecosophy T. The
name T is said to represent his mountain hut Tvergastein ('cross the
stones) but it is its personal nature that is most important. It suggests that
there might be many other ecosophies (A, B, C,. . .) that each of us could
Interpretation andprecisation in Naess's philosophy 5
develop for ourselves. Though we are meant to nod in agreement more or

less with its conclusions, it is not essential to accept its particular chains of
reasoning. It is most important that we are able to reach the system's
conclusions using ways of feeling and reason familiar to us, rather than
accepting all of Naess's particular steps and defences of his reasoning. For
it is important to realise that Naess is less interested in building a system
to explain all than he is in teaching us to develop our own systems in our
own ways; incomplete, perhaps, but so necessary for us to reach real and
grounded similar conclusions - not the least of which is realising that
change must begin at once.
2 Interpretation and precisation in

Naess's philosophy
An ecosophy is a personal system, a personal philosophy, and for
another's to reach us something in it must resound with us immediately.
It need not be entirely original.
This is not every philosopher's view on how to use their systems. Some
have believed they have solved all the important problems of existence,
and others think they have proved that these problems are unsolvable.
But Naess would rather have every person take some time to interpret
what he presents in their own ways, recognising that many different,
distinct, yet mutually acceptable interpretations are possible and compat-
ible.
This notion has its roots in his work in semantics in the 1950s. Naess's
view (in Interpretation and Preciseness) is that those who communicate do
not do so on the basis of sharing a common language, but by mutually
interpreting what the other has said based on prior understanding of what
the words and expressions mean. 5 A particular word's associations for an
individual can be so vast or so specialised that another's use of this same
word could be miles away from what the speaker intends. And this is not
mere quibbling, but a real block towards the possibility of others' ideas
really getting through to us.
But communication is possible. By admitting the use of vague and
general terms, which Naess calls the T o level, and accepting many parallel
interpretations, or precisations, at higher levels. As he explains it:
Let me give an example of what I mean by precisation, since the concept
so often causes misunderstandings. At the vaguest level, To, we have the
sentence 'I was born in the twentieth century.' The next more precise
level, Tx, would have to clarify this information, and clear up possible
misunderstanding. For instance, Tx might be 'I was born in the twentieth
century after the death of Christ.' On the other hand, to say 'I was born
in 1912' is not a precisation. It is an elaboration: more information is

given on the situation, not the utterance itself.... For example, Pascal
jumped up from his sleep and shouted 'feu!'. Then 'Dieu!' Then 'Dieu
d'Abraham et Isaac!'. . . narrowing successively. Precisising? At the
beginning we share in the inspiration. Pascal, though, becomes a bad
example in the sense that he got caught in a specialism, moving from the
fire to a very particular notion of a God, excluding all others. 6
The type of clarification Pascal offers for his utterance limits the possible
effect of his original intuitive inspiration. We want to know just what the
'fire' is, not by narrowing its range but by understanding what was meant.
We should approach Naess's normative system Ecosophy T in the same
way.7
When Arne begins his system with the norm 'Self-realisation!' many
associations will be raised. In the text one learns that we are not meant to
narrow this realisation to our own limited egos, but to seek an understand-
ing of the widest 'Self, one with a capital S that expands from each of us
to include all.
Before too much confusion is engendered, we must reflect upon a
second, rather ecological notion of communication: that it does not
happen alone. We come up with ideas, we release them to the world, but
only if they can be grasped by others can they come to exist collectively
and have weight. This is the essence of Naess's 'relational thinking' -
nothing exists apart. Neither a person, nor a species, nor an environmen-
tal problem. A word only takes life through its meanings and compatible
interpretations. This is the practical effect of realising an ecosophical
ontology.
We can only etch out the meaning of a concept through its moving place
in the field of other concepts and the ways they are perceived. In this
process we identify wholes that are perceived to have an organic identifia-
ble unity in themselves, as a network of relations that can move as one.
The term chosen for this kind of understandable shape is gestalt, borrowed
from work in the psychology of perception in the early part of this
century.8 The world provides us with a flood of information, but that
which presents itself as living entities is characterised by a certain natural
life, which comes to us as a conviction that identity is inherent only in the
relationships which make up the entity. As Naess remarked while skiing
at night in minus twenty Celsius under crystal clear blue darkness and a
wide moon: 'the extreme cold is so much a part of the gestalt that if it were
any warmer we would really feel uncomfortable.'
The gestalt of ecosophy T as a whole is something that the reader will
not be able to perceive step by step, or stride after stride. The exposition
Clarification of terms in translation 7
of the book is not strictly logical in a syllogistic sense (from A and B

follows C), as it is impossible to formulate an ecosophy completely in this
way. Arne hints at the meanings. As one forges the connections both his
view and ours take shape. Remember two of his underlying beliefs. (1) As
persons we cannot escape pretending to act and decide on the basis of a
total view. But verbal articulation of this view in its entirety is impossible.9
(2) The system begins with the immediate. Its own rules should never
mask the immediate. Or: If we wish to identify a starting point for a
system, spontaneous experience offers itself. But any system used carries
with it social contexts that cannot capture or replace the uniqueness of the
original experience.
3 Clarification of terms in translation

With these notions in mind, some of the key terms used within
ecosophy T can now be introduced. The translation of these terms from
Norwegian to English is somewhat problematic. Many of the substantives
used (realisation, identification, precisation) convey a more active sense
in their Norwegian usage. They are never states to be reached, but
processes. The words for 'environment' and 'intrinsic value' are both
more familiar terms in the Norwegian. For the translation to succeed,
these should be treated not as awkward concepts, but as words to be used
in daily speech.
(a) Milieu I en vironment

These two terms are used interchangeably for the single Norwe-
gian word milj0. Why both? Because, as in French, the Norwegian term
has wider and more familiar connotations than the somewhat cumber-
some 'environment'. But we have no simple English word to use here. If
an easier word existed, the notion of environmental conservation might
be more widely accepted in our culture.
What are 'environmental problems'? What is 'degradation of the
environment'? Simple: destruction of what surrounds us, the immediate
which we are within. Not merely the physical nature, but all that we live
in, all the gestalts we can identify ourselves within. According to Naess,
this harmonises our very identity as it is necessary to reveal our greater
selves.
Within these concepts are the related gestalts of nature and life. The
word nature has very many associations in English and Scandinavian
languages10 and we should not forgo any of these associations in a term
whose very richness of meanings demonstrates its significance. The
particularly scientific interpretations of wild, untouched nature 11 which
find their way into ethical categories are complexity, diversity, and
symbiosis. These concepts underlie the reasoning toward values through-
out the entire work, and are given relational definitions in chapter 7.
I don't want to say too much about how Naess derives a notion of
Tightness from these terms, but let it suffice to say that he does not uphold
a norm of 'life', as this smacks of the danger of 'cult of life' that is a root to
certain fascistic philosophies. Perhaps it is too little connected to the
individual, or to the fact that one should be prepared, through an
ecosophy, to make one's own decisions about the world, and this is then
built upon norms with a more dynamic and directional quality than what
we get by simply upholding 'life!'
How do we make the link from ethical principles to decisions? With the
notion of gestalt understanding comes the possibility of gestalt switch. At
first one sees the world one way, but with an increasing awareness of
formerly hidden relations, another understanding suddenly comes to
light and we make an instantaneous shift. All of a sudden things become
clear - a kind of a-ha! experience, the moment of insight. Another way of
describing the purpose of Ecology, Communityy and Lifestyle is as an
effort to bring about this moment of ecological gestalt switch - conver-
sion, if you will. Many methods are useful.
Many people who had read the book in its five successive Norwegian
editions through the 1970s were consulted to find out what parts were
important to them, how they found it useful. There was a tremendous
diversity of responses, as there are many motivations for the particular
gestalt switch needed to reach an understanding of the abyss between our
species and the Earth. One of Naess's aims is to reveal as many possible
motivations as possible.
(b) Self-realisation
One thing common to all these motivations (ways of reaching the
switching point) is that they all connect the individual to the principles of
interconnectedness in nature. Naess's key concept in this is 'Self-realisa-
tion', used throughout the book in various guises. Keeping with his belief
in the power of To formulations, Arne stubbornly refuses to pin down this
term to a rigid definition:
People are frustrated that I can write an entire book upon an intuition
that is 'nowhere defined or explained'. It is tantalising for our culture,
this seeming lack of explanation. . . But if you hear a phrase like'all life
is fundamentally one!' you must be open to tasting this, before asking
immediately 'what does this mean?' Being more precise does not
necessarily create something that is more inspiring.12
But, in fact, Naess's use of Self-realisation is a bold attempt to connect the

general statement that 'all life is fundamentally one' with our individual
needs and desires. Without cleaving away at its potential, I here only
mention several points to alleviate misunderstanding.
(1) Self-realisation is not self-centred. Remember the capital S, but at
the same time do not think the individual self or ego is dissolved in the
larger Self. The diversity of different individuals and approaches remains,
as we share and shape our connections to the larger. Still, Dostoyevsky
realised what was necessary for Self-realisation when he outlined a prime
danger of modern times:
. . . the isolation that prevails everywhere . . . has not fully developed,
not reached its limit yet. For every one strives to keep his individuality
as apart as possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fullness of life
for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of
life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realisation he ends by arriving
at complete solitude.13
We cannot simply split into units, pursuing our own goals. This is why
Naess requires the concept of a greater Self.
(2) If one really expands oneself to include other people and species
and nature itself, altruism becomes unnecessary. The larger world
becomes part of our own interests. It is seen as a world of potentials to
increase our own Self-realisation, as we are part of the increase of others'.
(3) The word in Norwegian is Selv-realisering: Self-realising. It is an
active condition, not a place one can reach. No one ever reaches
Self-realisation, for complete Self-realisation would require the realisa-
tion of all. Just as no one in certain Buddhist traditions ever reaches
nirvana, as the rest of the world must be pulled along to get there. It is only
a process, a way to live one's life.
We use the concept as a guideline. It gives us a direction to proceed in;
a way to see our actions as part of a larger gestalt. Naess comments on why
he has chosen to begin his system in this way:
Now Self-realisation, like nonviolence, is a vague, and To t^fm . . . .
There is at the outset something essential: for life, by life. But there must
be an arrow. A direction, starting from the self, moving towards the Self.
It is a direction I can say yes to ethically. We may call it a vector - in
tremendous but determinate dimensions.14
These metaphors ought to be kept in mind: arrow, direction, vector. They
can help clarify the bounds in which Self-realisation can be expanded, if
not defined directly. And what precisely are the dimensions? This can
perhaps be clarified if we discuss how one moves along the path from one
intuition to another.
(c) Derivation
The process of motion in thought is for Arne synonymous with
derivation. And here he precisises in the direction of logical derivation,
i.e. from 'Self-realisation!' and 'Self-realisation for all beings!' we can
trace a system of syllogisms to derive ecological norms for 'Diversity!' and
'Complexity!' This does not refer to historical derivation, i.e. 'Where
have these concepts come from in time?' or derivations of purpose, i.e.
'Why are these concepts useful for me?' (even though both these ques-
tions could be addressed within Ecosophy T). It is purely logical deriva-
tion which is meant.
Naess wishes to show how we can justify all actions and beliefs by
connecting them back to those most fundamental for us, beginning with
Self-realisation. It is rigid and pure logic he uses, yet the core statements
are still basically intuitive and elusive.
How is the world existent in a gestalt perspective? Why do we make use
of the relational field? Baruch Spinoza, one of Naess's sources of inspira-
tion, had a response to these questions that might well be echoed today:
I do not know how the parts are interconnected, and how each part
accords with the whole; for to know this it would be necessary to know
the whole of nature and all of its parts . . .. By the connection of the
parts, then, I mean nothing else than that the laws, or nature, of one part
adapt themselves to the laws, or nature, of another part in such a way as
to produce the least possible opposition.15
This provides a clue on how to embrace more gestalt relations. Look for
things that flow together without opposition. From these can meaningful
wholes be discovered. (This involves a breaking down of some of the
unnatural oppositions we have come to accept as parts of our culture.)
So we concentrate on finding within each discovered relation a mirror
of the larger structure. In this way our total views are hinted at with every
single thing we complete. We should not believe that more information
will make this clearer. What is needed is a re-orientation in thinking to
appreciate what can be learned from specific and simple things through
recognising their defining relations with other things. And this accom-
panies the process of learning to feel as one with them.
(d) Identification
The process of motion through experience manifests itself
through identification, identifisering in Norwegian. This is also an active
term: it could be thought of as 'identiting'. We discover that parts of
nature are parts of ourselves. We cannot exist separate from them. If we
try, our Self-realising is blocked. Thus we cannot destroy them if we are

to exist fully.
This becomes the root of the most powerful application of ecosophical
thinking to specifically environmental conflicts. We must see the vital
needs of ecosystems and other species as our own needs: there is thus no
conflict of interests. It is a tool for furthering one's own realisation and
fullness of life. And this too was realised by a wise old monk in The
Brothers Karamazov:
Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love
every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals, love the plants,
love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine
mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it
better every day . . . for all is like an ocean, all is flowing and blending;
a touch in one place sets up movement at the other end of the e a r t h . . . .
D o not say 'Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil environment is
mighty, and we are lonely and h e l p l e s s ' . . . . Fly away from that
dejection, Children! 16
So, if we progress far enough, the very notion of 'environment' becomes
unnecessary. Identification in this sense is the widest interpretation of
love. In love one loses part of one's identity by gaining a greater identity,
something that in its truest sense cannot be spoken of. So at the same time
we do not intend to make everything part of ourselves and see ourselves
as nonexistent otherwise. We can identify with these parts in nature
precisely because they are of an equal status to us; they possess a certain
independence from us and our valuing. This is called by Naess naturens
egenverdi: the intrinsic value of nature.
(e) Intrinsic value

To translate egenverdi as 'intrinsic value' makes the term sound
somehow unnatural: it is 'own value' that is meant, value in itself. Many
ecophilosophers have difficulty with this notion17, especially in the light of
what has been said about our selves and the connections to the Self of
nature. What, then, actually exists independent from us? The value is not
so much independent from us as independent from our valuation - be it
material or aesthetic in nature. Gestalt entities in nature are things to be
respected for their own sakes, simply because they are there and near to
us. Like friends - we should never use them only as a means to something
else. To do so is superficial, seeing only surface interactions. It is
intuitively obvious to see the own-ness, intrinsicality, egenskap (own-
shape, quality) of nature and of friends, but one can easily forget it in daily
interaction. We tend to lose friends if we act that way too long. The same
could happen with nature.
(f) Depth
Wittgenstein noted that ordinary thinking is like swimming on
the surface - so much easier than diving into the depths18. The framing
metaphor is equally applicable to approaches to ecological conflicts.
It is the work of the philosopher to go deeply into problems and
situations which may at first seem simple or obvious, digging out the roots
to reveal structures and connections that will then be as visible as the
problem first seemed to be easy. This is why a philosophical ecology is a
deep ecology. Naess first introduced this term in the early 1970s, and since
then, as a To term, it has, not surprisingly, been taken to mean many
things (precisised in many different directions): from an ecology with a
wider perspective (like 'human ecology') to a form of radical protest that
seeks to undermine the deepest roots of 'the system' at once.
What Naess originally intended was simply stated (in Naess (1973) and
chapter 1). Depth only applies to the distance one looks in search of the
roots of the problem, refusing to ignore troubling evidence that may
reveal untold vastness of the danger. One should never limit the bounds
of the problem just to make an easier solution acceptable. This will not
touch the core. One should think not only of our species but of the life of
the Earth itself. The planet is more than us, more fundamental and basic
than our own single species in isolation.
The word 'shallow' as used to name approaches and solutions which do
not take such a wide perspective has an unfortunate defamatory ring.
Words like 'narrow' and 'limited' may be no better. Yet some argue that
all we can work for in the practical world is for solutions that would be
classified under these categories. In one sense the magnitude of any truly
deep change would be so vast that perhaps all we can work at is a
succession of short-term, limited solutions. But we should not lose sight
of the bond between our immediate beliefs and any distant goals. These
specific solutions should be linked to our underlying intuition and the
understandings derived from this intuition.
Some examples should clarify how specific situations could be
approached with a deep ecological perspective.
(1) A storm causes a blowdown of trees over a favoured hiking trail in
the forests surrounding Oslo. An anthropocentric solution would be to
clear away all the trees to make the forest look 'cleaner' and 'neater'. A
deeper solution: clear away only what is needed from the trail itself,
recognising that the removal of too many trees might endanger habitats
for other species which were improved by the blowdown.
(2) A forest fire burns in a popular national park, putting visiting
tourists in danger. Should the rangers put it out or let it burn? Fires are a
natural part of the healthy existence of a forest. They are thus sometimes
necessary. Conditions would have to be carefully considered before the
fire is tampered with.
(3) Before building a hydropower project it is customary to estimate the
useful life of the dam and lake. How long before it will become filled with
silt and be unusable? A suitable lifetime according to the industry might
be 30 years. The deeper opinion would be that such a solution to our
energy needs is largely irrelevant. It may be useful in this limited period,
but it is no substitute for longer-term thinking and planning.
(4) In planning an irrigation project in an excessively dry area, one
should see it as a process to help the soil and the land itself, not only to
improve productivity for man. It is the health of the soil that is at stake;
man can only make use of this with due respect for the Earth19.
(5) Aurlandsdalen is one of the most beautiful river valleys leading
from the high plateau of the Hardangervidda to the Sognefjord in western
Norway. The watershed has been developed for hydropower as part of a
larger scheme, but most of the workings have been built underground,
and the cables have not been placed through the valley. So the canyon
itself still appears relatively untouched. Satisfying enough for some - but
those who remember the rushing falls of earlier days find their gestalt
understanding of the valley is disturbed. The amount of water is now
merely a trickle, a shadow of its former strength. The dignity of the
waterfall is impaired.
It is difficult to come up with convincing examples of deep ecological
solutions, because the terms in ecosophy T are so removed from the
language planners are accustomed to working with. As Naess might put it
(see chapter 3), the middle section of this system pyramid is hollow - no
one has taken the time to elaborate the connection between the basic
principles of an ecosophy and the specifics of a singular real-world
situation. And this is a shame, because, if there is to be any test of the
worth of ecophilosophy, this is it. So here is an area where much work can
be done!
And in this application of ecosophy it is hoped that some form of
optimism can be maintained despite the amount of negative information
that bombards us daily. The root of philosophy is in wonder, and this joy
in wonder cannot be lost even in a time when conditions appear so grim.
The wonder should be directed, then, at the problems themselves,

penetrating them from the essence.
It is this ability to think things through that can be the contribution of
the philosopher in our 'desperate time'. When asked on Dutch television
if intellectuals had any social responsibility in our present age, Naess
responded:
I think that intellectuals might consider their intellects in a more
Spinozistic way, and cultivate... a loving attitude towards what (they)
have insight into, while considering it in an extremely wide perspective.
And intellectuals might do this without making the terrible mistake of
becoming sentimental or fanatical.20
This is the task of justifying one's views philosophically, even if they are
intuitions or emotional views. Naess will argue that such views are an
integral component of objective reality, and as such deserve serious
consideration in ecological debate. To act responsibly in any conflict or
situation where we put forth our views on nature, we should be able to
integrate these feelings in the same way as objective, statistical facts:
. . . as an acting person I take a stand, I implicitly assume very many
things, and with my Spinozist leanings towards integrity - being an
integrated person as the most important thing - I'm now trying to close
down on all these vagaries. I am inviting you to do the same. 21
As more individuals learn to do this, we are to be left not with a shallow
oneness, but with many interpretations of the same core. Upon confront-
ing the system of Ecosophy T, you should take the time to be changed.
On the other hand, one can talk and clarify forever without changing
the way one lives and acts. This is an age of hypocrisy. Ideals are one
thing, actions another. Naess has further comments on such 'integration':
People could be called 'bags of contradictions'. It is not my job to
describe such bags. Actually there is a lot to say about too tightly
integrated characters. Not enough room for inconsistencies,
spontaneity, play . . . ,22
4 Where do we place deep ecology?

After showing how Naess makes use of basic words in relation to
Ecosophy T, it is useful to consider this ecosophy in comparison with
other environmental philosophies, both in what they advise practically
and in the way they approach comprehensive points of view. In this
process, many interpretations of the original distinction 'deep ecology'
come to light, some of which could be called misinterpretations. This is
always a danger when speaking at the To level; you may gain many
adherents to your ideas, because they are so easily understood in different
Where do we place deep ecology? 15
ways. But some of these understandings will not be what you had in mind!
In this section we review the way environmental philosophies have been
categorised, and try to clear up some basic misconceptions concerning the
interpretation of the concept of deep ecology. A common problem is that
the distinction between the movement and the philosophy is not realised.
Philosophising can be an inspiration and a source of support for the
movement, but no one is claiming that it can replace practical action of
different sorts.
A useful chart which shows a structure analogous to the shallow/deep
outline is found in O'Riordan. 23 He contrasts the approaches of ecological
and technological environmentalism, or ecocentrism vs. technocentrism.
The sub-divisions which O'Riordan employs to elaborate are important
as they illustrate the very fluidity of the original terms (see the table).
The basic distinction is accurate, but the separation of deep ecology
from self-reliance technologies illustrates a common misreading - nar-
rowing deep ecology away from the practical concerns with people and
the community, as if it were merely a discussion of animal or species
rights. The points listed under O'Riordan's deep ecology column should
be seen as the basis of a conception of the world which is meant to underlie
the specific work of developing more appropriate technology and man-
agement, not as something more radical or extreme.
The whole designation 'ecocentrism' is closer to an equivalent for what
Naess means by 'deep ecology': centring on the ecosphere. Compare
O'Riordan's statement 'ecological laws dictate human morality' with
Naess' more searching, feeling, and listening way of seeking guidelines in
nature:
There is a kind of deep yes to nature which is central to my philosophy.
What do we say yes to? Very difficult tofindout - there is a deep
unconditionally, but at the same time there is a kind of regret, sorrow,
or displeasure . . .Nature is not brutal, but from a human point of view,
we do see brutality - as we see yellow in the sun; as we see these
fantastically blue mountains outside this window.24
And O'Riordan's next sentence says that a part of deep ecology is
'biorights: the rights of unique landscapes to remain untouched'. A
response according to Naess might be: not 'unique', not 'rights', but
thinking of the landscape first, before human needs, and then devising
technologies, and management, that stem from a rootedness in place and
nature.
One should be able to see a range of possible optimisms in deep ecology
if it is to have any use as a constructive concept - it cannot be considered
merely a particularly extreme or pessimistic position along a linear scale.
Ecocentrism and Technocentrism
En vironmentalism
Ecocentrism *- -> Technocentrism
Deep ecologists Self-reliance

I I
Environmental Cornucopians
Soft technologists managers
Intrinsic importance of (1) Emphasis on small- (1) Belief that eco- (1) Belief that man can
nature for the humanity ness of scale and nomic growth and always find a way
of man hence community resource exploita- out of any difficul-
identity in settle- tion can continue ties either political,
Ecological (and other ment, work and lei- assuming: scientific or techno-
natural) laws dictate (a) suitable ecological
human morality nomic adjustments
(2) Integration of con- to taxes, fees, etc. (2) Acceptance that
Biorights - the right of cepts of work and (b) improvements pro-growth goals
endangered species or leisure through a in the legal rights define the rational-
unique landscapes to process of personal to a minimum level ity of project ap-
remain unmolested and communal im- of environmental praisal and policy
provement quality formulation
(c) compensation
(3) Importance of par- arrangements satis- (3) Optimism about the
ticipation in com- factory to those ability of man to
munity affairs, and who experience ad- improve the lot of
of guarantees of the verse environmental the world's people
rights of minority and/or social effects
interests. Participa- (4) Faith that scientific
tion seen both as a (2) Acceptance of new and technological
continuing educa- project appraisal expertise provides
tion and political techniques and de- the basic founda-
function cision review ar- tion for advice on
rangements to allow matters pertaining
(4) Lack of faith in for wider discussion to economic
modern large-scale or genuine search growth, public
technology and its for consensus health and safety
associated demands among repre-
on elitist expertise, sentative groups of (5) Suspicion of at-
central state au- interested parties tempts to widen
thority and inher- basis for partici-
ently anti-demo- pation and lengthy
cratic institutions discussion in
project appraisal
(5) Implication that and policy review
materialism for its
own sake is wrong (6) Belief that all im-
and that economic pediments can be
growth can be overcome given a
geared to providing will, ingenuity and
for the basic needs sufficient resources
of those below sub- arising out of
sistence levels growth
Source: O'Riordan 1981.

Only such a modification of the classification could make possible O'Rior-

dan's first, and most accurate, summary of deep ecology: 'the intrinsic
importance of nature for the humanity of man'.
And yet many have overlooked this core and twisted the term in
different directions. A poll of environmental attitudes conducted in the
United States in the late 1970s saw it as a particularly long step to take:
. . . deep ecology is a far more radical position than that taken by most
supporters of alternative technology involving as it does the rejection of
economic growth and of the assumptions underlying western science,
the subordination of human society to natural processes, and the
doctrine that humans share a profound identity with non-human
nature.25 [italics mine]
The use of negative and static imagery presents deep ecology as
something quite unrealistic, fixed, and unconstructive through the use of
words such as 'subordination' and 'doctrine'. Instead we should see the
deep ecology movement as efforts directed towards identity with nature
(not non-human, but an extension of humanity). And we are to be not
subordinated, but integrated into natural processes. Perhaps economic
growth for its own sake is rejected, but not growth or progress if redefined
in a more ecological manner.
The unrealism of the above categorisation can be avoided if deep
ecology is seen as a root for practical work, not as a code of ethics. But the
same idealistic appearance has led Lester Milbrath to describe deep
ecologists as a particularly ineffective group:
The 'deep ecologists' are immersed in nature emotionally and
philosophically, [though] not very involved in politics and political
reform. Many of them live in counter-culture communities that are close
to nature and minimally disturb the biosphere as they interact with
nature to provide their life needs; in this sense they are both radical and
conservative. Although society may eventually learn important lessons
from the experiences of these people in their new communities, they do
not constitute a strong force for near-term social change.26 [italics mine]
Reflecting upon this categorisation, we should first point out that emo-
tional or philosophical immersion does not preclude political involve-
ment. It should instead be seen as the first step to real long-term change.
Breaking away from the system either in thought or in lifestyle should
never be seen as an opposition to those working for short-term change;
interpreting the deep-shallow division in this way is a mistake. But things
that are quickly satisfying have a way of not lasting so long - like shallow
ecological solutions.
But Milbrath clearly has an insight into the usefulness of the distinction
'deep ecology' when he calls it both radical and conservative. This hints at
the potential strength of a green politics which will be introduced in
chapter 6, which should dispel the idea that deep ecology is something
wholly non-political.
So much so that some rather conservative lobbies in Washington are
quite worried about the movement:
There is also a trend towards a new revolutionary stream in the
environmental movement referred to as 'deep ecology'. . . This
powerful faction is not merely content with striving for environmental
protection, [but] is seeking to cultivate a liberal, almost counter-culture
view of the world . . . .Today's environmentalist is not merely seeking a
clean and safe environment, but is striving for some vague political goal,
designed to come about by stopping energy production as we know it.27
[italics mine]
A far cry from Milbrath's opinion about irrelevance! So some organisa-
tions seem afraid of the possibly revolutionary nature of deep ecology.
That those who strongly disagree with the tenets of deep ecology are
concerned is not a bad thing. But worry and fear are the wrong reactions.
Tremendous effort should be spent on communicating with those who
disagree - from both sides. Any agenda within deep ecology should not
shun the task of communicating with the opponent, in action, writing, or
speaking, as Gandhi emphasised over and over again (see chapter 6).
With this in mind there can be a danger of over-rhapsodising the
benefits of a new understanding of nature, especially if you are not
prepared to provide this understanding, but only cry of the need for it:
Deep ecology is emerging as a way of developing a new balance and
harmony between individuals, communities, and all of nature. It can
potentially satisfy our deepest yearnings: faith and trust in our most
basic intuitions, courage to take direct action, joyous confidence to
dance with the sensual harmonies discovered through sport, playful
intercourse with the rhythms of our own bodies, the rhythms of flowing
water, and the overall processes of life on Earth.28
One should be wary of placing too much expectation upon deep ecology.
Though the imagery here draws us in, it can be dangerous if no one is
taking the time to move beyond these To formulations: many potential
supporters might be turned off by them. There can be a danger in flowery
rhetorics. This is why Naess avoids a heavily rhetorical style.
But he still encourages those with conflicting opinions and means of
communication to continue in their different ways, while he maintains the
maxim: 'simple in means, rich in ends'.
We cannot say that any of these interpretations is a false one, but

somehow they fail to address the possible significance of deep ecology by
limiting it before understanding it. They are also T o formulations, and of
course only excerpts from much larger works, taken out of context. The
easiest step is to put labels on things, but it is so much harder to go beyond
such quick epithets as 'shallow' and 'deep'. What all of the above
examples of 'readings' indicate is this way that precisation can narrow the
meaning of a concept and distort it on the base of limited use of
information. The subtitle of this book is 'Outline of an ecosophy'. It is in
many ways only a sketch. But it is our task, as readers, to fill in the space
so that misinterpretations will be less frequent.
But to shape deep ecology into a viable area for creative philosophical
research, we should provide further guidelines on how to continue. One
limits oneself to describe it as some kind of expansion of morality and
ethics that covers animals, plants, ecosystems or even the whole natural
world. It is a question 'of ontology, not ethics' writes Naess (chapter 2) -
a re-examination of how we perceive and construct our world. This has
been admirably argued by the Australian philosopher Warwick Fox in a
recent paper29 which defends the ontological approach against a recent
(also Australian) critique of deep ecological philosophy30 which labels all
of deep ecology literature 'inconsistent rubbish'.
The interpretation of the whole thing as rubbish comes only if you
concentrate too much on the rereading of the sketchy formulations of
deep ecology philosophies, rather than using them as suggestions for
interpretations based on your own experience. Fox's conclusion, for
which he finds support in the writings of many ecophilosophers, is that
one should steer clear of 'environmental axiology' - that is, looking for
values in nature. Instead, one should seek to change one's whole way of
sensing oneself and the world in the direction of identification and
Self-realisation that Naess puts forth in this work. Fox summarises:
The appropriate framework of discourse for describing and presenting
deep ecology is not one that is fundamentally to do with the value of the
non-human world, but rather one that is fundamentally to do with the
nature and possibilities of the self, or, we might say, the question of who
we are, can become, and should become in the larger scheme of things.31
The word 'should' (my emphasis) hints that the question of values still
remains. And perhaps it is not value of the Earth, but for the Earth,
originating in human choice. But the only way we can come to make this
choice is by going deeply into our own experience - yet never with our
own interests primarily in mind.
Overviews of ways we choose (or are chosen) to interact and construct
the environment are available.32 There are various trends and poles in
such a discussion that are blurred in reality. Is Man a part of nature?
Defined by nature? Or are we free to construct nature ourselves, or enter
it through various phenomenological approaches which can involve both
the observer 'constructing his reality' and 'things presenting themselves'?
Something in this last dual approach is close to what Naess advocates.
The sections in the book that suggest this (also perhaps the most difficult)
are those in chapter 2 that deal with the gestalt perspective and in
particular the concept of concrete contents - that all the qualities we sense
in things somehow lie in the identity of the things themselves.
The advantage of the concrete contents approach for environmentalism
is to demonstrate that the feelings of oneness which we can learn to feel
in/with nature actually exist in nature, and are as real as any quantifiable
environment that can be subject to cost-benefit analysis.
But as to how we can reorient ourselves, Naess points us toward
participatory understanding:
I'm not much interested in ethics or morals. I'm interested in how we
experience the world . . . If deep ecology is deep it must relate to our
fundamental beliefs, not just to ethics. Ethics follow from how we
experience the world. If you articulate your experience then it can be a
philosophy or a religion.33
But just how should we experience the world? And then how should we
articulate it? Are there examples of the expanded perspective? What
would it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like? How do we know if we are
approaching it?
These questions remain. This book suggests a way to proceed. It
springs from intuitions, and it will end with them. But they will be yours,
no longer only the author's. The system begins and ends with the
immediate.
David Rothenberg
Oslo
16.9.86
Notes
1. Arne Naess, 'How my philosophy seemed to develop,' Philosophers on their
Own Work, Vol. 10 (New York: Peter Lang, 1982), p. 270.
2. See chapter 7 for Naess's views on the process of growing up and the expansion
of the self.
3. Arne Naess, 'Modesty and the conquest of mountains', in Michael Tobias,
zd., The Mountain Spirit (New York: Overlook Press, 1979), pp. 13-16.
4. A.R. Ammons, 'Essay on poetics', Selected Longer Poems (New York:
W.W.Norton, 1980), p. 50.
Notes 21
5. See I. Gullvag, 'Depth of intention', Inquiry 26,1973, p. 33, for a good overview
of Naess's work in semantics. Also see Naess's own introduction for the general
public, Communication and Argument (Os\o\ Universitetsforlaget, 1966).
6. From 'Is it painful to think? A discussion with Arne Naess', in Peter Reed and
David Rothenberg, ed., Wisdom and the Open Air (University of Oslo: Council
for Environmental Studies, 1987).
7. In the Norwegian articulation of Naess's notion of normative systems, the verb
presisere is a central term - the active, verb form of precision, leading to the
process of precisation. We have unfortunately had to translate this to the rather
awkward English verb 'to precisise.'
8. Seethe works of WolgangKohler(Gesta//Psyc/io/ogv and The Place of Values in
a World of Fact), Kurt Lewin (Topological Psychology) for an idea of the
theoretical work in gestalt perception study. More recently, Paul Goodman
and Frederick Perls (Gestalt Therapy) have applied the original ideas in their
practical work.
9. See Arne Naess, 'Reflections about total views', Philosophy and
PhenomenologicalResearch, 25,1964,16-29.
10. See Arthur Lovejoy, 'Nature as aesthetic norm', Modern Language Notes, 42,
1927,445-51, and Jens Allwood, 'Language, beliefs, and concepts' in Natural
Resources in a Cultural Perspective, Swedish Research Council, 1979.
11. In Norwegian it is common to use the word 'nature' as an object; a thing to enjoy
or experience. We say 'se pa den vakre naturen!' - 'look at the beautiful nature!'
This usage is not common in English, but it could be.
12. From'Is it painful to think?'6
13. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (New York: Random House,
1950), p. 363.
15. From letter xxxii, The Correspondence of Spinoza, ed. A. Wolf (New York:
Russell and Russell, 1966), p. 209.
16. Dostoyevsky13, pp. 382-3.
17. See, for example J. Baird Callicott, 'Intrinsic value, quantum theory and
environmental ethics', Environmental Ethics 7, No. 3,1985,257-76.
18. Attributed.
19. Deeply ecological thinking in practical land use policy planning can be found in
the work of Malin Falkemark, a Swedish hydrologist. See, for example, Malin
Falkenmark and Gunnar Lind, Waterfor a Starving World (Boulder, Col.:
Westview Press, 1976).
20. From a debate between Naess and A. J. Ayer, 'The glass is on the table: an
empiricist vs. a total view', in Fons Elders, ed., Reflexive Water: the Basic
Concerns of Mankind (London: Souvenir Press, 1974), p. 59.
21. Ibid, p. 58.
22. Personal correspondence, August 1986.
23. T. O'Riordan, Environmentalism (London: Pion 1981), p. 376.
25. Robert Cameron Mitchell, 'How soft, deep, or left? Present constituencies in the
environmental movement for certain world views', Natural Resources Journal,
20,1980,348-9.
26. Lester Milbrath, Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society (Albany: State
University of New York Press), 1984,pp. 25-6.
27. T.M. Peckinpaugh, 'The specter of environmentalism: the threat of
environmental groups,' (Washington, DC: Republican Study Committee,
1982), p. 3.
28. Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered
(Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985), p. 7.
29. Warwick Fox, 'Approaching deep ecology: a response to Richard Sylvan's
critique of deep ecology', Hobart: University of Tasmania Environmental
Studies Occasional Paper 20,1986.
30. Richard Sylvan, 'A critique of deep ecology', Canberra, Australian National
University Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, no. 12,1985.
31. Fox(1986), p. 85.
32. David Pepper, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism (London: Croom Helm,
1984), p. 124.
33. QuotedinFox(1986),p.46.
1
The environmental crisis and the
deep ecological movement
1 The gravity of the situation

Humankind is the first species on earth with the intellectual
capacity to limit its numbers consciously and live in an enduring, dynamic
equilibrium with other forms of life. Human beings can perceive and care
for the diversity of their surroundings. Our biological heritage allows us
to delight in this intricate, living diversity. This ability to delight can be
further perfected, facilitating a creative interaction with the immediate
surroundings.
A global culture of a primarily techno-industrial nature is now
encroaching upon all the world's milieux, desecrating living conditions
for future generations. We - the responsible participants in this culture -
have slowly but surely begun to question whether we truly accept this
unique, sinister role we have previously chosen. Our reply is almost
unanimously negative.
For the first time in the history of humanity, we stand face to face with
a choice imposed upon us because our lackadaisical attitude to the
production of things and people has caught up with us. Will we apply a
touch of self-discipline and reasonable planning to contribute to the
maintenance and development of the richness of life on Earth, or will we
fritter away our chances, and leave development to blind forces?
A synopsis of what it is which makes the situation so critical could read:
An exponentially increasing, and partially or totally irreversible
environmental deterioration or devastation perpetuated through firmly
established ways of production and consumption and a lack of adequate
policies regarding human population increase.
The words 'deterioration' and 'devastation' are here understood to
mean a change for the worse, a decrease of value. An ethical theory is
presupposed, a system which allows one to judge a change as negative.
24 The environmental crisis and the deep ecological movement
Chemistry, physics, and the science of ecology acknowledge only change,

not valued change. But you and I would presumably agree that a change
in the bio-conditions of a river or ocean which excluded most forms of life
would constitute a deterioration of value. Our evaluative thinking
contends that it would constitute a devastation of diversity. The inability
of the science of ecology to denounce such processes as the washing away
of the soil of rain-forests suggests that we need another approach which
involves the inescapable role of announcing values, not only 'facts'.
We need types of societies and communities in which one delights in the
value-creative aspects of equilibrium rather than the glorification of
value-neutral growth; in which being together with other living beings is
more important than exploiting or killing them.
This discussion of the environmental crisis is motivated by the
unrealised potential human beings have for varied experience in and of
nature: the crisis contributes or could contribute to open our minds to
sources of meaningful life which have largely gone unnoticed or have
been depreciated in our efforts to adapt to the urbanised, techno-
industrial mega-society.
It would be unwise to suppose that improvement can be achieved for
the great majority of mankind without severe political contests and
profound changes in the economic objectives pursued by the industrial
states. Value priorities are socially and economically anchored, and
changes in these priorities continuously interplay with other changes in a
boundless, dynamic whole.
It would also be dangerous to suppose that any one group has full
insight into and power over the techno-economic systems. The profundity
of the crisis is due in part to its largely uncontrolled character:
developments proceed at an accelerating pace even though no group,
class, or nature has necessarily determined, planned, or accepted the next
phase. Built-in mechanisms see to it that the tempo does not slacken. The
cog-wheels have drawn us into the very machinery we thought was our
slave.
Reaching new objectives for progress necessitates greater insight into
this machinery, not only within the elites of power, but also within the
populace at large. The latter should participate as much as possible both
in the formulation of new goals and in suggesting means to reach them.
2 Production and consumption: ideology and practice

Progress has in all seriousness been measured by the rate of
energy consumption and the acquisition and accumulation of material
objects. What seems to better the material prerequisites for 'the good life'
Production and consumption: ideology and practice 25
is given priority without asking if life is experienced as good. But the taste
is the proof of the pudding, and more and more people in the so-called
affluent societies are finding that its flavour isn't worth the stress. 'I am
rich' as an experience is largely, but not entirely, independent of the
conventional prerequisites for the good life. High life quality - yes; high
standard of living - tja. *
The politicians and energy experts speak of exponentially increasing
energy needs as though they were human needs, and not simply demands
on the market. The material standard of living and the quality of life are
for all intents and purposes thought to be one and the same. This results
in demand for exponential material expansion. It is important to realise
that percentage growth is exponential and that a yearly growth of 1% or
2% introduces increasing social and technical changes in the course of
each year in addition to enormous accumulated changes.
The deep-seated roots of the production and consumption ideology can
be traced in all existing industrial states, but perhaps most clearly in the
rich Western countries. A great deal of available mental energy within
economic life is used to create new so-called needs and entice new
customers to increase their material consumption. If it were not,
economic crisis and unemployment would soon be upon us, or so it is said.
The dissatisfaction and restlessness due to the artificial tempo and the
artificial 'modern' life are conventionally entered on the balance sheet
without the batting of an eyelid. A change in the ideology of production
and consumption is not possible without considerable change in the
economic machinery. At present, the machine seems to require and to
produce a distorted attitude to life. Within such a well-oiled system, a
revision of value standards in favour of all-round experiential values, life
quality rather than standard of living, must sound like a dangerous
proposition.
We have 'progressed' to the point where the objectives of the good life
must be considered threatening; we are intricately implicated in a system
which guarantees short-term well-being in a small part of the world
through destructive increases in material affluence. The privileges are
regionally reserved because a similar increase of affluence in Africa, Asia
or South America is not intended and would hasten the advent of an
environmental Armageddon.
The authors who describe environmental problems and agitate for their
solutions refer often to certain exponential curves, those which aptly
illustrate the crisis situation. Authors who wish to placate an uneasy
* A Norwegian expression translating roughly as 'maybe yes, maybe no'.

populace, and who actively endorse a further doubling of economic

growth in the rich countries, refer to quite different curves (as an
example, see Julian Simon's The Resourceful Earth, 1984): the curve for
interest in ecology is exponential, as is the curve for new technical
advancements in pollution abatement. Legislation in favour of the
environment was increasing exponentially in the 70s. So, is there really
any reason to continue agitation for renewed efforts? One good question
deserves another: If positive reactions to agitation are increasing
exponentially, is this not ground to cease agitation? Everything is going
so well, isn't it. . .?
However, the statement, 'the environmental crisis will presumably be
overcome (without our efforts)' belongs to a class of self-refuting
statements: the more who rally round, or rather, the more who regard it
as true, the less probable it is that the statement will prove to be true.
'Within 100 years, mankind will experience an ecocatastrophe (if
neither you or I make an effort)' belongs to the same self-refuting class of
statements: the more people rally round, the greater the chances for
falsification. And in this case, it is desirable that the statement prove to be
mistaken.
My conclusion is that many more are needed to agitate for a soonest
possible change in direction. Ecologists and other environmental
scientists point out that we are still on a catastrophic course, but they do
not make firm predictions about what will actually happen. Their
statements begin with an 'if: 'If we continue to live in our present
manner, so and so will result.'
The crisis of life conditions on Earth could help us choose a new path
with new criteria for progressy efficiencyy and rational action. This positive
aspect of our situation has inspired Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle.
The environmental crisis could inspire a new renaissance; new social
forms for co-existence together with a high level of culturally integrated
technology, economic progress (with less interference), and a less
restricted experience of life.
3 Our ecological knowledge is severely limited;

ecopolitical consequences of ignorance
The ecological movement relies upon the results of research in
ecology and more recently in conservation biology (see Soule (1985)).
But to the great amazement of many, the scientific conclusions are often
statements of ignorance: 'We do not know what long-range consequences
the proposed interference in the ecosystem will beget, so we cannot make
any hard and fast conclusions.' Only rarely can scientists predict with any
certainty the effect of a new chemical on even a single small ecosystem.
The deep ecology movement 27
The so-called ecological doomsday prophecies are statements about

catastrophical states of affairs which cannot be precluded //"certain new
policies are not put into effect very soon. We know little or nothing about
the extent to which such new policies will come into being. The fact that
the human population is on a catastrophic course does not lead to the
conclusion that catastrophe will occur. The situation is critical because we
do not know whether the course will be promptly and radically changed.
Politicians and others now attentive to the words of environmental
scientists are thunderstruck that science itself is proclaiming so much
ignorance! It is a strange feeling to have new, politically brazen policies
recommended on the basis of ignorance. But we do not know the
consequences! Should we proceed with the project or not? The burden of
proof rests with those who are encroaching upon the environment.
Why does the burden of proof rest with the encroachers? The
ecosystems in which we intervene are generally in a particular state of
balance which there are grounds to assume to be of more service to
mankind than states of disturbance and their resultant unpredictable and
far-reaching changes. In general, it is not possible to regain the original
state after an intervention has wrought serious, undesired consequences.
And intervention, ordinarily with a short-sighted gain for some minor
part of mankind in view, has a tendency to be detrimental for most or all
forms of life.
The study of ecosystems makes us conscious of our ignorance. Faced
with experts who, after calling attention to a critical situation, emphasise
their lack of knowledge and suggest research programmes which may
diminish this lack of knowledge, the most natural response for the
politicians is to propose that the matter be put on the table or postponed
until more information is available. For example, a proposal which would
counter the possible death of forests is postponed in order to gather more
information on what makes the trees die. It appears that public and
private officials who heed ecological expertise must become accustomed
to a new normal procedure: the recommendation and instigation of bold,
radical conservation steps justified by the statements of our lack of
knowledge.
4 The deep ecology movement

The term 'deep ecology' was introduced in an article entitled
T h e shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary'
(Naess, 1973). Some key paragraphs are reproduced here:
The emergence of ecologists from their former relative obscurity marks
a turning point in our scientific communities. But their message is
twisted and misused. A shallow, but presently rather powerful,
movement, and a deep, but less influential, movement, compete for our
attention. I shall make an effort to characterise the two.
1. The Shallow Ecology movement:

Fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the
health and affluence of people in the developed countries. . . .
2. The Deep Ecology movement:

a. Rejection of the man-in-environment image in favour of the
relational, total-field image. Organisms as knots in the field of intrinsic
relations. An intrinsic relation between two things A and B is such that
the relation belongs to the definitions or basic constitutions of A and B,
so that without the relation, A and B are no longer the same things. The
total field model dissolves not only the man-in-environment concept,
but every compact thing-in-milieu concept - except when talking at a
superficial or preliminary level of communication.
b. Biospherical egalitarianism - in principle. The 'in principle' clause is
inserted because any realistic praxis necessitates some killing,
exploitation, and suppression. The ecological field worker acquires a
deep-seated respect, even veneration, for ways and forms of life. He
reaches an understanding from within, a kind of understanding that
others reserve for fellow men and for a narrow section of ways and forms
of life. To the ecological field worker, the equal right to live and blossom
is an intuitively clear and obvious value axiom. Its restriction to humans
is an anthropocentrism with detrimental effects upon the life quality of
humans themselves. This quality depends in part upon the deep pleasure
and satisfaction we receive from close partnership with other forms of
life. The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a
master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man from himself.
In the later 1970s it was difficult to formulate fairly general views which
might be agreed upon among people I would characterise as supporters of
the deep ecology movement. Finally George Sessions and I formulated
eight points, using 179 words and some comments (see next section). We
agreed to call it a proposal for a 'deep ecology platform'. It is expected
that others who find the distinction 'shallow' (or 'reform') vs. 'deep'
ecology useful, and who identify to some extent with the latter, will work
out their own alternative formulations (see e.g. Rothenberg (1987)). Any
set of formulations will be coloured by personal and group idiosyncrasies.
So several are needed.
In concrete environmental conflicts, deep ecology supporters will tend
to be on the same side, but the platform formulations are not supposed to
list common views in concrete situations, but to express the most general
and basic views they have in common. The views are not basic in an
A platform for the deep ecology mo vement 29
absolute sense, but basic among the views that supporters have in
common.
5 A platform of the deep ecology movement

(1) The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has
intrinsic value. The value of non-human life forms is independent of the
usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.
(2) Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and
contribute to theflourishingof human and non-human life on Earth.
(3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to
satisfy vital needs.
(4) Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive,
and the situation is rapidly worsening.
(5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-
human life requires such a decrease.
(6) Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change
in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological
structures.
(7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
(dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high
standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference
between big and great.
(8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation
directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the
necessary changes.
The eight formulations are of course in need of clarification and

elaboration. A few remarks:
Re (1) Instead of 'biosphere' we might use the term 'ecosphere' in order
to stress that we of course do not limit our concern for the life forms in a
biologically narrow sense. The term 'life' is used here in a comprehensive
non-technical way to refer also to things biologists may classify as
non-living: rivers (watersheds), landscapes, cultures, ecosystems, 'the
living earth'. Slogans such as iet the river live' illustrate this broader
usage so common in many cultures.
Re (2) So-called simple, lower, or primitive species of plants and
animals contribute essentially to the richness and diversity of life. They
have value in themselves and are not merely steps toward the so-called
higher or rational life forms. The second principle presupposes that life
itself, as a process over evolutionary time, implies an increase of diversity

and richness.
Why talk about diversity and richness? Suppose humans interfere with
an ecosystem to such a degree that 1000 vertebrate species are each
reduced to a survival minimum. Point (2) is not satisfied. Richness, here
used for what some others call 'abundance', has been excessively reduced.
The maintenance of richness has to do with the maintenance of habitats
and the number of individuals (size of populations). No exact count is
implied. The main point is that life on Earth may be excessively interfered
with even if complete diversity is upheld.
What is said above about species holds also for habitats and ecosystems
which show great similarity so that it makes sense to count them.
Re (3) This formulation is perhaps too strong. But, considering the
mass of ecologically irresponsible proclamations of human rights, it may
be sobering to announce a norm about what they have no right to do.
The term 'vital need' is vague to allow for considerable latitude in
judgement. Differences in climate and related factors, together with
differences in the structures of societies as they now exist, need to be
considered. Also the difference between a means to the satisfaction of the
need and the need must be considered. If a whaler in an industrial country
quits whaling he may risk unemployment under the present economic
conditions. Whaling is for him an important means. But in a rich country
with a high standard of living whaling is not a vital need.
Re (4) Status of interference. For a realistic assessment of the global
situation, see the unabbreviated version of the IUCN's World Conserva-
tion Strategy (1980). There are other works to be highly recommended
such as Gerald Barney's Global 2000 Report to the President of the United
States (1980).
People in the materially richest countries cannot be expected to reduce
their excessive interference with the non-human world to a moderate
level overnight. Less interference does not imply that humans should not
modify some ecosystems as do other species. Humans have modified the
Earth and will continue to do so. At issue is the nature and extent of such
interference.
Thefightto preserve and extend areas of wilderness or near-wilderness
should continue and should focus on the general ecological functions of
these areas (one such function: large wilderness areas are required by the
biosphere to allow for continued evolutionary speciation of animals and
plants). Present designated wilderness areas and game preserves are not
large enough to allow for speciation of large birds and mammals.
Re (5) Limitation of population. The stabilisation and reduction of the
human population will take time. Interim strategies need to be developed.
A platform for the deep ecology movement 31
But this in no way excuses the present complacency. The extreme

seriousness of our current situation must first be more widely recognised.
But the longer we wait the more drastic will be the measures needed.
Until deep changes are made, substantial decreases in richness and
diversity are liable to occur; the rate of extinction of species will be greater
than in any other period of Earth history.
A legitimate objection may be that if the present billions of humans
deeply change their behaviour in the direction of ecological responsibility,
non-human life could flourish. Formulation (5) presupposes that the
probability of a deep enough change in economics and technology is too
small to take into account.
Re (6) Policy changes required. Economic growth as conceived and
implemented today by the industrial states is incompatible with points (1)
to (5).
Present ideology tends to value things because they are scarce and
because they have a commodity or market value. There is prestige in vast
consumption and waste, to mention only two of many relevant factors.
Economic growth registers mainly growth in marketable values, not in
values generally, including ecological values. Whereas 'self-determina-
tion', 'local community', and 'think globally, act locally' will remain key
slogans, the implementation of deep changes nevertheless requires
increasingly global action in the sense of action across every border,
perhaps contrary to the short-range interests of local communities.
Support for global action through non-governmental organisations
becomes increasingly important. Many of these organisations are able to
act locally from grass roots to grass roots, thus avoiding negative gov-
ernmental interference.
Cultural diversity today requires advanced technology, that is,
techniques that advance the basic goals of each culture. So-called soft,
intermediate, and appropriate technologies are steps in this direction.
Re (7) Some economists criticise the term 'quality of life' because it is
supposed to be too vague. But, on closer inspection, what they consider
to be vague is actually the non-quantifiable nature of the term. One
cannot quantify adequately what is important for the quality of life as
discussed here, and there is no need to do so.
Re (8) There is ample room for different opinions about priorities.
What should be done first, what next? What is most urgent? What is
necessary as opposed to what is highly desirable? Different opinions in
these matters should not exclude vigorous cooperation.
What is gained from tentatively formulating basic views shared today
by most or all supporters of the deep ecology movement? Hopefully it
makes it a little easier to localise the movement among the many
'alternative' movements. Hopefully this does not lead to isolation but

rather to even better cooperation with many other alternative move-
ments. It might also make some of us more clear about where we stand,
and more clear about which disagreements might profitably be reduced
and which ones might profitably be sharpened. After all, as we shall see,
'diversity' is a high-level norm!
6 How the themes of deep ecology are presented

in what follows
As can be gathered from the formulation of the platform, the
deep ecology movement touches every major contemporary personal,
economic, political, and philosophical problem. A selection must be
made and I have tried to concentrate on central issues which seem to be
insufficiently clarified or elaborated in texts already published.
The first three chapters of the book concern two inescapable compo-
nents: valuation and emotion in thinking and experience of reality, and
how they lead to the ability of a mature, integrated human personality to
act on the basis of a total view. The strategy and tactics of the deep
ecological movement depend upon drawing the consequences of these
necessities.
Chapter 2 begins with an unavoidable discussion of terminology: what
is the relation between ecology, ecophilosophy, and ecosophy? The
central issue is that of transcending ecology as a science, looking for
wisdom through the study known as ecophilosophy, striving for an
ecosophy - a total view inspired in part by the science of ecology and the
activities of the deep ecological movement. A social movement is not
scientific; its articulation must be permeated throughout with declara-
tions of value and value priorities - norms, rules, imperatives - indicated
in my terminology by exclamation points.
This leads to a rather philosophical theme: is not the value-laden,
spontaneous and emotional realm of experience as genuine a source of
knowledge of reality as mathematical physics? If we answer 'yes!', what
are the consequences for our description of nature? The deep ecology
movement might profit from greater emphasis on spontaneous experi-
ence, on what is called the 'phenomenological' outlook in philosophical
jargon.
Chapter 3 deepens the thrust towards value- and decision-related
thinking. Like all scientific reasoning, the chains of arguments in value a
priori thinking are based on premises that are not conclusions reached
from other premises. This does not mean that ultimate, often manifestly
intuitive ethical and other normative pronouncements are 'subjective'.
Presentation of deep ecology themes in this book 33
Deep ecological philosophy insists that every non-ultimate argumenta-

tion must be tested against its ultimate basis: those value priorities which
guide the decisions of mature persons or responsible groups. The limita-
tion of the shallow movement is not due to a weak or unethical
philosophy, but due to a lack of explicit concern with ultimate aims, goals,
and norms. So a considerable part of the work of the philosophically
articulate supporters of the deep movement is to question narrowly
utilitarian decisions: how do they relate to the ultimate?
An important instrument for this activity is the normative system. The
concept is illustrated in chapter 3 by a brief mention of various possible
systems of ultimate values. 'Self-realisation!' as an ultimate norm is
introduced in a preliminary way.
The three next chapters are less philosophically oriented, tracing the
consequences of the philosophical issues within the vast realms of technol-
ogy (chapter 4), economics (chapter 5), and politics (chapter 6).
Technical progress is never purely technical: the value of technical
change is dependent upon its value for culture in general. To assess
change in technology within a lesser context than the ultimate cultural
aims undermines the very existence of the culture. 'Advanced' technology
is what advances the ultimate ends in life. Rationality is relational:
rational is rational only in order to reach human ultimate ends, whether
in terms of happiness or perfection. The position of technology in our
society should be taken more seriously, not less, because of its importance
for ultimate ends.
Classical economics concerned itself with a substantial part of human
needs. The perspective was both philosophical and practical. Modern
economics tends to narrow down the perspective and to substitute
demand on the market for human needs. Ecosophy asks for a re-establish-
ment of the classical perspective, adding insights from cultural anthropol-
ogy. A major job for the leading industrial nations is to help the
developing nations to avoid the pitfalls of the 'over-developed'. This
implies among other things a shift from measuring the success of an
economic policy in terms of average standard of living to that of life
quality, especially that of the underprivileged groups. Ecosophical reflec-
tion tends to support an economic ideal of simplicity of means and
richness of ends.
Chapter 6 concerns itself with the political dimension of the deep
ecological movement. Active supporters of the movement and their
forerunners, like John Muir, have run into depressing political struggles.
The movement is long-term, politics are short-term. Nature is no pressure
group, politicians yield only to pressures. 'Green' parties and groups
cannot so far point to enduring victories. But the tripartition blue, red,
and green is manifest in the political life of many countries. Green
technology, green economics, green population policy, green community
life and green peace movements are all pillars of support for the richness
and diversity of life.
Some supporters minimise the inherent value or effectiveness of green
lifestyles, while others announce that we cannot but start with ourselves,
changing our lives. It seems, however, that we must acknowledge that the
frontier is long and that supporters mayfindtheir place somewhere along
the front - among the political activists, the social reformers or among
those 'hating' politics and appearance before the public.
The last chapter returns to fundamentals and is more narrowly coloured
by my own variant of ecosophy, Ecosophy T. Here historical evidence is
gathered to support the view of a nature with value in itself, and
suggestions are put forth as to how to shape a world-view in harmony with
a true respect for nature. Finally the most basic norms and hypotheses of
Ecosophy T are tied together in a systematic sketch, followed by a short
commentary on the prospects for the future of the deep ecological
movement.
From ecology to ecosophy
The first part of the chapter introduces a way of formulating the

essential traits of a total view which could be of help to all who wish to
verbalise their basic attitudes and compare them with others' - especially
those who seem to oppose vigorous ecological policies. This portion is
methodological, and not limited to my own particular view, Ecosophy T.
The second part attacks problems of ontology, 'what there is'. Rather
than talking about reality or the world, ecophilosophical thinking pro-
ceeds in terms of nature, and humanity's relation to nature. An attempt is
made to defend our spontaneous, rich, seemingly contradictory experi-
ence of nature as more than subjective impressions. They make up the
concrete contents of our world. This point of view, as every other
ontology, is deeply problematic - but of great potential value for energetic
environmentalism in its opposition to the contemporary near monopoly
of the so-called scientific world-view.
1 The terms ecology, ecophilosophy, ecosophy

Those who come across these three terms should ask for precise
definitions - but in the disorderly terminological situation we are placed
in today, both descriptive and prescriptive definitions are somewhat
arbitrary. In this work, the three words will have three very distinct
meanings adapted to our purpose. Others, however, with other purposes,
may disagree somewhat on these precise meanings.
(a) Ecology
Biology is central in today's world: three fields of biological
research infringe upon the future of Homo sapiens in a dramatic way
which concerns us all - biological warfare, genetic engineering, and
ecology. Thesefieldscry out for evaluative thinking: what do we want and
36 From ecology to ecosophy
how can it be realised? Is the 'we' invoked here a collective with unitary
basic value, or is it a constellation doomed to unquenchable strife
occasioned by irrevocable interests in continual opposition?
The expression 'ecology' is infused with many meanings. Here, it will
mean the interdisciplinary scientific study of the living conditions of
organisms in interaction with each other and with the surroundings,
organic as well as inorganic. For these surroundings the terms 'milieu' and
'environment' will be used nearly interchangeably.
The preceding formulation is not especially informative. A great deal
depends on one's attitude to the study of one particular animal species -
Homo sapiens. Do all possible studies of humankind's relations with all
possible kinds of surroundings belong to ecology? Hardly.
In the following, the aspect of the science of ecology that is most
important is the fact that it is concerned first of all with relationships
between entities as an essential component of what these entities are in
themselves. These include both internal and external relations. Example:
when a bird eats a mosquito, it gets in an external relation to that
mosquito, but eating is an internal relation to its environment. (The
mosquito is initially outside the bird, but both are within the environ-
ment.) This approach can have application in many fields of inquiry -
hence the growing influence of the subject of ecology outside its original
biological domain.
(b) Ecophilosophy and ecosophy

The study of ecology indicates an approach, a methodology
which can be suggested by the simple maxim 'all things hang together'.
This has application to and overlaps with the problems in philosophy: the
placement of humanity in nature, and the search for new kinds of
explanation of this through the use of systems and relational perspectives.
The study of these problems common to ecology and philosophy shall
be called ecophilosophy. It is a descriptive study, appropriate, say, to a
university milieu. It does not make a choice between fundamental value
priorities, but merely seeks to examine a particular kind of problem at the
vast juncture between the two well-recognised disciplines.
But such value priorities are essential in any pragmatic argument. The
word 'philosophy' itself can mean two things: (1) a field of study, an
approach to knowledge; (2) one's own personal code of values and a view
of the world which guides one's own decisions (insofar as one does
fullheartedly feel and think they are the right decisions). When applied to
questions involving ourselves and nature, we call this latter meaning of
the word 'philosophy' an ecosophy (see Table 2.1).
The terms ecology, ecophilosophy, ecosophy 37
Table 2.1
Concentrating
on relations
All-inclusive to nature
Field of study philosophy ecophilosophy

Position, point of view a philosophy an ecosophy
We study ecophilosophy, but to approach practical situations involving

ourselves, we aim to develop our own ecosophies. In this book I introduce
one ecosophy, aribitrarily called Ecosophy T. You are not expected to
agree with all of its values and paths of derivation, but to learn the means
for developing your own systems or guides, say, Ecosophies X, Y, or Z.
Saying 'your own' does not imply that the ecosophy is in any way an
original creation by yourself. It is enough that it is a kind of total view
which you feel at home with, 'where you philosophically belong'. Along
with one's own life, it is always changing.
'Ecosophy' is a compound of the prefix 'eco-' found in economy and
ecology, and the suffix '-sophy' found in philosophy. In the word
'philosophy', '-sophy' denotes insight or wisdom, and 'philo-' denotes a
kind of friendly love. 'Sophia' need not have specific scientific pretensions
as opposed to 'logos' compound words (biology, anthropology, geology,
etc.), but all 'sophical' insight should be directly relevant for action.
Through their actions, a person or organisation exemplifies sophia,
sagacity, and wisdom - or lack thereof. 'Sophia' intimates acquaintance
and understanding rather than impersonal or abstract results. Peter
Wessel Zapffe's 'biosophy'* does the same: valuation of life, especially
the problematic 'human condition'. The more grounded approach of pro
aut contra dialogue, together with the scientific ethic of respect for the
norms of impartiality (in Norwegian, saklighet, 'appropriateness to the
situation at hand'), serve to help us explore our existence.
Etymologically, the word 'ecosophy' combines oikos and sophia,
'household' and 'wisdom'. As in 'ecology', 'eco-' has an appreciably
broader meaning than the immediate family, household, and community.
* Peter Wessel Zapffe is Norway'sfirstecophilosopher, introducing a connection
between philosophy and the biological place of man early in this century. His
central point is that Man is the ultimate tragic being, because he has learned
enough about the Earth to realise the Earth would be better off without the
presence of humankind. His major work, Om dettragiske (On the Tragic) has not
been translated into English. The only published translations of Zapffe into
English are in Reed and Rothenberg (1987).
'Earth household' is closer to the mark. So an ecosophy becomes a

philosophical world-view or system inspired by the conditions of life in the
ecosphere. It should then be able to serve as an individual's philosophical
grounding for an acceptance of the principles or platform of deep ecology
as outlined at the close of chapter 1.
A conscious change of attitude towards the conditions of life in the
ecosphere presupposes that we associate ourselves with a philosophical
position in all essential problems of decision-making. Therefore, contex-
tual and systems thinking is to be emphasised throughout this work.
But to have a world-view is one thing, to attempt to give a systematic
expression of it is another. A philosophical system has many components.
Logic, general methodology, epistemology, ontology, descriptive and
normative ethics, philosophy of science, political and social philosophy,
and general aesthetics are among the most well known. Ecosophy T says
this of this diversity: all are intimately interconnected! You will find a
view on all of them intimated in this work. A formal logic cannot be
concretely developed without assuming positions in methodology, nor-
mative philosophy, etc. Political philosophy is implied in any social
development of an ecosophy. Conversely, one cannot develop a political
philosophy without presupposing formal logic and assuming standpoints
about rhetoric and communication, and thus in the philosophy of lan-
guage. To assume a position in one scientific discipline presumes
standpoints in all the others. A sufficiently profound analysis of presup-
positions reveals that a standpoint in any science whatsoever presupposes
the assumption of a position in all the philosophical disciplines. To 'have'
a world-view or philosophy is not pretentious. We may stress our bottom-
less ignorance. If anything is pretentious, it is the claim to act as a whole
person. If we claim this, I think it is inescapable to admit that we have
presuppositions, expressed or unexpressed.
The essential idea is that, as humans, we are responsible in our actions
as to motivations and premises relative to any question that can be asked
of us. Needless to say, a total view cannot be completely articulated by
any person or group. The medieval church and dialectical materialism
intended a sort of completeness, but they scarcely achieved enduring
success. Yet all we do somehow implies the existence of such systems,
however elusive they may be to concrete description (see Naess (1964)).
This book encourages the reader to try to articulate the necessary parts
or fragments of his or here own implicit views, in the hope that it will lead
to clarification of the difficult process of facing and responding to the
challenges of life in our ecosphere.
The terms ecology, ecophilosophy, ecosophy 39
(c) The dangers of 'ecologism': seeing ecology as

the ultimate science
All-encompassing philosophical viewpoints have always been
more or less inspired by the sciences. In Indian philosophy, grammar was
important for Panini, while, in Greek philosophy, geometry (for Plato)
and biology (for Aristotle) were especially inspiring. Ecosophy T is in a
similar way inspired by ecology, but it cannot be derived from ecology or
any other science.
Some all-encompassing philosophical viewpoints, like Herbert
Spencer's social Darwinism, are formed as a generalisation or universali-
sation of one science or one theory within a science. The conceptual
framework and general problem approaches within a given science are
then regarded as universal and utilisable within all fields of inquiry. In the
Western world, such systematic programmes were introduced when
Pythagoras contended that 'everything is numbers', thereby trying to
universalise mathematics. Descartes almost universalised mechanics, but
he reserved a tiny retreat for God and free will.
Psychological research was enthusiastically welcomed as a general
foundation for thought when Fechner established psychophysics. But
several events like the attempt to reduce logic to a psychological study of
the laws of thought lead to a fiery counter-movement (Frege). The
lingering aversion for psychology still prevalent in analytic philosophy is
due in part to these attempts. To make psychology absolute - a total
system or common framework for all science - has been called 'psycho-
logism'. In debate, to label a standpoint an 'ism' often means it generalises
the concepts of a science too much. For example: sociologism, histori-
cism, etc.
Many of those who emphasise the tremendous breadth of ecology tend,
simultaneously, to limit it somewhat. They conceive of it as a natural
science or use primarily examples characteristic of natural science. As
long as one retains current concepts of nature instead of Spinoza's Natura
or other broad, profound concepts of nature, the placement of ecology
within the framework of natural sciences favours the shallow ecological
movement.
Ecology may comprise a great deal, but it should never be considered a
universal science. When concentrating on the relations between things, of
course many aspects of their limited separateness are ignored. Ecologism
is excessive universalisation or generalisation of ecological concepts and
theories. The attempt to fully replace the theory of knowledge with
certain ecological theories about behaviour and survival leads to very
great difficulties ('labyrinthine epistemology') or, more correctly, one

encounters great inconsistency and paradox (Naess, 1939).
Ecologism is not present if one works with ecologically defined thought
models which include epistemological phenomena, but which are
definitely constrained in accordance with model theory, i.e. with the
intention of investigating certain more or less arbitrarily selected aspects
('variables') of the phenomena. A theorem in relation to a model does not
necessarily contradict the negation of the theorem if the latter is defined
in relation to a totally different model. Thus, no epistemological model
can compete with the most comprehensive (i.e. philosophical) theories of
knowledge. The models have heuristic rather than ontological preten-
sions.
The shallow ecological movement often presents technical recommen-
dations for reform, for example, technical pollution abatement and
reduced consumption in the Third World countries. The deep movement
is global, and ecologism is then always a threat (see Galtung (1973) and
chapter 6) - perhaps not in conscious philosophical inquiries, but in more
careless generalisations in the heat of a debate.
2 Normative evaluation
(a) Objective science cannot provide principles for action
If the term 'objectivity' is meant to imply certainty, intersubjec-
tivity, and stability, scientific texts gain in objectivity when evaluations
used as premises are explicitly formulated.
Values are linked together: one thing is good for another which in turn
is good for a third thing. A detailed investigation of the evaluations in a
given ecological or other scientific investigation will never uncover the
values at the end of this process. At the end of the scientific process lie
ultimate assumptions of a philosophical kind. For all other values, it is
relevant to ask: is it correct that it is good for what it is said to be good for?
In what does the good consist in the instance investigated? For example,
many people contend that greater productivity is valuable because it
increases the general level of material affluence. This is in turn a rhetori-
cally popular value widely considered beneficial to well-being. A critique
of the first two values would pose questions like 'Does greater productiv-
ity widen or narrow the gap between rich and poor within a country, or
the gap between rich countries and poor countries?', 'Is a high standard
of material affluence conducive to happiness?', 'What effects do yearly
increases in affluence have upon aspiration levels?', 'Are people being
encouraged to believe in a constantly receding pie in the sky?' These
questions can be approached empirically and probable answers can be
Normative evaluation 41
suggested on the basis of scientific investigation. Conversely, what can a

good life be said to be good for? Both the question and the responses it
evokes are certainly philosophical.
The testability of the entire group of statements in question is not
necessarily reduced when evaluations are formulated, but it is more
complex. Instead of a statement/?, which comprises a genuine evaluation
and a descriptive assertion, we get two statements, q and r. One of them
is the evaluation stated explicitly and the other is the descriptive state-
ment. To the extent that q is part of the message which was to be intended
by p, it is problematic to eliminate q. To do so merely masks a crucial
aspect of the actual conditions of validity or truth. When the question at
hand comprises both evaluations and so-called facts, an impartial inquiry
necessitates explicit evaluations.
A large number of the topics labelled as 'ecological' are also 'ecosophi-
cal\ This is hardly unfortunate. Without an ecosophy, ecology can
provide no principles for acting, no motive for political and individual
efforts.
In the early days of the growth of ecological consciousness, ecologists
sometimes said things like 'knowledge about what should not be done . . .
is derived from the sciences and particularly from ecology.' (K. Caldwell,
quoted in Darling (1965)). Statements like this encourage the untenable
belief that, if only the grants to ecological and other scientific studies were
large enough, the experts could derive a conclusion about what we can do.
But we cannot act without normsl If, because of waterway pollution, we
decide that a factory must be shut down or moved, we accept, in addition
to the more or less scientific hypotheses about the effects of waterway
pollution, a long string of evaluations which are not part of any science:
'waterways ought not be poisoned!', 'the employees of the factory ought
not to go without work'. Both the scientific hypotheses and the evalua-
tions must be precisely formulated, and the respective derivative relation-
ships must be elucidated. When an ecologist says that this or that must be
done, e.g. 'we must reduce the level of human population on Earth!', the
ecologist implies that it can be done. But to what level? And who are 'we'?
This implies that he or she presupposes hypotheses and norms about
political conditions and local, national, and global power constellations.
And can all this be articulated in words? No, but hopefully enough to
clarify the debate.
(b) Norms and hypotheses; normative systems

A particular way of articulating philosophies will now be intro-
duced. It can at least be viewed as an exercise in systematisation. The
pieces of the game are two classes of sentences, the descriptive and the
prescriptive. In extremely simplified form, they may be arranged in a
diagram which shows lines of logical derivation between the statements.
Of the two kinds of statements, thefirstare called norms - prescriptions
or inducements to think or act in certain ways. They will be written with
an exclamation point, e.g. 'No exploitation!' or 'Be honest!' or 'Don't
pollute!'. To justify, explain, and relate such beliefs or pronouncements
to one another, a network of supporting non-normative statements is
required. These will be written without an exclamation point, and will be
called hypotheses. The name for this second class of statements is not
choosen primarily to suggest uncertainty, but rather a certain tentative-
ness or revisability.
Throughout this book lists of norms will be presented by letters as N l ,
N2, N 3 , . . . and hypotheses as HI, H2, H 3 , . . . . Diagrams are presented
that illustrate the logical derivations within normative systems.
It has been objected that the term 'norm' and the sign of exclamation
make the norm-sentences seem absolutistic and rigid. Actually the func-
tion of the general norms is that of tentative guidelines. Wise decisions -
the aim of normative thinking - are absolute in the sense of being either
carried out or sabotaged. In ecosophy, unlike academic philosophy,
decisions and actions count more than generalities.
A total view can be systematised in many ways. There is no one
definitive way of tracing lines of derivation. It is to some degree arbitrary
which norms are chosen as basic, ultimate or most fundamental in the
sense of not being logically derivable from any others. And even if the
verbal expressions of the norms and hypotheses are arranged in a definite,
authorised way, there is still room for differences in interpretation.
There are serious considerations which favour a certain vagueness and
ambiguity in the outlining of normative systems. Instead of tentatively
rejecting one of the norms or hypotheses in favour of a completely
different one, it is often better to introduce alternative interpretations of
the initial or 'point of departure' wording. The initial vague and ambigu-
ous sentence expressing the hypothesis or norm may then be tentatively
given more precise meanings, resulting in new formulations called pre-
cisations. The concept of precisation is one of the central concepts of an
empirical theory of system communications (Naess, 1966). Roughly, a
sentence Sx is more precise than another, So, if and only if the latter, So,
permits (in ordinary or technical talk) all interpretations of the former,
whereas the former, S1, does not admit all interpretations of the latter, So.
In short, the set of 'plausible' interpretations of the more precise sentence
is a genuine subset of that of the less precise.
The choice of a rather indefinite and ambiguous sentence in the most

elementary argumentations makes these fairly short and easily under-
standable and opens a variety of different possibilities for derivation and
interpretation. Instead of more or less arbitrarily insisting that your
sentence is to be interpreted in a single particular way, options are, as in
natural science, kept open as long as this is heuristically convenient.
A highly precise sentence of the kind needed in a fairly abstract and
general systematisation is apt to be long and complicated. Therefore, it
cannot perform the special function of the less precise. More details and
clarity do not render the vague and ambiguous obsolete. We have to work
continuously at various levels of preciseness.
When I recommend that norms be made more precise, nothing more is
meant than a point-form, fragmentary, or theme-restricted formulation:
we erect a fragile lattice of norm and hypothesis relations which at every
turn merges with the hazy sea of implicitness. The fragmentary nature of
statements must be shamelessly and unreservedly admitted or we sink
into the quagmire of sloganised political thought, and veil inadequacies
through the agency of words like 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
Communication, we may conclude, is not to be seen as a process of two
or more individuals making use of a completely 'shared language', but of
each carrying out a personal process of interpretation in their own
directions of precisations (see Gullvag (1983)). So any system which is to
serve as a kind of common platform must be articulated at low levels of
preciseness.
Returning to practical argumentation, the^re are several basic points.
(1) A normative system, e.g. an ethic, dots not consist only of norms.
Most codifications of normative views show a preponderance of non-nor-
mative sentences.
(2) Norms are in general derived from other norms and hypotheses,
rarely only from other norms.
(3) The existence of at least one hypothesis as a premise for the
derivation of a norm establishes the hypothetical character of derived
norms. Change in hypotheses used as premises normally changes norms.
Their validity depends upon the validity of non-normative assumptions,
postulates, theories, and observations. Example: one does not accept the
hostile norms of a systematic racism without accepting certain hypotheses
about the peoples in question. The norms are not logically derived from
the hypotheses, only psychologically motivated by them.
Methodologically the last point is of decisive importance in argumenta-
tion: when the intricate interconnection between norms and hypotheses
is left unarticulated, each norm tends to be taken to be absolute or
ultimate. This reduces or eliminates the possibility of rational discussion.

In harmony with the methodology here proposed, it is always, when
norms are opposed in debate, appropriate to ask the opponent: 'Which
hypotheses do you think are relevant to the adoption of your norm?'
We should try to uncover the roots of valuations and total systems, in
both our own and our opponents' premises and conclusions. The term
'roots' here includes deep psychological and social motivations as well as
logically basic norms and hypotheses. But in this book I concentrate on
cognitive, especially logic, relations rather than on the conative.
(c) The generalist in us

When a scientist assumes that there is general agreement about
the validity of an evaluation, it is often left unquestioned. Its validity is
presupposed. He or she does not do this as a scientist, however, but as a
generalist and a philosopher. An ecologist may say that ecology shows
that we ought to consider the climatic consequences entailed when
rain-forests are clearcut. Ecologists may personally deplore the biological
effects of deforestation, climatologists warn of its influence upon the
weather, and economists stress the bad economic consequences these
effects would have. But with only hypotheses as premises, it is not possible
to logically derive these value announcements. Strict consequential ethics
is incomplete: a consequence must be judged good or bad. Only these
judgements must be justified in relation to fundamental norms of our life.
Vast areas of concern are always involved. Therefore, only the generalist
in us can set up ecosophical value priorities which conclude with 'we
ought' or 'we ought not'. Ultimately a total view is presumed valid.
Only the most cursory of our value judgements are purely instrumental.
The more profound are intrinsic, or genuine goals, to be reached for their
own sake, rather than as means toward other goals. Without such goals in
themselves, there would be an infinite regress. The science of ecology
cannot hand you such goals. Things can have both intrinsic and instrumen-
tal value. For example, a forest can be preserved for the sake of profit or
recreation, but this does not rule out a view of its preservation as a goal in
itself. The forest is thus afforded a meaning independent of its narrow or
wide utilitarian value.
There are many ways to work out a map of value priorities - the
analytical systematising according to norms and hypotheses as presented
throughout this work is only one. It is trivial to pretend, though, that such
ultimate priorities are determined by society, culture, biology, or econ-
omy. We are not thereby exempt from the task of bringing them to
consciousness and as integrated persons assessing their validity. Such

statements are the backbone of an ecosophy.
We daily decide between conflicting considerations and interests. To
work for a more ecologically responsible personal and societal lifestyle is
thus not merely the ecologist's job. Nor the philosopher's. We should all
do it together, as generalists rather than as specialists. We all have a
certain amount of practice in choosing courses of action, and this pre-
sumes an ability to make comprehensive value judgements.
Determined efforts to justify these choices on the basis of a given set of
premises ultimately lead to the elaboration of a philosophical system, a
representation of the contextual associations between all aspects of our
existence. Fortunately, we seem to manage quite well from day to day
without much stringency. But the ecological challenge encourages
attempts at comprehensive value clarification and disentanglement.
An emphasis on personal value priority judgements and world-views
can be misunderstood to mean that the value priority is only relevant for
oneself. Global influence can only be achieved through participation in
organised efforts, such as clearly formulated in the important, but
neglected World Conservation Strategy (1980), The neglect is due to
ecopolitical weakness in each country and calls for political activity in
each state. But these collective tasks do not make personal value priority
judgements and world-views unnecessary. One works in an organisation
as a person, not just as a functionary. To act in an organisation merely as
a functionary is to renounce human dignity in favour of the anonymity of
the automaton.
All this talk is necessary because the aim of supporters of the deep
ecology movement is not a slight reform of our present society, but a
substantial reorientation of our whole civilisation.
(d) Conservation biology

A new science has developed over the past ten years which
combines insights from ecology with normative and generalist aspects to
move towards this substantial reorientation. Conservation biology is the
spearhead of scientifically based environmentalism. Firmly committed
environmentalists with training in the life sciences who use their special-
ities in direct service of conservation tend to cluster around this new
discipline. It is a crisis discipline, like cancer biology, and thus an
indispensable instrument of cooperation between nature managers and
researchers.
One of the leading researchers in the field, Michael Soule, whose
presentation (Soule, 1985) I follow in the main, puts forth four norms as
the simply worded basis of conservation biology: (1) 'Diversity of
organisms is good.' (2) 'Ecological complexity is good.' (3) 'Evolution is
good.' (4) 'Biotic diversity has intrinsic value.'
Including these norms in Ecosophy T, I prefer them written as nouns
with an exclamation point, e.g. 'Diversity of organisms!' The derivation
of the first two norms within Ecosophy T needs no comment. As to
'Evolution!', this norm inserts a long-range perspective characteristic of
the deep ecological movement: 'Long term viability of whole systems!'.
What goes on today is a destruction of the conditions necessary for
continued evolution, including speciation, through future millions of
years.
Continued evolution is indispensable for the long-range maintenance
of diversity and richness of life forms (cf. point (2) of the Platform,
chapter 1). This indispensability gets into Ecosophy T in the form of a
hypothesis. From point 2 and this hypothesis we derive the third norm of
conservation biology. The fourth norm, 'biotic diversity!' is a special case
of 'life form diversity!' if we use the broad sense of 'life' used in point (1)
of the platform. The conservation biologist has, of course, ecosystems,
habitats, and communities strongly in mind.
The normative character of conservation biology results in recommen-
dations and decisions which can be made as hastily as our current political
structures require. These have for instance influenced the political deci-
sion in Western New Guinea (Irian Jaya) to establish a series of national
parks. Recommendations were made before biologists had made the
usual scientific investigations concerning loss of species etc. if logging
were to continue. Political constraints made such investigations impossi-
ble, but the normative character of conservation biology allowed the
scientists to have a say in the deciding process.
The gravity of the situation is eminently clear from some of the well
confirmed 'hypotheses' of conservation biology. Species are a significant
part of one another's environment, therefore the tendency towards
non-natural (anthropogenic) communities threatens their structure, func-
tion, and stability. The extinction of one species of a community may
eventually result in the extinction of hundreds of others. Therefore the
saving of one may result in saving hundreds. But time is running out!
Another hypothesis: a species has a greater chance of survival in a
larger natural area or nature reserve. Examples of reasons for this:
sudden considerable growth 'outbursts' of the population of one species
can destroy other species. They 'are most probable in small sites that lack
Different descriptions of nature 47
a full array of population buffering mechanisms, including habitat sinks

for dispersing individuals, sufficient predators, and alternative feeding
grounds during inclement weather. The unusually high population
densities that often occur in nature reserves can also increase the rate of
disease transmission, frequently leading to epidemics that may affect
every individual.' (Soule 1985, p. 730.)
Clearly, moderation of the present extinction rate on this planet
requires significantly bigger nature reserves, and also significent decrease
of the extent of human habitation:
Nature reserves are inherently disequilibrial for large, rare organisms.
There are two reasons for this. First, extinctions are inevitable in habitat
islands the size of nature reserves; species diversity must be artificially
maintained for many taxa because natural colonisation
(reestablishment) from outside sources is highly unlikely. Second,
speciation, the only other nonartificial means of replacing species, will
not operate for rare or large organisms in nature reserves because
reserves are nearly always too small to keep large or rare organisms
isolated within them for long periods, and populations isolated in
different reserves will have to be maintained by artificial gene flow if
they are to persist. (Soule, 1985)
Absorption of even a tiny fraction of the information which conserva-
tion biology furnishes makes it clear that to conserve a major part of the
existing diversity and richness of life forms on this planet requires changes
of the basic kinds expressed in the Platform points (4) to (6).
The kind of exposition illustrated through the norms of conservation
biology can be generalised and made more sophisticated. We then arrive
at normative systems on the level of complex expositions of philosophies
or oulines of systematised total views. But these cannot be furthered
without an investigation of the various ways of perceiving and experienc-
ing nature itself.
3 Objective, subjective, and phenomenological

descriptions of nature
Deep differences in people's attitudes to nature and to their
intimate surroundings are commonly called subjective: "different feelings
and perceptions are induced in different people by the same thing'. The
thing is supposed to be objective, the perception subjective. What leads
one to believe that it is the same thing which we have different attitudes
towards? An easy answer: nature and thereby the immediate physical
surroundings have a uniquely determined set of characteristics at any
moment. These characteristics are considered independently of how

individual people comprehend them. They belong to the things in them-
selves, Dinge an sich.
Subjects (human beings) are assumed to face physical and other objects
of which they create different pictures or conceptions. The objective
conception, the one which describes the object as it is in itself, must be
independent of these differences. This way of thinking eliminates, among
other things, all individual differences of sense qualities. So the thing in
itself cannot have colour, nor shape.
What then remains? Perhaps merely an abstract structure of some kind
- in any case recent developments in physics seem to indicate just that.
There does not appear to be either world or nature remaining, merely
several common reference points suitable for mathematical description.
Within the informed public, the dominating answer would in all
likelihood be that it is precisely the mathematical natural sciences which
supply the approximately correct description of the environment as this is
in itself (we have learned to admit that the description may never
correspond perfectly). Are we getting any closer with the long scientific
strides built upon the work of Galileo and Newton?
The Russian poet Tiutchev sings of an opposition to this established
view (Perminov, 1970, p. 54):
Nature is something else than we believe
It has soul, it has freedom,
It has love, it has language
Philosophers and scientists have attempted to supply understandable
descriptions of things in themselves, descriptions absolutely independent
of their comprehension through the senses or in any other way. I believe
we can safely say that all the attempts have failed and that it is the
formulation of the problem which is at fault.
A strong philosophical tradition goes from Newton to Kant and his
Ding an sich about which nothing positive can be said. Our textbooks,
with impermissible inconsistency, usually stop half-way: form, weight,
and certain other qualities are objective whereas colour and smell are said
to be subjective.
However, if we take characteristics like 'oblong' and 'square', for
example, they cannot objectively be qualities of a table, as the quality
cannot be separated from the concepts of time and velocity in the theory
of relativity. The mentioned characteristics are not subjective, but, like
smell, bound in an interdependent relationship to our conception of the
world. This is what is meant by calling them 'relational' - rather than
'relative' or 'subjective'. It is justifiable to refer to them as objective in the
Different descriptions of nature 49
sense of being independent of a person's likes or dislikes. We arrive, not

at the things themselves, but at networks or fields of relations in which
things participate and from which they cannot be isolated.
Einstein sought a structural specification which would apply for each
and every observer, irrespective of the state of motion of the observer in
relation to the observed. The objective can be interpreted as 'that aspect
which is common for a large group, or for all observers'. It is important to
note, however, that that which is common is extremely abstract, com-
pletely intangible and in no way obvious. (General relatively will never be
obvious, I suppose.) The attempt to create a description of the content of
the world based upon such conceptions is bound to fail. At best, one
arrives at a spectral, wholly inhuman world. An interesting child of
fantasy, but useless as actual description.
To believe that what is common for the individuals in a class must be
itself an individual in the class is an erroneous idea whose influence in
semantics and conceptual learning is lamentable. For example, an expres-
sion can justifiably be made more precise in ten directions, and one
therefore believes that what is common to the ten directions is an eleventh
direction, which must necessarily be the 'most correct'. A good deal is
common for all dogs, but the attempt to imagine a dog which has the
common, and only the common features of all dogs overlooks not only
colour but everything which distinguishes a bulldog from a terrier. A
nature consisting solely of the features about which we are continuously
in agreement is like such a spectral dog - therefore any objective notion
of nature cannot be seen as that which we all agree upon as being 'there'.
Quantum physics is no more successful in retaining the constant,
definitive roundness or squareness we assume to be the form of the table
itself. But the physicists need not conceive the content of nature as
actually and objectively being so drastically different from the way we
(and classical naturalists) experience it. They could be satisfied with
saying that, based on certain models, a table or the universe should be
described in a certain way. Only the study of methodology can facilitate
understanding of the function of physical thought models. This relieves us
of the many fruitless attempts to distinguish between things and nature in
itself, 'an sich\ and nature for me, 'an mich\ The distinction itself can be
gradually eliminated.
Some may have received the impression that I have basically concluded
that everything is subjective, and that our original distinction subjective/
objective useless. This impression should be dispelled if one keeps the
following in mind: there is a difference between something relational and
something which is no more than an expression of one person's personal
judgement. When we say 'the Eiffel Tower is on the left', we describe a

state of affairs which does not express individual personal judgement. But
the statement becomes incomplete, 'elliptical', when it is detached from
a particular geographical situation. In relation to other places the Eiffel
Tower is to the right. Personal whereabouts are not necessary to justify
the relational position of the Eiffel Tower. The relational is not subjec-
tive.
In short, there is no single natural science description of nature, only a
number of contributions. Physics provides some common points of
bearing, for example time and space coordinates, degrees of longitude
and latitude. But characteristically enough, these are nowhere to be
found: There are few who believe that when a ship crosses the equator, a
man must stand in the bow and cut it with a knife. A physical equator is
nowhere to be found!
Together, these bearing points create a pure structure or form. The
structure is 'pure' in the sense that it lacks bodily or other content. One
can easily imagine atomic nuclei to be small things with colour and a hard
surface, but the scientific content in statements concerning atomic nuclei
is abstract and based solely upon structure. Such theoretical science can
be learned, understood, and acknowledged to be valid in any culture
whatsoever, not because it describes the common reality, but because it
describes a structure independent of most cultural conceptions. The
structure belongs to reality, but it is not reality. It can be revised again and
again, making possible ever different interpretations of and routes to
reality.
So, understanding the world as a collection of things with constant or
changing qualities breaks down when one attempts to render it very
precise and apply it in natural scientific or historical research. We must
strive for greater familiarity with an understanding closer to that of
Heraclitus: everything flows. We must abandon fixed, solid points,
retaining the relatively straightforward, persistent relations of inter-
dependence. 'Objective descriptions of nature' offered us by physics
ought to be regarded not as descriptions of nature, but as descriptions of
certain conditions of interdependence and thereby can be universal,
common for all cultures. Cooperation along these lines would in any case
fulfil intentions of universality and at the same time safeguard the
diversity of human cultures.
The designation of 'phenomenological description' is used for quite
different psychological and philosophical operations. For example, in
psychology, a description of motorists and pedestrians is said to be
phenomenological if it clearly and thoroughly describes how motorists
Qualities: do they exist in nature? 51
apperceive pedestrians and vice versa - in no way questioning whether

pedestrians are as described (e.g. so careless) by the motorists, or whether
the motorists are (e.g. so arrogant) as the pedestrians interpret them. Nor
is the question raised as to what ought to be, or why or how it has arisen.
Philosophical phenomenology (inspired more or less by the work of
Edmund Husserl) also attempts to give a description of the immediately
apprehended, and of the act of self-apprehension itself.
Phenomenological viewpoints are valuable for the development of
consciousness of a non-instrumental, non-utilitarian content of the
immediate experience of nature. For example, one may consider colours,
without thinking of their wavelengths as a result of mathematical calcula-
tion, or what 'signal functions' they have: 'Brown' for some people has the
signal function 'dry' and 'poor harvest', which hinders their apprehension
of certain qualities of desert landscapes. Each and every painter must
develop the knack of seeing colour independent of conventions. Without
practice, one sees things as 'das Man' (Heidegger) sees things, in other
words, in our society: a utility-conscious, average, or mean, way of seeing
them. A joyful experiencing of nature is partially dependent upon a
conscious or unconcious development of a sensitivity for qualities.
There are enough qualities for everyone! Those profoundly sensitive to
an abundance of diverse qualities are in an excellent position in life,
provided they can subsist economically at the same time.
4 Primary, secondary, and tertiary qualities:

do they exist in Nature?
'Nature is a dull affair,' said A. N. Whitehead, with irony,
'soundless, scentless, colourless.' (Whitehead, 1927, p. 68). The poet
should praise himself for the scent of the rose. The rose itself cannot have
either colour or odour. Whitehead was joking. But some natural scientists
and technicians believe in the subjectivity of sensual qualities, perhaps
because these cannot be measured by their methods. For them, real
nature is something infinitely different from what mankind immediately
experiences and appreciates. A dialogue with nature is out of the ques-
tion. An I-Thou is impossible!
We find the same point of view among some of today's philosophically
minded biologists. For example, Bernhard Rensch, leader of the Zoology
Institute of the University of Miinster. His work in 'biophilosophy' is an
attempt to create a scientific philosophical system with a biological
groundwork. To the thing 'rose' belong, objectively, only certain chemi-
cal and physiological peculiarities which our sense perceptions indicate.
The sensual qualities are subjective, not objective (Rensch, 1971, p. 258):
We are sure that the rose itself does not possess colour, but light waves
reflected from it generate photochemical reactions in the visual cells of
our eyes, and specific impulses are passed on through the visual nerves
to the brain. The sensation of colour is only then coordinated with the
physiological activity . . .
This 'coordination' is about the most inexplicable thing in Rensch's
philosophy.
Let us look at the matter in a historical light: During the seventeenth
century, the following distinction became generally accepted among
scientists.
(1) Primary, geometric-mechanic qualities - size, shape, movement.
They were considered to be part of the physical bodies as such, 'in the
objects themselves'.
(2) Secondary qualities - colour, warmth, taste, etc. These were
considered to be mere names for the sensations and feelings experienced
as an (unexplained) effect of physical and physiological processes in the
outer, physical world.
Descartes and Galileo established this distinction while Newton lent it
his authoritative approval in his Optics.
(3) The term tertiary qualities comprises the perceptually complex
qualities, such as the quality of strength expressed by powerful orchestral
chords associated with the visual impressions of an attacking bull, and
qualities such as sorrowful, beautiful, threatening, pathetic. Qualities
like open and closed referring to landscapes can be interpreted as tertiary.
They all have a more or less emphatic complex gestalt character (see later
in this chapter).
With regard to the distinction between (1) and (2), one can say that the
primary qualities were considered objective, independent of every sub-
ject which beholds them, while the secondary qualities were considered
non-objective, dependent upon the constitution of the subject, particu-
larly its sensory apparatus. Furthermore, the primary were considered in
reality to be 'out there', in the object, while the secondary only appeared
to be out there and in reality were within consciousness. They were
thought to be somehow 'projected' into nature: the wild, flowering
meadow was in reality in one's head. Remarkable indeed! Out there were
merely colourless atoms, until the idea of atoms disappeared in our own
century into abstract mathematical structures.
An example taken from the great mechanist Thomas Hobbes illus-
trates how the differences in the shape of a body's smallest parts were
thought to cause differences in the experiencing of taste qualities. He
Qualities: do they exist in nature? 53
imagined sweet taste to be caused by round atoms in slow, circular

motion, bittersweet taste to be caused by oblong, narrow atoms in violent
circular motion, and sour taste to be caused by slender oblong ones in a
linear motion, back and forth. Hobbes admitted that this was pure
speculation, and said nothing about these extraordinary causal relation-
ships occuring inside people.
Viewpoints hostile to nature and the environment are commonly
presented as descriptions of the factual/objective conditions, while the
opposing points of view are referred to, analogous to the teachings of
secondary qualities, as manifestations of more or less incidental subjec-
tive evaluations, 'mere' feelings and sentiments. The tertiary qualities
such as melancholic are not accepted as qualities in nature or the
environment, but are placed within the person, for example, as an
experience or feeling of melancholy which is then projected out into
nature. A landscape may in itself be 40 km2 but not melancholic. But is it
possible to stop half-way? It is difficult to understand why it is not also
necessary to 'project' length, and all other qualities from within the
human subject. If we do, we arrive at 'the thing in itself as an x about
which nothing can be said, while everything is ascribed to a subject who
'creates' the world as it is actually experienced. A very flattering, albeit
uninformative conception.
We may find that the smell of pine is difficult to imagine without the
existence of olfactory organs. Before there were olfactory organs, how
could there be odours in the world? Similarly with colours, we would
probably agree that before there were eyes, the glaciers cannot have been
white, nor the sky blue, nor the night black, nor the mist grey. We end
with something the philosopher Fechner called Nachtansicht der Natur -
the night vision (nightface) of nature, as opposed to the vision of the day
- formless and even darkless, without any of the qualities we know.
Nature as it is construed in atomic physics, for example, is neither dark
nor light. Through this viewpoint, human reality is severed from nature
proper. All prestige belongs to the core of reality which is real, measurable
and scientific. Inaccessible, calculated probabilities of elementary 'wavei-
cles' (Eddington's shorthand) are supposed to be part of 'actual reality'.
But we see in the words of Norwegian novelist Finn Alnaes that even
these 'real' processes excite the imagination and emotions, as one seeks
to involve oneself in the attraction and repulsion predicted by the
'objective' mathematical calculations:
Oh might! Atoms gather, atoms near atom, matter colludes in orderly
rhythm, particles unite in a concentrated cloud, the entire mist spins
about like a gigantic wheel. . . There! The smaller whirls assemble in

ring dances around the larger - for such is the law: the largest mass
attracts the most. . .
Clearly even this elemental world, invented to clothe mathematical
entities, is far from being dry and colourless - see what happens when
Alnaes in his Dynamis draws us into its own romantic possibilities.
Whitehead aptly says (1927, p. 69) that the paradoxical assumption that
nature is actually without colours, tones, or odours exists because we have
confused our abstractions with concrete realities. That so blatant a
substitution is possible in our century is perhaps a consequence of the
increasing power that abstractions wield over us in our highly technologi-
cal time - perhaps as many as 99% of all 'experts' are educated to believe
that all which is beautiful and lovable (or ugly and 'hateable') is created
by humanity, with nature as nothing in itself. But not man apartl Could we
dispense with nature in a technological Utopia? Could machines directly
stimulate the nervous system with a simulation of the very qualities of the
nature some of us love . . .?
If we give up the belief that our rich world of senses is a projection
created by humans, we need to try to get the qualities back into nature.
This is problematic, but not impossible, as we shall see in what follows.
5 Protagorean 'both-and' theory

(a) The relational field
Suppose we have kept one hand in our pocket, and the other in
the cold open air. If we put both hands in a bucket of water, the one hand
may report that the water is warm and the other that the water is cold.
The well-trodden path to Ding an sich paradoxes, and the theory of the
exclusive reality of the primary qualities, may begin with a neither-nor
response to the question: is the water warm or cold?' The reply contends
that the water, in itself, is neither cold nor warm. We as subjects project
different qualities into the water in accordance with the state of our
hands. But, according to Sextus Empiricus, Protagoras replied with a
'both-and'. He said that the basis for all that we perceive is in matter.
Thus, matter in itself has all the properties which are perceived by each
individual. Human beings grasp (understand, perceive) differently, and
the same individuals differently at different times.
Accordingly, this theory contends that the water is both warm and cold.
When one's hands are in different states, both can be perceived simultane-
ously.
Suppose now that ten others dip their hands into the same water and all
exclaim 'it's lukewarm!' Is this perception better founded? Protagoras
Protagorean 'both-and' theory 55
seems to have replied in the affirmative. In relation to water, human

beings have a natural state {katafysin, secundum naturam). In this state,
they perceive approximately the same, and they may be said to pronounce
the socially correct reply, or standard reply to questions about the warmth
and coldness of the water. But, by the very fact that the water manifests
itself for some as cold and for others as warm, it is both.
Ecosophically, the main points are (1) the secondary qualities are
apprehended as genuine qualities of matter or nature itself, (2) that, by
the fact that someone perceives a thing as warm, cold, green, or black, it
is in itself just that, (3) two different statements about the thing, that it is
warm and that it is cold, are not contradictory, and (4) what Protagoras
calls the 'socially correct answer' is only the middle of the road response,
and thus philosophically uninteresting.
I suggest a continuation and refinement of this Protagorean framework.
Instead of matter, I will speak of the relational field. The term 'relational
field' refers to the totality of our interrelated experience, but in general
not to time and space. Things of the order 'material things' are conceived
of as junctions within the field. The same things appear differently to us,
with dissimilar qualities at various times, but they are nonetheless the
same things. I interpret this to mean that the relations which define the
thing conceptually converge at the same junction.
A thing which is both warm and cold at the same time does not lead to
inconsistency, for the thing is a warm thing in one relation and a cold one
in another. All statements 'about the thing' are relational statements:
statements like 'thing A is B' are in Ecosophy T abandoned in favour of
'thing A is B in relation to C or 'the relational thing AC has the quality
B'. For example, 'water A is warm in relation to hand B', 'the relational
thing "B-hand-W-water" has the quality warmth'.
The example illustrates that the relationalism introduced does not
always refer to senses, perceptions, soul, consciousness, or subject. The
factors it associates are water, hand, coldness and water, hand, warmth.
Niels Bohr introduced a similar relationalism in his well-known discus-
sions in Moscow with dialectical materialists: quantum mechanics does
not bring a subject into physics, only instruments (see Miiller-Markus
(1966)). In our example, the hand plays a similar role to the instrument in
quantum physics.
An important expression of the principle non-contradiction is that the
same thing in the same relation cannot both have and not have the same
quality. This principle is not contradicted by the both-and interpretation:
'A is warm and A is not warm' says that A both has and does not have the
quality of warmth. This statement violates the identity principle! How-
ever,'A in its relation to B is cold and A in its relation to C is warm' does

not.
It is worthwhile to note that, within relational thinking, the identity
principle cannot be violated unless negative qualities are introduced, i.e.
'not-cold' or 'not-warm'. These 'absence-qualities' have a rather remark-
able status: they do not exist! There are warm things and cold things, and
things which are not warm and things which are not cold, but no not-warm
or not-cold things. We lose very little by relinquishing these not-qualities.
Strictly speaking, we lose nothing at all.
Both-and theory thus reconstructed admits sensory reality with sterling
ontological status. The secondary and tertiary qualities are the only ones
at hand, if the primary qualities are interpreted as they are in the
mechanical world description, namely as mathematical-physical ideal
abstract relations (length, curvature, wave, etc.). Such abstract qualities
achieve one kind of existence, the ideal, they are, but they cannot be
found hiding under a tree or bush, or anywhere else.
The relational field, like matter in mathematical physics, achieves such
a conceptual existence. Relationalism has ecosophical value, because it
makes it easy to undermine the belief in organisms or persons as some-
thing which can be isolated from their milieux. Speaking of interaction
between organisms and the milieux gives rise to the wrong associations,
as an organism is interaction. Organisms and milieux are not two things -
if a mouse were lifted into absolute vacuum, it would no longer be a
mouse. Organisms presuppose milieux.
Similarly, a person is a part of nature to the extent that he or she too is
a relational junction within the total field. The process of identification is
a process in which the relations which define the junction expand to
comprise more and more. The 'self grows towards the 'Self (see chapters
3 and 7).
The preceding analysis cannot directly serve to criticise Galileo's
words: 'nature's book is written in the language of mathematics'. As a
structure, the relational net is partially or fully accessible for mathemati-
cal, and thereby intersubjective, description. But his dictum ought
perhaps, until we know more, be replaced by 'one of nature's books' or
'nature's book' or 'nature's book is written in this language . . .'
(b) The world of concrete contents *

In short, the both-and answer may be formulated thus: there are
no completely separable objects, therefore no separable ego or medium
* Some of the paragraphs of this section are quotes from Naess (1985a).
Gestalts and gestalt thinking 57
or organism. But what are the actual contents of the relational field?
Within such afield,any concrete content can only be related one-to-one to
an indivisible structure, a constellation of factors. Concrete contents and
abstract structures make up reality as it is in fact. It is misleading to call it
real only as felt by a subject.
Concrete contents have a one-to-one correlation with constellations -
there is an isomorphism between the concrete and the abstract. When we
say that the sea is now grey, the water of the sea is only one part of the
constellation. Nevertheless it is somehow the dominant part. We would
not say that the air between the sea and us is grey, or that we are grey. The
sea has thousands of individual colour hues as inherent properties, but not
as an isolated thing. One must take the colour of the heavens, the colour
of the plankton, the waves, and the senses of observers into consideration.
The colours of the sea are part of innumerable gestalts.
The ontology I wish to defend is such that the primary properties (in a
narrow sense) are entia rationis characteristic of abstract structures, but
not contents of reality. The geometry of the world is not in the world.
The both-and answer as elaborated here emphatically rejects the
theory of projection. There is no such process as the projection of sense
qualities. The theory is a clever invention which makes it possible to retain
the notion of things in themselves retaining their separate identity in spite
of the bewildering diversity of secondary and tertiary qualities. But the
price of this conservation of the Galilean ontology is desparately high:
there is no evidence whatsoever of a process of projection.
6 Gestalts and gestalt thinking

'All things hang together' is a good slogan, but does not bring us
far if we do not form some notions of how things hang together. And what
about 'things'? Perhaps we need to get away from certain conceptions of
the status of 'things'. In our treatment of secondary and tertiary qualities
we have neglected the task of suggesting a potent way of describing how
they hang together. In what follows I suggest a way that conceives the
world neither as a mass of things nor as a mass of qualities.
In our spontaneous experiencing of reality what we experience is more
or less comprehensive and complex. When we hear thefirsttones of a very
well-known complex piece of music, the experience of those few tones is
very different from how they would be experienced if we had never heard
the piece. In the first case, the tones are said to fit into a gestalt, into our
understanding of the piece as a whole. The basic character of the whole
influences decisively our experience of each of the tones.
Take the example of Beethoven's Sonate Pathetique, which has three
movements - Allegro, Adagio and Allegro. Many people know only the
second movement. This is a genuine whole in itself, and the experience of
each tone will be decisively influenced by the whole movement. But
normally the experience will be different if people get to know the whole
sonata. The movements are subordinate wholes, subordinate gestalts as
part of musical reality. Within the movement there may be sets of tones
forming contrasting wholes. We have therefore a complex realm of
gestalts, in a vast hierarchy. We can then speak of lower- and higher-order
gestalts. This terminology is more useful than speaking about wholes and
holism, because it induces people to think more strenuously about the
relations between wholes and parts. It facilitates the emancipation from
strong atomistic or mechanistic trends in analytical thought.
Historically, gestalt research began in the psychology of perception,
not in ontology and conceptions of reality. Very well-known are the
ambiguous visual gestalts that cause oscillating perceptions of pictures;
you see one face, then seconds later a different face, and you soon learn
to switch back and forth.
Entering a room, there may be a spontaneous experience of it as a
whole, even with a strong, definite negative or positive colour. Within the
roo'm, the experience of a subordinate whole - an arrangement of chairs
around afireplace- may change the experience of the room decisively, for
instance from a definite kind of negative, to a definite kind of positive
gestalt. So, within the hierarchy of gestalts, influences may go in any
direction. Up or down the hierarchy or horizontally within one level.
The gestalt of a complex piece of music is subordinate to the experience
of that piece in a particular situation. The piece may be played in the open
or in a beautiful or an ugly building. If we have a particular companion,
our relation to the companion in that situation influences the experience
of the music. No part of the experience stands entirely alone.
In the same way the gestalt of a flower - with all its parts coming
together - is influenced by a higher order gestalt which includes the
surroundings. If a 30 cm tallfloweringplant is found together with a 5 cm
tall one with proportionately large flowers, the former may be experi-
enced as small and the latter as big, because of the gestalts formed
through experiencing the two species and knowledge of the average size
of the two species.
The most well-known slogan of gestalt psychology has been 'the whole
is more than the sum of its parts'. It is a good slogan against mechanical
models, but it does not allude to the infusion of the character of the whole
into each single part. It neglects what might be called the hologrammatic
part, a conception of a part for instance of a piece of music as much more
than a fragment getting its meaning from the whole as if the whole could
exist apart. Whole and part are internally related. General gestalt think-
ing and ontology cannot accept the slogan, but neither would 'the whole
is in the parts' do. This sentence is instructive in so far as it suggests that
you cannot have the whole as something or something that can be shown
except through subordinate wholes.
By 'fragments' we mean something most easily understood as part of a
larger gestalt. A grain of sand might most spontaneously signify a beach.
But of course such an 'atom' may be inspected and it will be experienced
as of a definite shape and with definite patterns of colours and light - a
microcosm which supplies us with endless opportunities for discovery.
Then even something so tiny can have a gestalt character. Everything in
nature, as nature, has this ability or potency.
Auditory and visual gestalts are connected into gestalts of higher
orders. Three hills or mountains silhouette the sky, e.g. the lowest on the
left, the next lowest in the middle and the highest on the right, in such a
way that we get a bowed, rising line which immediately gives rise to a
similar gestalt as the introductory, first three crescendos in Beethoven's
Sonate Pathetique (see figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Gestalt understanding of a piece of music (Beethoven's Sonate

Pathetique, op. 13). The initial motif A is enhanced through its repetition,
B. As the gestalt, a, they together make up the first part of the initial
phrase of the sonata. Adding the climax and conclusion of the statement,
C, completes the phrase, which is a higher-order gestalt, b. In a similar
way the various sections of the entire Sonate Pathetique can only be
understood with full awareness of their participation in successive orders
of gestalts.
Etc.
The line rises because it comprises a gestalt of movement in which the

head and eyes most naturally move from left to right or from lower to
higher. The tonal pitch and strength also combine in a gestalt, but it
remains a sensory, preceptual gestalt. A line is drawn in the figure and the
curve at the edge of the page implies a rise, perhaps because of the way
the page is held before us. We speak for example of 'the top of the page'.
The thickness of the stroke comprises gestalts of strength, a thin stroke is
often called a weak stroke. The 'music and hills' example shows that
higher order gestalts can comprise 'things' which conventionally have
nothing to do with each other, but are genuine parts of a common reality.
What have hills and music in common except rhythm and form? What
about content? Does the term 'growth' correspond to a concrete content
with gestalt character or does it only furnish abstract tools in our thinking?
A whole book has been written about the gestalts of a line and thereby
of symbolic values: Paul Klee, The Thinking Eye (1961). When a gestalt
synthesises at least two elements into a higher (more comprehensive)
unit, and at least one element is from a sensory area and at least one is
from a normative and/or assertive area, I will call it an apperceptive
gestalt. Labour sharing tends to become labour fragmentation in old-
fashioned industry and this implies a decline in the superior gestalts, the
meaningful things, the purposes - an important class of apperceptive
gestalts.
When one's attention is not deliberately focused upon perceptual
gestalts, all experience is apperceptive. Its units are apperceptive gestalts,
not sensory elements, not intellectual elements. The distinction between
'facts' and 'values' only emerges from gestalts through the activity of
abstract thinking. The distinction is useful, but not when the intention is
to describe the immediate world in which we live, the world of gestalts,
the living reality, the only reality known to us.
Gestalts of a very complex character are easily destroyed by attempts
to analyse fragments of them consciously. They are very sensitive to
introspection. They can scarcely be learned in an ordinary fashion. Some
people can distinguish between species of birds in flight at a great distance
with great certainty even in dim light. Attempts to formulate precisely the
telling characteristics (that is the individual components of the gestalt
perception) prove to be futile, however, and can reduce one's ability to
distinguish between species under difficult conditions (Lorenz, 1959). We
must expect that the application of scientific observation habits to greater
and broader fields will lower gestalt abilities if counterforces are not
introduced at an early school-age level.
Gestalts bind the I and the not-1 together in a whole. Joy becomes, not
my joy, but something joyful of which the I and something else are
interdependent, non-isolatable fragments. The birch laughed/with the

light easy laughter of all birches . . .' This gestalt is a creation which may
only incompletely be divided to give an I which projects laughter into a
non-laughing birch tree.
The glorification of conventional 'scientific' thought leads to the
ridicule of such creations. It tears gestalts asunder.
Quantitative natural sciences must use models for the individual aspects
of reality. This intervenes in the gestalt conception of nature as it is
formed in day-to-day life. But so-called mythic thought is gestalt thought.
Language conforms to the common shared gestalt of a culture. This is the
origin of words and expressions for gestalt units consisting of widely
diverse components.
The Sherpa people inform us that their great mountain is called
'Tseringma'. We then think that Tseringma is a geographical concept.
When we learn that Tseringma' is also the name of a wonderful white
princess and also 'mother of long life', we believe we have discovered an
ambiguity. But no, the word is explicitly stated to be the name for the
same in both cases. (And are the names of our own culture's geographical
features any different?) The unity is said to be 'mythic' and mythic
reasoning was characterised as self-contradictory by the young Levy-
Bruhl (he later recanted this) and other researchers in the tradition of
Auguste Comte. One noted that a stone, which to a European anthro-
pologist was simply a hard stone, was also a spirit, something not hard.
This was considered a logical impossibility! If we assume that the name-
giving accords with the unit of a gestalt, however, mythic thought
becomes more comprehensible. And if the gestalts rather than their
fragments are identified as the contents of reality, mythic thought then
characterises contents which are largely unavailable in our culture. This
type of identification (see chapter 7) is essential in the ontology of
Ecosophy T. European anthropologists did not often achieve an experi-
ence of the shared gestalts of foreign cultures. Natives were 'alogical'.
Gestalt thought furnishes the key to communication between dissimilar
cultures. Verbal deterioration of gestalts ('a stone is a stone!') implies
deterioration of the culture. This is also true of our own culture.
In non-nomadic cultures, especially agrarian ones, a geographical
sense of belonging is crucial. More specifically: rooms, interiors, stairs,
farmyards, gardens, nearby trees, bushes - all these things become, on
the whole unconsciously, a part of that which is ours, a powerful kind of
gestalt. The geographic relationships are of great importance in an
appraisal or urbanisation and design and its penetrating transformation of
personality.
When a child grows up, the higher order gestalts of the home change
gradually. Certain things which were threatening cease to be so as one

becomes larger and stronger. Some things which were more distant or
mystical move nearer because of the improved ability to cross distances.
The essence which remains constitutes the character of belonging, of
being at home, an interwoven gestalt diversity with extremely potent
symbolic value: A has symbolic value B when A stands for B in conceptual
experience. (The ancient formula goes 'aliquidstatpro aliquo\) Symbolic
function must be distinguished from signal function, as A can very well be
a signal for B without combining in a gestalt. On the other hand, A has
symbolic function in relation to B only if a gestalt is created which includes
both A and B. A red light makes us stop, and we can develop a gestalt
which makes it a symbol for stopping, but more likely, it will continue to
be an external association, a signal for stopping. In the symbolisation of
B through A, A and B are bound together in an internal and not merely
external relation.
A description of the home milieu with the evaluative predicates
beautiful, good, boring, safe, familiar, etc., sounds artificial to people
who haven't been away for a longer period of time, as the milieu gestalts
themselves comprise evaluations. A neutral, name-giving description
sounds more correct. The point is important as it to some extent explains
why many people who live in, and are well-adapted to, a locality do not
find it natural to praise nature or the environment. It smacks of tautology
- the beauty is in', not to be found and talked about.
What remains of our sovereignty? When we go into nature, we often
hear that there 'one can be oneself. This seems to imply that one isn't
pressured by nature, one is ieft in peace'. Of course it challenges and
presents problems to be solved, but there is an element of voluntarism in
the association which is not an essential aspect of social milieux.
In Norwegian rockslide areas, the boundaries can be studied between
relations in which nature is pressing, confining, or threatening, and in
which it is freeing, expanding, and Self-realising. 'Should we move, or
should we stay here where we belong, at home?' Home as a positive,
value-weighted place can be defined here in part as the relations with
nature. The rockslide relation generates stress and is of course negative.
To move from the slide area implies the loss of an appreciable part of
one's self - loss of gestalts which comprise 'one's roots', 'my surround-
ings', 'our surroundings'. New gestalts must be built up at the new
location, but after the developmental years it is not possible to recreate
the most fundamental gestalts and symbols. One remains a stranger
towards or in oneself; or one preserves the old associations, and a self
which belongs to somewhere else, an emigrant.
Emotion, value, and reality 63
These symbol and gestalt relations are significant because they concern
the social cost of centralisation, urbanisation, greater efficiency, and
increased mobility. It is easier to take these relations into account in the
initial phase of an ecologically responsible policy than in a policy of
sustained material growth. For the former, the local community is the
natural starting point for political deliberation.
The rising degree of meaninglessness felt by people who have 'done
well for themselves' is partially due to such an indifference to symbols.
People who have succeeded according to the usual criteria tend to regard
everything as a means. In this situation, I believe that therapy to a great
extent should be milieu therapy and nature therapy, and that correct
milieux have uncharted resources for a meaningful and good life. The
concept of nature relevant here implies that nature is not something to be
used only as a means for this or any other end, it is something independent
which requires our unconditional attention. Ecological psychology and
psychiatry take this seriously.
To 'only look at' nature is extremely peculiar behaviour. Experiencing
of an environment happens by doing something in it, by living in it,
meditating and acting. The very concepts of 'nature' and 'environment/
milieu' cannot be delimited in an ecosophical fashion without reference to
interactions between elements of which we partake. Spinoza conceives of
knowledge as cognitive acts of understanding/love.
Gestalt formation crosses boundaries between what is conventionally
classed as thinking as separated from emotion. The tertiary qualities tend
to be separaed from the gestalts and referred to as merely subjective
emotions. The overcoming of this prejudice has profound consequences
for environmentalism.
7 Emotion, value, and reality

The activism of the ecological movement is often interpreted as
irrational, as a 'mere' emotional reaction to the rationality of a modern
Western society. It is ignored that reality as spontaneously experienced
binds the emotional and the rational into indivisible wholes, the gestalts.
It is often said that to value is nothing more than to express a positive
emotional liking for something.
It is not merely in technologically oriented literature that one discovers
warnings against emotional emphasis (especially of the religious kind)
within the ecological movement. Some ecologists caution against 'religi-
ous emotionalism', or 'religious humility in the face of nature' (Watson,
1985). But experience has proven that this very humility is compatible
with scientific sobriety. A religious motivation at a deep level can stir up
worldwide reaction: Rachel Carson's motivation in writing The Silent

Spring was partly a feeling of deep humility. Humanity, 'a drop of the
stream of life', should not thoughtlessly try to change this stream.
In a discussion of value thinking, it is essential to clarify the relationship
between spontaneous feelings, their expression through our vibrant
voices, and statements of value or announcement of norms motivated by
strong feelings but having a clear cognitive function. It is tempting to
characterise it as a consequence of value blindness when complaints are
made about the expressions of feelings in environmental conflicts. Of
course, outbreaks of feeling are not arguments, but evidence that some-
thing is felt to be crucial. Examples of statements of feeling: 'It is good to
be here', 'NN is a true friend of mine', The building is threatening, cold,
and hard'.
In these statements, feelings are closely tied to intention. The authors
could be mistaken: 'A special atmosphere at the time influenced my
statement that it is good to be here.' 'NN can hardly be called a friend -
he proved that yesterday.' 'Only a cursory first impression could suggest
coldness. I was mistaken.' If the sentences were only reports of feeling,
the authors could not conclude later that they were wrong.
The thought content of a statement includes assertive content, and it is
useful to clarify the latter by searching for possible mistakes. Naturally,
the technique does not work when the statement is then felt to be
undeniably correct. In short, value statements are normally made with
positive or negative feeling, and it would be nonsensical to ask for
neutrality.
It is quite correct that outbreaks of feeling do not supply an adequate
guide to a person's system of value. In environmental conflicts, for
instance, expressions of love of nature are not enough. What count, or
rather, what should count, are the norms and value priorities actively
expressed in the conflict. While supporting an infamous hydroelectric
project in arctic Norway, the president of the Norwegian parliament said
that he loved nature as much as the opposition, but the issues are
priorities, and policies - love in action.
Spontaneous positive or negative reactions often do little more than
express what a person likes or dislikes. Value standpoints are reflections
in relation to such reactions: 'Do I like that I like it?' We get a four-way
division: positive evaluation - one likes that one likes, or likes that one
dislikes; negative evaluation - one dislikes that one likes, or dislikes that
one dislikes.
It is thus unwarranted to require that feeling be eliminated in an
impartial discussion. If the debate is to proceed in depth, these feelings
should be clarified, and made explicit as the need arises. Specific personal,
From emotion to evaluation 65
idiosyncratic components must be sorted out if the debate is concerned

with more or less general norms. When a statement's assertive and
evaluative content is dismissed because the content is strongly emotional,
the 'point' is lost. We get a debate which throws the baby out with the
bathwater. To avoid this, environmentalists should have training in the
explicit voicing of values and norms. Formulate strong, clear expressions
of values and norms which the opponent cannot neglect!
8 From emotion to evaluation

Since a main purpose of this work is to relate philosophical and
valuative premises with the concrete aspects of ecological problems, I
shall draw attention to the following somewhat academic question. Is it
proper to say that adjectives which express feelings can be applied to the
things themselves, or can such adjectives only characterise the subject
who feels? I will describe how the approach is taken within Ecosophy T.
'Look at that high, dark, sombre tree.' Little is gained by placing the
darkness or sombreness in the person's consciousness or brain, while the
height is allowed to be the tree's own. The tertiary qualities of things have
an ontological status which is best expressed by complex relations. These
occur between the complex thing-qualities and a field. In symbolic logic,
a tree's sombreness S is represented by a relation symbol S(A,B,C,D,
. . .), where A could be location on a map, B location of observer, C
emotional status of person, D linguistic competence of the describer.
There are formidable number of variables compared to technical height,
h(P,Q), where P gives the number of units of height, and Q the type of
unit.
Subjectivism need not arise in either S or H, if you are able to specify
the exact context in which the quality occurs.
Sombreness is no more 'within' our consciousness than is the height of
the tree. This position has been represented within psychology since the
time of William James. Consciousness is not some kind of storeroom for
the tertiary qualities! As far as the brain goes, it is an inappropriate use of
our expensive electron microscopes to look for sombreness there. The
qualities can be discovered elsewhere - in the trees, given the relational
network.
The identification of primary properties with those of objects them-
selves leads to a conception of nature without any of the qualities we
experience spontaneously. Now, there is no good reason why we should
not look upon such a bleak nature as just a resource, an instrumental
value as the cause of our experiences. Every appeal to save parts of nature
based on reference to sense-qualities of any kind becomes meaningless.
Every passionate appeal that involves deep feelings, empathy, and even
identification with natural phenomena must then be ruled out as irrelev-

ant. The sphere of real facts is narrowed down to that of mechanically
interpreted mathematical physics.
But this is not the case with the world experienced as a set of concrete
contents interpreted through abstract structures. When one is absorbed
in contemplation of a concrete, natural thing there is no experience of a
subject-object relation. Nor when absorbed in vivid action, whether in
movement or not. There is no epistemological ego reaching out to see and
understand a tree or an opponent in a fight, or a problem of decision. A
tree as experienced spontaneously is always part of a totality, a gestalt.
Analysis may discover many structural ingredients. Sometimes an ego-
relation, sometimes not. The gestalt is a whole, self-determining and
self-reliant. If we call it 'experience of the gestalt', we are easily mislead
in a subjectivist direction.
When describing a constellation of gestalt relations it is important not
to let the usual stress on the epistemological subject-object distinction
dominate the expression. In spontaneous experience there may or may
not be any ingredient corresponding to the distinction.
Confrontations between developers and conservers reveal difficulties
in experiencing what is real. What a conservationist sees and experiences
as reality, the developer typically does not see - and vice versa. A
conservationist sees and experiences a forest as a unity, a gestalt, and
when speaking of the heart of the forest, he or she does not speak about
the geometrical centre. A developer sees quantities of trees and argues
that a road through the forest covers very few square kilometres com-
pared to the whole area of trees, so why make so much fuss? And if the
conservers insist, he will propose that the road does not touch the centre
of the forest. The heart is then saved, he may think. The difference
between the antagonists is one rather of ontology than of ethics. They may
have fundamental ethical prescriptions in common, but apply them
differently because they see and experience reality so differently. They
both use the single term 'forest', but referring to different entities.
The gestalts 'the heart of the forest', 'the life of the river', and 'the
quietness of the lake' are essential parts of reality for the conservationist.
To the conservationist, the developer seems to suffer from a kind of
radical blindness. But one's ethics in environmental questions are based
largely on how one sees reality. If the developer could see the wholes, his
ethics might change. There is no way of making him eager to save a forest
as long as he retains his conception of it as merely a set of trees. His charge
that the conservationist is motivated by subjective feelings isfirmlybased
on his view of reality. He considers his own positive feelings towards
From emotion to evaluation 67
development to be based on objective reality, not on feelings. And as long

as society is largely led by developers, he need not be passionate in his
utterances. It is the struggling minorities who tend to be passionate rather
than those who follow the main stream.
It is, I think, important in the philosophy of environmentalism to move
from ethics to ontology and back. Clarification of differences in ontology
may contribute significantly to the clarification of different policies and
their ethical basis.
In an analysis that begins with concrete contents, the is-ought and
fact-value dichotomies don't look quite as they did from where Hume
started, namely at factual and value affirmations. Expressions of concrete
contents are designations, not declarative sentences.
Expressions of the kind 'object x has value y' immediately lead to the
question: Given an object x, how do I assess its value yl If we start with
designations of concrete contents, for instance 'delicious, red tomato to
be eaten at once' or 'repugnant, rotten tomato' the evaluative terms are
there from the very beginning of our analysis. And there is no separatable
tomato to value!
J. Baird Callicott (1982) says that 'ecology changes our values by
changing our concepts of the world and of ourselves in relation to the
world. It reveals new relations among objects which, once revealed, stir
our ancient centers of moral feeling.' (p. 174) The stirring is part of a
gestalt, and as such not to be isolated from the 'objects'. What I have done
is to try to explicate what kind of change in concept of the world and status
of the subject is at issue.
Between the items of the world conceived as contents in the form of
gestalts there are internal structural relations, but they do not add to the
set of contents. And we are free to conceptualise them in different ways.
The ecosystem concept is used to describe abstract structures, and the
deep ecology movement is to some extent concerned with abstract
structures. The importance of abstract structural considerations cannot
be overestimated, but, like maps, their function is not to add to the
territory, the contents, but to make it more visible. The whole Earth is not
the Earth plus its maps.
So the transition from emotion to evaluation is not so much an actual
motion, but merely a shift in emphasis based on an acceptance of feeling
as a basic motivation for our diverse and actual world-views. It then
remains to investigate just what feelings we can accept as guiding 'stars' to
justify our actions, and how to perceive these lights in a coherent system
that articulates and explains our beliefs so as to translate them to action.
Fact and value; basic norms
1 Announce your value-priorities forcefully

A deep ecological movement envisages a shift in basic attitudes
from the dominant paradigm in leading industrial societies. Norms and
values again and again have to be contrasted, not with any explicit
philosophy which justifies the dominant paradigm (that does not seem to
exist) but with its practice.
Therefore, we need an elaboration of our norms and values which
correspond to the shift of basic attitudes. This requires the tentative
systematisation of those norms and values. This is the theoretical back-
ground which sets the stage for this chapter, where philosophically
problematic topics will be discussed, bearing in mind their importance to
practical ecological debate. I will discuss exactly the same subjects in
different ways, because readers with diverse backgrounds have been
found to require different approaches to the same topics.
Not everything can be proven - an old thought first emphasised by
Aristotle. The string of proofs on any definite occasion must commence
somewhere. Thefirstunproven links in such chains of argument are called
'axioms' or 'postulates'. Those which are proven by means of these
postulates are called 'theorems'. History of mathematics and logic shows
a diversity of systems, but they all have starting points beyond which they
do not penetrate. They also have rules, some deduced from other rules,
but at least one must be simply postulated, without any justification
whatsoever.
When value priorities are traced back to the very fundamentals, the
validity of the latter can then be questioned. Evidence always ultimately
rests at any time upon something which is neither proven nor provable,
explained nor explainable.
But are not value axioms necessarily more subjective than other
Announce your value priorities forcefully 69
evaluations? The situation is in principle no different from that of axioms

and basic rules in mathematics. Their appearance without proof on page
1 of a textbook does not render them more subjective. If that were the
case, how could one explain the fact that theorems deduced using the
'subjective' axioms and rules of proof can be intersubjective and objec-
tively valid?
In science as in all other fields of communication, we must start
somewhere, with explicit rules, norms, implicit valuations and plain
assertions. We can say with Martin Luther 'Here I stand, and can do
naught else!' We can add: 'It is as thus I see and experience the world!'
And the words 'as thus I see and experience' could be parenthesised,
bracketed. Face to face with our antagonist, we already know that it is a
particular person who presents a view. Why then add 'I think' or 'as I
experience it' when expressing evaluations? We don't say 'the bus leaves
at two o'clock as I experience the bus'. Some norms and evaluations are
just as obvious as bus schedules. Let us forget the modest 'I think that. . .'
or 'I cannot but think that . . .' when it is a case of well thought out
personal evaluations! Away with all forms of norm hypochondria!
But any increase in normative frankness should be accompanied
simultaneously by an elimination of absolutisms, arrogance, and 'eter-
nalism' with regard to validity in time and in social and physical space.
To accept a particular norm as a fundamental, or basic norm, does not
imply an assertion of infallibility nor claim that the acceptance of a norm
is independent of its concrete consequences in practical situations. It is
not an attempt to dominate or manipulate.
As with descriptive statements, we should retain a principle ofrevisabil-
ity. The cult of obstinacy in the realm of norms renders calm debate
practically impossible. Generally, the acceptance of a given basic norm,
for example the general repudiation of the use of violence, is motivated by
specific instances in which the use of violence has been unconditionally
rejected. Beginning here, reflection upon other possible situations leads
to norm generalisation. Logically speaking, the argument proceeds in the
opposite direction, from the generalities to particulars. One justifies the
specific instances in the light of the basic norm, while the acceptance of
the norm is motivated by experiences and reflection associated with the
specific instances. A change of derived norms is both logically justifiable
and of motivational character, while changes in basic norms are purely
motivational.
Perhaps we, in our society, and perhaps people in most societies, are
influenced by our early helplessness as children when powerful grown-ups
say 'you shall!', 'you ought!', or 'you must!'. Later opposition to such
70 Fact and value; basic norms
manners of speech may be spreading to all straightforward evaluations,

even the more neutral: 'it is right to . . .'. This is especially true for
evaluations presented from the rostrums of our schools and universities.
Those present may be reliving an awkward aspect of their childhoods,
feeling themselves manipulated and exposed to authoritarian influence.
It seems that many scientists try to avoid direct influence by substituting
descriptions for explanatory sentences. But if I were to replace i t is right
to' by 'according to Norwegian law, it is right to' I can still be exerting an
influence. Restricting oneself to descriptive statements does not prevent
possible influence; on the contrary, it is often made more intensive. The
non-normative: 'The critical smoker smokes NN's tobacco' is perhaps
more suggestive than 'Smoke NN's tobacco!'
An objection from philosophical quarters has been that impartial
discussion has to stop when direct norm collision arises: further advance-
ment is not possible. Absolutism or a lack of training in normative debate
may be responsible. This will, especially in combination with non-vio-
lence in communication, ensure that the discussion can proceed construc-
tively.
If one admits that evaluations can be substantiated, the situation is no
different from that with directly descriptive (non-normative) collisions.
'According to Norwegian law,. . .'. 'No, Norwegian law does not say that
. . .'. The disagreement lies in the description of Norwegian law. 'It is
right to steal bread from a store if one is very hungry and penniless!' 'No,
that cannot be universalised!' In the two preceding statements, attempts
are made at substantiation. In both cases basic methodologies are
assumed which cannot themselves be substantiated without circular
reasoning.
In other words, the assertion that 'the continuation of impartial discus-
sion is impossible in open norm conflicts' is invalid. It can be difficult, but
that is also the case with all kinds of disagreement. This is true in
mathematics, physics, and all other areas in which such disagreement
arises.
If a speaker's norm pronouncement 'It is right to deny JC' is answered
from the audience 'It is not right to deny xy, there is nothing to get in a fuss
about. The situation begs to be debated. A debate requires clarification
of value priorities. Formulations of the type 'I think that. . .', 'As I feel
. . .' may also give rise to debate, but often of a more dishonest, veiled
character. There is less face-to-face confrontation, more sneaking about.
One doesn't want to hurt anyone, nor stand up and confess anything. It is
advantageous to state one's position in a way as direct and concrete as
possible.
A nnounce your value priorities forcefully 71
Care in the expression of norms is closely associated with their directive

role for action. Action confrontation develops from norm confrontation,
and vice versa. I reach for the gold bar, as does another. If we each regard
our position as ethically responsible, the conflict-resolving strategy of
Gandhi can be resorted to. We retain our grip on the bar of gold but
simultaneously converse with our opponent. Even in such a direct action,
there is no limit to meaningful interaction.
What is the relevance of the foregoing pages to the deep ecological
movement? Members of the bureaucracy, politicians and their scientific
and technical advisers in questions of 'the environment' have a work load
and responsibility of such a sort that they search for arguments exclusively
based on 'facts'. Anything that does not fit into the established framework
is easily felt as a threat. Anything smacking of straightforward valuation
is eliminated.
The goals of the deep ecological movement cannot be understood,
much less reached, without the forceful announcement of value priorities
within wider frameworks.
The most common counterarguments among the powerful groups
mentioned consist characteristically in referring to public opinion: the
public asks for higher wages, lower taxes, more gadgets, longer vacations,
a higher standard of living, less unemployment, more medicines: short-
term gratifications!
In social conflicts, the antagonists naturally form stereotyped pictures
of each other. Those more or less responsible for detrimental decisions
from the point of view of deep ecology tend to have unfavourable and
strange opinions about the supporters, especially the activists, of the
movement. And the latter tend to have rather stereotyped opinions about
the former. The biased opinions may strengthen motivation within the
opposing camps, but it makes communication distorted and is not in line
with the principles of nonviolent conflict resolution. Openmindedness
and fair play could overcome this difficulty.
Earlier in this century, many people believed that politics in a highly
developed industrial society would assume the character of - social
technology: one could calculate what would be advisable. The end of
ideology' was a powerful slogan. 'Politicians' would die out as a race, and
we would get experts - administrative, economical, technical - in their
place. Decisions would then be made based upon calculations far beyond
the average man's capacity.
The faith in the technocracy is still alive and well, and often the
argument 'but it is only a technical question' assumes that we live in a
society where 'progress itself is led and must be led technocratically.
Public discussion of ultimate values is simply not thought to be necessary

- events ride on their own inertia.
Few things have had a more destructive effect upon candid speaking,
and more generally upon personal engagement in the ecological move-
ment, than the claim that 'there's no sense trying to stop progress'.
'Development' and 'progress' are thought of in those terms of techno-
industrial growth, and the change to fewer and larger organisation units,
centralisation, and ever more 'efficient' processes: 'technical develop-
ment necessitates ever more and larger airports'; 'progress requires larger
industrial units'; 'development necessitates bigger units of government'.
It is interesting but disturbing to note that certain techno-industrial
sides to existence are now accepted as unalterable and objective. We
don't say 'progress requires that slums be eliminated, there's no sense to
try to stop it!' Slums may be eliminated by the time we arrive at
commercial space flight, but why do the words 'development' and 'pro-
gress' have so little appeal here? Or: we do not say that 'progress requires
that each and every one of us has access to nature and agreeable milieux
for our children. There's no sensefightingagainst progress.' Or: 'Progress
requires a change from constitutional democracy to a democracy of true
living together {samliv)\ Just when do we choose to make use of this term
'progress'? Why not speak of progress in life quality?
The strength of the deep ecology movement depends upon the willing-
ness and ability of its supporters to force fact-dependent experts who
underpin environmental decision into discussions in terms of values and
priorities (Naess, 1986a).
2 Total systems; norm system models in pyramidal form

Systerna is a combination of syn, together, and a form of the
Greek verb histemi, to set up. To systematise is to make something fit
together as a whole. In the following, the intention is to get many
particulars to fit together, to suggest a total view. The constellations we
have to deal with are so intimately associated that the particular compo-
nents cannot be isolated without resulting in appreciably different constel-
lation characteristics. In other words: the constellations are of dovetailed
units. The tendency to see things in context, systematisation as defined
here, characterises ecological thought. Hence the slogan 'everything is
interconnected' suggests the necessity to articulate total views, everything
being in principle relevant for every decision made.
'System' is, therefore, here a word with positive value connotations;
not negative as in much contemporary philosophical thought reacting
against the great system-builders (Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel,
Total systems; pyramidal system models 73
etc.). But to encourage systematising does not imply encouraging system

dogmatism - the tendency to herald one system as the sole truth, and
eternal truth. A system is a structured assemblage of statements, all
provisional and tentative. An all-encompassing philosophical system is
meant to express all fundamental {or basic) premises for thought and
action and to suggest some areas of concrete application. This is a
minimum. Point for point, the system cannot be extended down to all
decisions. Jeremy Bentham elaborated his political philosophy to include
the preferred colour for a voting box! Other decisions might be more
important.
The rules for impartial debate require standpoints on questions of
interpretation, definition and clarification. If more than one assertion is
presented one must answer for their mutual consistency. In all cases, the
consequences of a particular assertion must be envisaged. Furthermore,
the path 'backwards', from conclusions to premises, must be visible,
enabling one to trace the chains of argument which lead to the assertion.
Possibilities for empirical testing must be dealt with when an assertion has
at least one empirical component. One must be prepared to assume
responsibility for the results or consequences of basing one's actions on
the assertion.
Relevance for supporters of the deep ecology movement? They are
trained in discussing facts, less in discussion of value, still less in systematic
explication of value priorities, and still less in carefully connecting
concrete environmental conflict facts with strong basic philosophical and
religious positions - their own ultimate premises. These are mostly quite
compatible with those of the opponents. What is needed to convince
them, or at least to make them a little softer in their resistance, is to
actualise the debate on priorities, especially long-range priorities - again
and again inviting them to state their positions on long-range values,
deeply seated values and, even more important, norms.
What about some of their reactions, 'you are too dogmatic, you are
simplifying too much', 'you believe too strongly in your system'?
In debate this means that you, if you feel like me, should courageously
announce where you stand, but even then full of humility in relation to
truth. Admit confusion, but insist that even the confused has to act - even
an abstention from taking part has political consequences. Remember:
there is something called 'criminal neglect'. Better be active and join the
battle. Your opponents have mostly high regard for the combination of
personal honesty and integrity with attitudinal admission of frailty and
fallibility. But to discuss values in public requires training, some of it (and
of course only some of it) being theoretical.
Within life and society, new and unpredictable considerations arise and
clash constantly. The situations to be judged are incessantly shifting. Our
hypotheses on the effects of our actions and policies, be they public or
private, will be more or less mistaken. Norm collisions are inevitable.
Absolute consistency through time is illusory: you change, things change.
Should we consistently recommend an immediate stop to the polluting
production of 'useless' articles, or should we consistently first establish
new jobs in the vicinity for the workers to be affected by the ceasing of
production? Perhaps neither? But we need general guidelines!
Our opinions as to what is or ought to be done are highly dependent
upon our hypotheses as to how the world is organised. Applied to
ecological relationships, this implies that our norms are dependent upon
our beliefs regarding the interdependency relations within the biosphere.
A set of norms can be arranged in pyramidal form, or more precisely,
in the form of a frustum of a pyramid with a broad base and a narrow top.
The non-derived norms are placed at the top (see figure 3.1). Though this
is a useful conceptual device, it can be problematic if one analogises to
structures or organisation or implementation: remember the pyramid is
only for purpose of logical derivationl The upper norms are not to be
considered as ethically superseding. We make use of the pyramidal
systematisation, but only with our revised conceptual determination of
the key terms of attitude and priority. (This must be understood fully, so
as to avoid misunderstandings of the type that Fritjof Capra (The Turning
Point, 1982) might criticise - if the image of a 'tree of norms' with the top
level of norms as the trunk or stem seems more appropriate, then by all
means use it.)
Each norm has its particular position. The top norms may concern
liberty, equality and fraternity, love for one's neighbour, or the search for
truth. All other norms and evaluations within the field to be systematised
are then conceived as derived norms in relation to the fundamental ones.
The derivation may be called logical. Other uses of the term 'derivation',
such as historical or generative derivation (seeking origins) are to be
avoided here.
When a value is accented as a means in a given systematisation, this
does not imply that it lacks intrinsic value, but merely that any such
prospective intrinsic value does not appear in the systematisation. To
illustrate: from 'Choose that which lasts longest!' and 'Honesty lasts
longest!' follows (with tolerable logic) 'Be honest!' But the derivation as
such does not contradict the intrinsic value of honesty.
A norm which is valid only as a means to the fulfilment of another more
basic norm is called a purely instrumental norm. A genuine norm is one

which has validity independent of means/goal relations. Its realisation has
intrinsic value over and above any possible means value. Being a genuine
norm does not preclude its having, in addition, means value. Honesty can
be thought to have both intrinsic value and in addition means value in the
realisation of the many norms in our social existence. 'Be honest!' is then
both a genuine, basic norm and an instrumental norm.
If exam and grade giving norms are regarded as purely instrumental in
relation to norms of cooperation, fraternity, and love, the latter occupy a
more basic level or plane in the ends/means pyramid. A norm conflict
between 'Help your friends!' and 'Don't help anyone in an exam!' is then
resolved by ignoring the exam norm.
Remember that the comparison is only in respect to logical derivation,
never ethical or moral priority. If a basic norm is 'Never use another
person simply as a means!' (Kant) and people are divided into yellow,
white, red, and black (a rather curious classification), the result is four
derived norms: 'Never use a yellow person', 'Never use a white person',
etc. It would be absurd to accord the norms a lesser ethical or other
validity because of their derived character. Another example: if we
compare 'Do not kill' with 'Do not kill your mother', the first has logical
priority because from it we can derive the second, but not the other way
round. The second has ethical priority: if somebody accepting the first is
tempted to kill his dog or his mother the ethical situation should be clear.
Derivations of practical interest require statements concerning actual
conditions in the world, our actual inclinations, and much more. Statisti-
cally, statements of so-called facts in verbalised ideologies are in an
overwhelming majority of the cases made in relation to normative
statements. Hitler's Mein Kampf, to mention an unpleasant, but central
example, consists for the most part of statements which have a descriptive
content, hypotheses about Jews. But these are clearly very peculiar
hypotheses. They must be accepted or else the entire construction of the
book collapses. As most of us today do not accept any of these hypotheses,
we are unable to accept Hitler's norms on how to treat Jews.
Enthusiastic participants in the ecological movement may subject
everyone else to a veritable hailstorm of norms. Many assume the form of
slogans, maxims, and mottoes. They are understandably imprecise, and
can appear dogmatic, narrow-minded, or fanatical to the uninitiated.
('Give Los Angeles back to the Condors!!') It is therefore important that
those who use them more or less mercilessly are aware that such slogans
are in principle meaningless and unjustifiable outside of an extensive
normative and descriptive conceptual situation. Even if we are capable of

explaining the presupposed normative system, we must be aware of the
narrow limits of how much we can communicate in a given situation.
For example, an excellent slogan suggests that private cars be replaced
by bicycles as a mode of transportation to and from work. But to proclaim
to the world a general norm 'Bicycle, rather than drive, to work!' entails
a hair-raising unreason. If the subject were to be systematised, many
factors would have to be taken in to account - varying conditions in
hundreds of local communities, various climatic conditions, varying
possibilities for public transportation, of course distances involved, pollu-
tion of the cyclist's milieu, the dangers of cycling in heavy traffic. In some
instances, a changeover to bicycling might mean increased resource
consumption - say, if the bicyclist took an oil-heated sauna after each trip.
Or such a transition might sabotage the use of public transportation. If
one attempts to systematise a conflict-ridden subject, the formulations
must be precise and carefully weighed, and the pretentions of the
summary of norms and hypotheses must be clearly stated, along with its
deficiencies, e.g. inevitable lack of completeness!
It is most advantageous to the ecological movement that as few as
possible norms should be purely instrumental. When discussing bicycles,
not only the intrinsic values to be obtained should be mentioned, such as
being closer to outdoor life, but also the innocent joy involved in pushing
a bicycle pedal instead of a gas pedal. Remember that norms against
pollution often have a tiresome instrumental character: 'Give a hoot!
Don't pollute!' (Woodsy Owl in advertisements of the US National Park
Service through the 1970s). A radical way of avoiding this norm is for
instance indirect actions against the use of beverage cans. But proclaim-
ing, 'Don't use beverage cans!' is merely the substitution of one strictly
instrumental norm for another.
If the norms relevant to particular points were not related to one
another, norm conflicts would arise at every turn. None of the norms can
apply absolutely or maximally - each of them must take account of or
adjust to all the others. Extreme norms against resource consumption
would stop many activities such as ecological research and thus hinder the
possibilities for responsible global ecopolitics. Extreme norms for local
self-reliance would mean that one might achieve no more than providing
for oneself alone. There are mediating and qualifying factors on all norms.
The preceding examples illustrate the system context for ecological
subjects. When particular norms are isolated and universalised, the result
is not ecopolitically responsible politics, but a chaos of incompatible
policies.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to maintain that the ultimate

consequences of a norm are unveiled by isolating and universalising it.
Those who defend abiding by a norm as though it were not a fragment of a
totality are praised for being logical and consistent!
Ecological deliberation takes place in the widest possible scope for
thought. Therefore attempts at articulation result in the emergence of a
philosophical system. Even assuming the least possible dogmatic attitude,
say, simply posing questions, one builds on hypotheses and norms.
Otherwise we could not formulate specific questions at all.
For each participant in the debate, the starting point is twofold: our
own system or world-view and that or those views we find to be meaningful
in our surroundings. Our actions take place in a social field and we must
and will consider the evaluations and the interpretations of the facts, or
the lack of knowledge thereof which reigns in a particular context.
Social philosophy, as it appears in public debate and in particular as it
appears in political resolution making, takes a pyramidal form, but the
mid-section of the pyramid is generally extremely disorganised or even
vacant. In other words: the logical derivations of concrete decisions from
the basic norms are often shaky. The road which should lead from the
basic principles of democracy, freedom, justice, and well-being to con-
crete policies for the realisation of these principles is as uncharted as a
back-country track! A government statement may include important
ecopolitical principles, but they often do not seem to have any bearing on
decisions. The more concrete policy statement which mentions specific
plans for action does not usually concur with the principles, but follows
the well-travelled routes of past political processes.
A system pyramid with hollow mid-section can be dramatically illus-
trated (figure 3.1). No lines of derivation go all the way from principles to
practical decisions.
An example of a complete lack of articulation of the mid-section can be
found in the current curriculum plan for Norwegian elementary schools.
It states that schools are to be the means for giving the pupils an attitude
Figure 3.1
\\
\\
11 \\
1 \
to life which revolves around truth, honesty, faithfulness, cooperation

and charity. But no attempt is made to demonstrate how this objective
can best be obtained. Can pupils become charitable through studying
things, subjects? Are the examinations firmly connected with these
values? Why cannot pupils cooperate during exams? Why not teamwork?
Implicit in this curriculum is a conception of schools which is so narrow
that it is essentially confined to presenting subjects to groups of pupils in
competition with one another. A great number of norms and hypotheses
are mercifully hidden from critical views. They belong to the middle
section of the pyramid. The top is without them floating in thin air. If a
very wide definition is used, a fruitful school debate may be possible, with
a much greater interested public.
3 Ecological system thinking

As a wholly incomprehensible number of interactions can occur
in an ecosystem, the use of methodological models plays a decisive role,
particularly those expressible mathematically. A selection of the relations
within the ecosystem is specified. The selection simulates 'reality' to some
extent. A principal concept is 'system state at time f. Its state is described
in a given number of respects, each characterised by a set of variables.
Progress in system ecology is dependent upon the modelling of systems
which are built up in levels of scope and detail. For example, one can
study and predict how a caribou population is related to and dependent
upon the number of predators and certain other factors without studying
the individual caribou's relationship to particular predators. Studies of
the latter take place at a lower stage in the system of interactions.
Similarly, one can study the life and death of a particular animal without
studying its individual cells. A cell can be studied in many ways without
studying the chemical structure of every single molecule in the cell. One
speaks of planes of integration where the behaviour of a set of complex
system components can be studied without necessitating the study of each
component's subcomponents.
The principal point is that all these studies are fragmentary: they select
and isolate relational nets through abstract analysis. One does not ever
attempt to study the total net. According to our intuition, though, there
is something we call reality which is in some sense a unity. The idea of
totality cannot be discounted.
The fragmentary studies are satisfactory only because the questions
posed are fragmentary. The questions are fragmentary because we
cannot study everything simultaneously. In our daily work, and our
Ecological system thinking 79
interdisciplinary cooperation, we must, somehow, split up considerations

of totality. But the synthesis must be carried out each time an ecopolitical
decision is to be taken: we are then responsible for all aspects or sides to
the question at hand.
Let us consider some of the relatively extreme standpoints on the
question of the relationships between wholes and components of wholes
- standpoints often called 'holistic' which particularly emphasise the
whole.
A living cell can only be considered superficially to be a thing with
qualities, as more thorough descriptions lead to field thinking in which the
attempt to delimit the cell 'itself in time, space, or other dimensions is
dropped. The entire cell unit's dynamics extend far beyond its observable
boundary. Electrical charges and chemical processes occur over an
extensive area so that it is meaningless to isolate 'the cell itself from an
environment. The cell walls are not independent of their surroundings -
they are not walls in a commonsense way. We are dealing with an
'all-pervasive network' offerees and interactions (Weiss, 1971).
As presented here, it is clear that the whole/fraction distinction is not
appropriate for the living cell. The fractions cannot be isolated. Nothing
can be causally isolated. Hence the slogan 'The whole is more than the
sum of its parts'. This beautifully illustrates gestalt thinking.
The system theoreticians in biology are contributing to a change in the
customary conceptual structuring of the relationship between human
beings and their surroundings.
(1) A human being is not a thing in an environment, but a juncture in a
relational system without determined boundaries in time and space.
(2) The relational system connects humans, as organic systems, with
animals, plants, and ecosystems conventionally said to be within or
outside the human organism.
(3) Our statements concerning things and qualities, fractions and
wholes cannot be made more precise without a transition to field and
relational thinking.
About his 'proposed views concerning the general nature of "the
totality of all that is"' David Bohm says that at 'any particular moment in
this development [of reality] each such set of views that may arise will
constitute at most a proposal. It is not to be taken as an assumption about
what thefinaltruth is supposed to be, and still less a conclusion concerning
the nature of such truth. Rather, this proposal becomes itself an active
factor in the totality of existence which includes ourselves as well as the
objects of our thoughts and experimental investigations.' (Bohm, 1980,
p. 213). The limitation of what we are doing when asserting our hypoth-
eses and announcing our norms does not reduce our right and our
obligation to assert and to announce.
The quotation is useful in making it clear that the work with the
'unfolding' of a view of 'the totality of all that is' is itself a part, a
subordinate gestalt, of that very totality. We are when active in unfolding
our views creative in shaping and creating 'what there is' at any moment.
4 The search for ultimate goals:

pleasure, happiness, or perfection?
'Saltdal wants nature - not hydroelectric power' - front-page
headline in Norway. The Saltdalians probably meant that to have both
would be best, but what if it were a question of one or the other? 'Pristine
nature is of more importance to us than any conceivable concession fees.
There is unanimity about this here in the township.'
If material standard of living and general affluence no longer suffice as
principal objectives for all politics, what can replace them? Well-being?
Quality of life? Free nature as such is neither well-being nor quality of life.
Therefore it must be something which is attained through protection of
free nature - perhaps something which serves well-being or quality of life?
But what are the qualities of 'the good life', and which of these should be
given priority if they cannot all be attained, at least not simultaneously.
In the following I will deal with some very elementary considerations to
illustrate what may be called 'the basic norm' of the problem: what can be
established as the greatest common goal, to which all personal and social
endeavours should be directed?
Three types of goals which have been and will continue to be mentioned
in this connection may be roughly indicated by three well-known terms
(table 3.1).
The wise man cannot merely be aware of the consequences of the basic
principles these words suggest, but must also think clearly about them and
decide how to apply them.
The ecosopher must thoroughly think out, and also 'feel out', what he
or she actually wants, not simply as a personal matter, but in a social and
ecospheric perspective. The question here is not one of drawing the
consequences of a viewpoint already essentially given, but one of clarifica-
tion of attitudes, of 'finding oneself, not in isolation, but in deep
connection to all that surrounds.
The realisation of centrally placed norms in the norm array is depen-
dent upon faith and insight into how this can occur, given particular milieu
factors. When a human being or a group is convinced about the merits of
The search for ultimate goals 81
Table 3.1
Goal Norm
(1) pleasure pleasure!

(2) happiness happiness!
(3) perfection perfection!
one avenue over another, appreciable amounts of energy are freed.

Characteristic words here are glow (gl0d), passion, intense engagement,
fervour in pursuit of the goal. When someone is passionately engaged in
something, other worries and sufferings recede. All defeats are met with
a fresh head of steam. If the fervour dies down, however, innumerable
anxieties crop up in consciousness. The joys of life become more and
more passive. The client and patient becomes the idea. A s patients we are
served, we are guaranteed goods and services.
With the philosophy and psychology of mountaineering in mind, the
following 'equation' was propagated and published by me in 1965:
W - well-being
G - glow (passion, fervour)
Pb - bodily pains
Pm - mental pains
The equation is meant to say that the level of well-being is proportional

to the square of the level of glow. So, with sufficient glow, any amount of
pain is overcome.
The usefulness of the equation (which of course could be made much
more sophisticated in the milieu of mathematicians and psychologists)
depends on its ability to make people try to find out what they deeply and
eagerly want and thus to make them risk some pain and discomfort in its
pursuit. It is perhaps overestimated to what extent people try to avoid
physical or mental pain at any cost. Characteristically, what people then
find that could make everything meaningful is not pleasure or cosy
happiness, but something beyond, something that might have such happi-
ness as a corollary, but not with any certainty.
A s can be expected, some people react against this 'equation' because
they think quantification of such important issues is a bad thing. The
equation is nevertheless acceptable, with a smile, and that is important.
Basic norms associated with the three listed possible goals can be
formulated:
(1) Choose that alternative for action which gives most pleasure!
('hedonism')
Immediately, questions crop up. Most for whom? Most for myself? For
Norway? For developed and developing countries? For every living
being? For our generation? In the long run? Immediately? -Any kind of
pleasure?
What if an alternative gives most pleasure, but also some pain? How
can the pain be introduced into the calculation? The most romantic
response: the attainment of maximal pleasure can be consummated most
advantageously by seeking death immediately thereafter. Pessimists -
Schopenhauer and others - prefer negatively phrased norms which speak
of pain rather than pleasure, e.g. 'choose that alternative which gives least
pain!'
Every answer to the above questions gives rise to yet other questions:
how do we find out what gives most pleasure? What is the appropriate
methodology? And, what if an alternative which entails little effort will in
all likelihood provide a certain moderate pleasure, while another prom-
ises greater and more intensive pleasure, but entails difficult times and a
low chance of real success?
Pleasure (or pain) as an obvious and isolatable experience seems to be
confined to strictly limited physiological and spiritual functions. A pin-
prick on the leg, a swallow of cold water in the heat. A pin-prick near the
eye, however, often causes anxiety, even panic if one sees the needle
approach. We experience a negatively laden total situation, perhaps of
some few seconds duration. The pain is next to nothing, but the situation
is unpleasant.
Technocracy and hedonistic philosophy may be said to have certain
characteristics which make them good bedfellows. For example, in
certain medical circles, it is maintained that our endeavours to eliminate
pain have gone too far. The elimination of pain by means of technical aids
is an implicit norm which the technology of our cultures seeks to fulfil. But
this may destroy good health, thereby bringing about suffering (in a wide
sense) which is worse than a given dose of pain.
(2) What about happiness, well-being, and, as an extreme, joy a la
hilaritas in Spinoza's terminology. These expressions relate, as under-
stood here, to enduring total situations. Gestalt thinking necessarily leads
from the pleasure norm to such a happiness norm. Well-being as opposed
to, for instance, depression concerns wholes.
The search for ultimate goals 83
'Seek happiness!' is now and then interpreted as 4seek success', defining

'success' as material output or welfare and therefore independent of
emotional life. As understood here, happiness, or well-being, has a
dimension of positive emotion, primarily of joy.
We can in our context define happiness or well-being as a positively
laden, enduring total situation or state. After running twenty miles, a
marathon runner can still feel good, happy, even joyous although all his
sensations are variants of pain. If the runner does much better than
expected, he or she feels that something momentous is happening. As a
gestalt, the total situation is positive, though a particular fragment may be
negative, e.g. the runner might have lost the race, or he might be totally
exhausted.
(3) The Spinozist teaching on human nature seems to contend that
increase in perfection and joy merge into one totality, a gestalt where the
increase is internally related to joy. Joy as a sensation is merely an
abstract and perfection is nothing more than an unfolding of that which
lies deepest in human nature (see Spinoza, Ethics (1949), 3PHSch, and
Naess(1975)).
This leads us to a large class of basic norms, the norms of perfection, the
term being interpreted on the basis of a main connotation of the Latin
verbperficere, carry through, do the job as intended. Many tend to set up
performance, or achievement as basic values. 'Happiness? Well-being?
No, I want something. I may become happy if I find it, but maybe not.'
Sir Samuel White Baker was determined to discover the source of the
Nile. Suffering was lightly borne, and the thought of his probable death
on the trip did not change his attitude. Others have other norms of
perfection: to get rich and admired; to base actions on generosity or love;
to be just; to carry out one's duties to the best of one's ability; to sacrifice
oneself completely for something.
The so-called existentialists assume important implicit norms of perfec-
tion. Their answers to 'What is mankind?', 'What is the specific human
condition?' are formulated in a descriptive way but function as norms. If
an existentialist says that something is genuinely human and something
else is ungenuine, the statements seem, for them, to be norms.
The perfectionist can value pleasure and happiness highly, but refuse to
regard them as ultimate goals. In a purely tactical light, there is little sense
in a continual 'bringing to consciousness' of pleasure and happiness
norms even when they are posited as basic: the blinkers of self-centred-
ness ('Am I happy?') pave the way for passivity and depression. The
pleasure norms in particular have a tendency to lead to complacency and
the exclusion of all activities tinged by unpleasantness or pain. The

perfection theoreticians maintain that well-being normally results from
an active life, even though one's activity can entail much pain.
There are always certain key phrases which indicate the most funda-
mental goals for further development of a society. It is implied that the
individual members can best realise the 'good life' through that develop-
ment. In Scandinavia, the phrases well-being, welfare, and standard of
living havefilledthe bill. Within the deep ecology movement, the phrase
quality of life now has a central place.
But like the existentialists' 'authenticity of life' it leaves very much
open. How does it relate to the three main sorts of supreme goals,
pleasure, happiness, and perfection? I do not see how we can avoid falling
into the third category. This means that personal quality of life somehow
is proportional to the degree to which the personal basic objectives (not
defined in terms of pleasure and happiness) are reached. The quality of
life in a community must then be defined in terms of the quality of life of
its members. Again there is a great openness for different conceptions of
the objectives, one's own way (svamdrga).
5 Self-realisation as top norm and key term

for an ultimate goal
In the systematisation of Ecosophy T, the term 'Self-realisation'
is used to indicate a kind of perfection. It is conceived as a process, but
also as an ultimate goal, in a rather special usage of 'ultimate'. It is
logically ultimate in a systematic exposition of Ecosophy T. The term
includes personal and community self-realisation, but is conceived also to
refer to an unfolding of reality as a totality.
Vagueness and ambiguity of important key terms like 'Self-realisation'
make derivation in any exact sense impossible. It is therefore necessary to
clarify which direction of interpretation, or, better, precisation, is chosen.
But in spite of the importance of this one single term, it may not be so wise
to assign to it too definite a meaning. The interpretation of the top norm
sentence and of the others should be a continuous process, where
tentative modification at one level interacts with tentative semantical
modifications at others.
The main semantical device used to adapt the term 'self-realisation' to
ecosophy T is to precisise it in three different directions:
To - self-realisation
Tj - ego-realisation
T2 - self-realisation (with lower case s)
Self-realisation as top norm 85
T 3 - Self-realisation (with capital S)
This last kind of concept is known in the history of philosophy under

various names: 'the universal self, 'the absolute', 'the dtman\ etc. Many
Indo-European languages use terms corresponding to the English 'self in
analogous ways.
In the prevalent individualistic and utilitarian political thinking in
Western industrial states, the terms 'self-realisation', 'self-expression',
'self-interest' are used for what is above called 'ego-realisation'. One
stresses the ultimate and extensive incompatibility of the interests of
different individuals. 'One man's bread is another man's dead.'* In
opposition to this trend there are others which are based on the hypothesis
of increased compatibility with increased maturity of the individuals.
Ecosophy T leans heavily on such ideas, excellently developed in the
Ethics of Spinoza. His ideas of 'self-preservation' (or, rather, self-persev-
eration) cannot develop far without sharing joys and sorrows with others,
or, more fundamentally, without the development of the narrow ego of
the small child into the comprehensive structure of a self that comprises
all human beings. The deep ecology movement, as many earlier move-
ments before it, takes a step further and asks for the development of a
deep identification (see chapter 7) of individuals with all life forms.
The development of life forms, especially since the Cambrian era,
shows an extreme degree of expansion of life space and a corresponding
diversity of forms making use of different climatic and other conditions.
There is no merely passive adaptation, no mere self-preservation in any
narrow sense. There is rather a 'creative evolution' in the sense of Henri
Bergson, a creativeness expressive of the formidable elan vital. The term
self-expression or -realisation is therefore better suited than self-preser-
vation. If the term 'self is felt to be unfitting, we can concentrate on
life-unfolding or life-expansion. But then the essential relation between
self and Self is lost.
Inspired by Kant, one may speak of 'beautiful' and of 'moral' action.
Moral actions are motivated by acceptance of a moral law, and manifest
themselves clearly when acting against inclination. A person acts beauti-
fully when acting benevolently from inclination. Environment is then not
felt to be something strange or hostile which we must unfortunately adapt
ourself to, but something valuable which we are inclined to treat with joy
and respect, and the overwhelming richness of which we are inclined to
use to satisfy our vital needs.
* Norwegian proverb.
Assuming that we wish benevolent action toflourish,some of us stress

the need for teaching about the moral law, others stress the need for more
understanding of the condition under which people get to be benevolent
and well-informed through natural inclination. I take this process to be
one of maturation as much as of learning. If the conditions for maturation
are bad, the process of identification is inhibited and egotisms of various
sorts stiffen into permanent traits.
So the norm 'Self-realisation!' is a condensed expression of the unity of
certain social, psychological, and ontological hypotheses: the most com-
prehensive and deep maturity of the human personality guarantees
beautiful action. This is based on traits of human nature. We need not
repress ourselves; we need to develop our Self. The beautiful acts are
natural and by definition not squeezed forth through respect for a moral
law foreign to mature human development. Increasing maturity activates
more of the personality in relation to more of the milieu. It results in
acting more consistently from oneself as a whole. This is experienced as
most meaningful and desirable, even if sometimes rather painful.
One is said to cultivate oneself when acting egotistically and when one
develops oneself through traits conducive to 'winning': What I suggest in
such cases is that people underestimate themselves. Our personality is not
as narrow as we think. The sources of joy go deeper and farther. We need
not cultivate the ego and the notion of winning over others in order to
realise our potentialities. Nor need we ignore or suppress the ego in order
to broaden and deepen the self in contact with the Self.
It is my feeling that such a way of thinking and teaching is more
conducive to well-informed benevolent acts than appeals to moral laws.
Why should anybody try to make a single term, 'Self-realisation', cover
all this? I am not inviting anybody to pursue such a goal. But if we, instead
of one, employ ten or twenty key terms on the same ultimate level, we
may get into trouble: the complication of proving consistency, and of
priority in case of norm collisions.
A determined rejection of the single term construct reflects an overesti-
mation of the aim and function of models as tools. If too much is
demanded from them, it is better to work without them. But the increased
clarity and possibility for communication that come with such simplifica-
tion and constructing should not be ignored.
Now let us examine what the elaboration of such system models can
reveal. We return to the further elucidation of the notion of Self-realisa-
tion in chapter 7.
Ecosophy, technology, and lifestyle
1 Ecosophical consciousness and lifestyle

How would mankind's present role on this planet be evaluated in
the light of philosophical world-views of the past? No matter which one of
the great philosophies one considers to be valid, our current role would be
evaluated negatively. It is in opposition to value priority as announced by
these philosophies. This applies to Aristotelianism, Buddhism, Con-
fucianism, and other great philosophies of the last two millennia.
In the great philosophies, greatness and bigness are differentiated.
Greatness is sought, but it is not magnitude. The importance of technol-
ogy is recognised, but cultural values get priority of consideration. The
good life is not made dependent upon thoughtless consumption.
In the great philosophies, people are required to attempt to evaluate
the distant consequences of their actions and the perspective used is to be
universal in time and space. None of the great philosophers regarded
market relations and modes of production as the source of norms for
state, society, or individual. The importance of economic relations is
recognised but seen as a fragment within the web of social relationships.
My conclusion is that there is no articulated world-view which endorses
mankind's current role in the ecosphere. Environmentalism has no
articulated philosophical system to fear.
But this does not furnish any potent consolation in the situation
characterised in the opening of the book. The question must be raised:
how are the ecologically destructive, but 'firmly established ways of
production and consumption' (p. 23) to be changed?
Large segments of the European public are now aware of formidable
destruction. The death of German forests is well known. But the same
segments have not been able, and partly not even willing, to change the
ways of production and consumption. These are secured by the inertia of
88 Ecosophy, technology, and lifestyle
dominant ideas ofgrowth, progress, and standard of living. These ideas,

manifest as firm attitudes and habits, are powerful agencies preventing
large-scale, long-range changes. In this chapter questions of mentality
and technology are reviewed, in the next I shall discuss the growth and
progress ideas in economics.
A central slogan of ecosophical lifestyle: 'Simple in means, rich in
ends.' It is not to be confounded with appeals to be Spartan, austere, and
self-denying.
The ecosophical lifestyle appreciates opulence, richness, luxury, afflu-
ence. But the joys are defined in terms of quality of life, not standard of
living. When circumstances force people with a high quality of life to
retreat to a mere high standard, the transition can be painful and
dangerous for their self-respect. The abundance, richness, luxury, and
affluence are within the framework of quality of life defined in such a way
that personal experiences of these states are central, whereas standard of
life requires the goods and goodies which are accepted socially at the
moment to define 'the good life'.
The retrogression from quality to standard leads soon to the inordinate
attention to the budget. 'How much can we afford? There is now a still
better car, video, etc. being sold. Can we afford all the things to keep up
with what is the best?'
What is ecosophically 'best' for somebody relates to their total view. If
a camera is said to be much better than yours, it may nevertheless be much
worse for you. It may not be sensible to buy it, and the ecosopher will then
not feel any regret at not possessing it.
2 Mutual help towards ecosophical lifestyle:

'The Future in Our Hands'
Ecological consciousness manifests itself today on the level of
personal lifestyle through ways of living in dramatic and conflict-arousing
contrast to the dominant way of life in our industrial societies. Because of
the conflicts and confrontations which individuals trying to live differently
inevitably encounter, it is indispensable to have centres of information and
organisations for people working upon alternatives to assist each other.
There are many such organisations around the globe, but few have
affected as great a percentage of a country's population as the movement
called 'The Future in Our Hands' in Norway, initiated by Erik Dammann
in 1973. It includes both an information centre in Oslo and numerous
decentralised active groupings. One of its basic principles is quoted here:
. . . preservation of the natural and whole biological environment, with
humans as an integrated part, is a necessary condition for the
' The Future in Our Hands' 89
development of the life quality of mankind, and its maintenance in the

future.
It is elaborated as follows:
. . . quality of life is here considered to be something incompatible with

artificial, material standards above that necessary for the satisfaction of
fundamental needs, and secondly, that ecological considerations are to
be regarded as preconditions for life quality, therefore not outside
human responsibility. . . . The life style of the majority should be
changed so that the material standard of living in the Western countries
becomes universalisable within this century. A consumption over and
above that which everyone can attain within the foreseeable future
cannot be justified.
In 1975 a poll was undertaken which indicated that three out of four
Norwegians believed the standard of living in Norway was too high.
'More than 80% of those questioned expressed the opinion that further
growth in production, income and consumption will mean more
materialism, more unnecessary goods, more stress and danger to health,
at places of work, more pollution and more inhuman cities.' (Dammann,
1979, p. xiv.) In 1975 the concept of quality of life was largely unknown,
but the answers illustrated the need of such a concept.
The Future in Our Hands is actively associating consciousness and
lifestyle change with direct action. Attempts at a change in lifestyle
cannot wait for the implementation of policies which render such change
more or less required. The demand for 'a new system' first is misguided
and can lead to passivity. The same applies to personal lifestyle change
first, and consequent isolation from political action. These two changes
must proceed simultaneously. Changes have to be from the inside and
from the outside, all in one.
Debate as to the importance of a change in 'consciousness' is clouded
over by the failure to differentiate between change and that strategy which
is best suited to bring about such change. There can be complete concor-
dance with regard to the urgency of change, while attempts at direct
change, by moral harping, for example, may be considered ineffective. In
the following, change in consciousness is taken seriously, although the
direct approach, i.e. appeals, information, humanitarian action and
education, is not assumed to be the sole or most effective method. The
change must essentially be interpreted as a 'dependent variable'. Perhaps
changes in certain variables which subsequently influence consciousness
are the most effective, e.g. a direct change in economic policies. But the
political will to change can only be developed among the people and
politicians through increased awareness of the unreasonability of the

present state of affairs.
Some Marxists have maintained that The Future in Our Hands' talk
about reduced consumption serves monopolistic capitalism, and that it is
therefore reactionary: waste is a product of the present economic system,
and only the replacement of the system can change the pattern of
consumption. This critique has been disclaimed by others who espouse
dialectical materialism. Steinar Bryn writes in New Lifestyle:
It is correct to maintain that it is our economic system which is the cause
of our pattern of consumption, but to conclude therefore that the
consumer is powerless is clearly reactionary. To assert that it is
ineffective to separate the contest against the present consumer patterns
as a legitimate point of contention in its own right in political activity
ends easily in a mechanical cause/effect theory with regard to societal
and material conditions and human actions. One then disregards the
people themselves as the creative driving force in history. Individuals
and groups of individuals are capable of leading a struggle to change
themselves, their lifestyle, and their living conditions.
The Future in Our Hands does not 'privatise' political problems, but
ratherfightsthe underevaluation of personal initiative and the power and
abilities of the individual. The movement is oriented towards the indi-
vidual. If we are to hope to reverse the current trends, we have to create
a common front between the individual-oriented and the system-oriented
activists.
A person can free themself from the profit and consumption conscious-
ness, in spite of the non-stop pressure from the mode of production which
depends upon such mentality. Opposition groups rely on possibilities of
the new freedom, and lend great importance to the individual's thoughts
and feelings. Dammann maintains that only blaming the system is pacify-
ing:
I have heard innumerable times when discussing the difficulties of the
underdeveloped countries: 'It is the system which is at fault. . .' What
good does it do to assert that? Of course the system is bad. It is so bad
that it is quite unbelievable that it is still in existence in spite of the fact
that everyone says a change must take place. But who has the power to
maintain conditions as they are in our democratic countries? It is too
simple to claim that capitalists, industrial magnates, bureaucrats, and
politicians alone have the power to preserve the system which our
society and our standards of living have as a foundation. In the maj ority
of the rich countries, the people are free to instigate changes if they so
desire. It goes without saying that democracy often lacks a great deal,
but that is no justification for doubting that changes would occur in
Norway if Norwegians really desired them. (Dammann, 1979)
Effects of change of mentality 91
Stated briefly, it does not follow from the norm 'the system must be
changed!' that 'consciousness need not be changed!' and the hypothesis
'the system changes everything' does not lead to 'consciousness changes
nothing'.
The change of consciousness referred to consists of a transition to a
more egalitarian attitude to life and the unfolding of life on Earth. This
transition opens the doors to a richer and more satisfying life for the
species Homo sapiens, but not by focusing on Homo sapiens. This attitude
arises through a truer picture of our existence.
3 Effects of change of mentality

Without a change in consciousness, the ecological movement is
experienced as a never-ending list of reminders: 'shame, you mustn't do
that' and 'remember, you're not allowed to . . .'. With a change in
mentality we can say 'think how wonderful it will be, if and when . . .',
'look there! what a pity that we haven't enjoyed that before . . .'. If we
can clean up a little internally as well as externally, we can hope that the
ecological movement will be more of a renewing and joy-creating move-
ment.
It is dangerous to rely only on a political process leading to decisive
green influence on governments. The early Marxist critique of 'classical
nature conservation' was valuable as long as it stressed the importance of
political engagement. It is clear, however, that many nature magazines
and associations should be kept largely free of political and moral
propaganda. They foster and encourage nature-lovers, but membership
tends to fall unduly if a stern political line is enforced with pages of
distressing news, and long, tedious meetings are required.
For the worker within the ecological movement, it is important not to
spread oneself too thin, but to make concentrated efforts at one or a very
few tasks. Some then concentrate essentially upon increasing awareness,
and deliberations concerning mentality and ideology, while others choose
to work for direct changes of social and economic conditions in industry,
fishing, agriculture or other areas of practical life. Devaluation of each
other's efforts within the total movement is an evil which must be avoided
at all costs. No sectarianism] The Future in Our Hands is aware of the main
problem in the development which places economic growth and increase
of production before all else. The movement encourages the reduction of
individual total consumption, and will through information, increased
awareness, and mutual influence attempt to free the individual and
society from the consumer pressures which make it very difficult for
politicians to support better policies and a healthier society.
The necessity of efforts to change mentality is closely associated with
the necessity of organised efforts for profound changes in the structure of

society. These two kinds of effort must be coordinated, not polarised
against one another.
Let us imagine that just one of the lifestyle and consciousness changes
encouraged by Erik Dammann took place: if waste was reduced by 50%,
hundreds offirmswould immediately have sales problems. Within a year,
unemployment would perhaps double. This and other unfortunate conse-
quences can only be avoided if these changes are combined with other
changes. The most important in this case is revamping production to
dispel the spectre of unemployment. To avoid undesirable consequences,
it is useful to consider the personal reduction in consumption as part of a
total pattern of life which also includes political engagement.
After considerable changes in lifestyle have been carried through the
everyday glaring contradictions with dominant lifestyle invite public
outcry. One feels like the victim of an occupier ruining the country. But it
is also seen that to carry out considerable change is a long and difficult job
as long as dominant trends are shaped to resist such change. It is
practically impossible not to 'go public'.
4 Technology and lifestyle

The technological developments in modern industrial societies
have resulted in continuous pressures towards a kind of lifestyle repug-
nant not only to supporters of the deep ecology movement but to those in
most alternative movements (Elgin, 1981). Some of the reasons for such
a confrontation are fairly obvious: modern industrial technology is a
centralising factor, it tends towards bigness, it decreases the area within
which one can say 'self-made is well-made', it attaches us to big markets,
and forces us to seek an ever-increasing income. The administrative
technologies are adapted to the physical technologies and encourage
more and more impersonal relations.
Those who resist such modern developments have technological sym-
bols in common: the bicycle, home-baked bread, the recycling of goods.
In what follows I shall only mention some principles but otherwise refer
to the growing body of important literature covering parts of this enorm-
ous and complexfieldof inquiry: technology, lifestyle, economy, politics.
The deep ecology movement confronts issues in this realm daily.
Energy consciousness means consciousness of using limited resources,
delight in being able to satisfy needs for energy, concern about waste, and
concern about the poor and underprivileged for whom energy require-
ments are a major threat. Where we, who are not poor, live in close and
direct relation to nature, and where we are active in providing energy
Technology and lifestyle 93
from natural resources, energy consciousness adds to the feeling and

experience of richness of the Earth.
In modern industrial life, hot water is tapped in quantities without the
joy of being fabulously rich and without the joy of sometimes enjoying
extravagance. This holds even among those who work for water conserva-
tion, and are fully, even if rather abstractly, aware of the crisis due to
thoughtless misuse of a limited resource.
In Nordic countries energy consciousness was developed even from
childhood through life in cabins as part of classical friluftsliv (see chapter
7, p. 177). When returning from the cabin to live with 'ordinary' ways of
using energy, the lack of joy of richness and the unbelievable waste have
always had a strong impact. Clearly the cabin tradition is one of the
ecosophically most potent sources of permanent alertness towards the
destructive misbehaviours of modern life. It is scarcely an overstatement
that the private consumption of energy in Norway could be reduced by
80% without affecting the satisfaction of needs, and with an increase of
joyful energy consciousness. To be realistic, the change must be seen as
one that takes many years, even generations, and there is at the moment
no strong trend in favour of life quality comprising energy joys.
Within an ecologically interested minority in many industrial countries
the use of wood for heating has been rapidly increasing. Especially if the
wood has been collected personally, it favours joyful energy conscious-
ness. In this situation as in many others, a certain amount of knowledge is
required in order to avoid an unecological result: undue pollution of the
atmosphere. Again, an active interest is required: one has to reflect about
the proper use of ventilation.
The above ecosophical critique of 'average' industrial lifestyle applies
with heavier emphasis to the average lifestyle of the economic elites. The
fashionable lifestyle we can learn about under the heading 'Living' in
Time magazine might more appropriately have the heading 'Dying' in so
far as the universalisation and implementation of the norms imply a
catastrophic decrease in living conditions of most kinds of living beings.
(a) The non-existence ofpurely technical advance

When a so-called 'purely technical' improvement is discovered,
it is falsely assumed that the individual and society must regulate them-
selves accordingly: technique, in part, determines its own development.
It is treated as if it were autonomous. Certain subordinate areas of
technical development can be favoured and others hindered through
political means, but when a 'breakthrough' takes place, we are expected
to conform and adjust society appropriately as soon as possible.
It 'ought to be relatively simple' to solve, for instance, the social

problems of automation 'through reschooling and planned retraining
within the framework of the extensive public welfare organs'. Certain
pressure groups are said to attempt to stop or delay this 'natural develop-
ment'. The use of the word 'natural' is typical of an interpretation of
society as subject to laws of man-made nature to which mankind must
submit. When a technical 'advance' is made in a leading industrial
country, is it natural that the thousands of cultures and sub-cultures on
this globe ultimately adapt themselves to one group's 'progress'?
Within Marxist literature, the assumption is sometimes made that
technical development of the means of production essentially determines
all other development. The mode of production can come out of step with
the means of production: the 'contradiction' must and will be resolved by
reworking the mode of production (a broad Marxist term which encom-
passes social relationships), not the techniques.
Even in a traditional society with technical tasks it is 'unnatural' (in
many senses of the word) to stop the search for technical improvements.
It is against our active nature, our personal and cultural unfolding.
However, the evaluation of a technical change in such a society is
relational: it is relative to social and cultural goals. If a technician points
to a specific machine part and says: 'there, now you can see the purely
technical advance!' this can only be interpreted as a highly condensed
lecture. To prove that progress has been made, the technician will
naturally not limit the substantiation to the anatomy of the machine part.
He or she will point out saved labour time and other social consequences.
Improvement of technique implies improvement within the framework
of a cultural pattern. That which threatens this framework should not be
interpreted as improvement, and should thus be rejected. In the industrial
societies, these social consequences are not given enough consideration.
There is no such thing as purely technical progress.
Those who maintain that technological development must run its
course whether we like it or not are mistaken both historically and
empirically. Why didn't the advanced technical inventiveness of old
China change the social structure, for example? A society is capable of
rejecting a more 'advanced' or 'higher' technique on account of its social
and other consequences. The Chinese rejected banking and certain
agricultural tools for this very reason. A lack of critical evaluation of
technique is the harbinger of a society's dissolution. A technique has to be
culturally tested.
Technique in the industrial countries is guided by narrow economic
considerations by a small elite of the population. Technical 'development'
is driven in widely dissimilar directions in response to prices for different

raw materials and energy, and the cost and make-up of the labour force.
Our helplessness in questions of technical 'development' is a myth - a very
useful myth for those introducing expensive new technology. Technology
is chosen, but not by consideration of society as a whole.
One speaks of laws for technical development which are independent
of other factors. Weighty objections to such a view have been advanced
in recent years. In today's capitalist countries (including Russia, with its
state capitalism), large profit margins in agriculture are intimately
associated with a technology which entails excessive demands on the
environment, ruining the soil in the long run.
Technical development is a fragment of total development, and it
partakes in an intimate interaction with a host of factors. Social anthropol-
ogy and related areas of study supply instructive examples of how
ideological, and particularly religious, attitudes influence the directions
taken by technical change. The subject is neglected in our technical
schools, but the breakthrough of ecosophical thought implies a renais-
sance for the idea of technique submitted to the ideals of a world-view.
The idea can be restated as technique submitted to evaluation in normative
systems.
If a technique is said to express an improvement or a technical advance
many tests are relevant. Here are some questions that must be raised.
(See also Devall and Sessions, 1985, p. 35.)
(1) Is it conducive or dangerous to health?

(2) How meaningful, capable of variations, conducive to the self-
determination and inventiveness of the worker?
(3) Does it strengthen cooperation and harmonious togetherness
with other workers?
(4) Which other techniques does the technique require in order to be
effective as part of greater units of technology? What is the quality
of these techniques?
(5) Which raw materials are indispensable? Are they locally or
regionally available? How easy is the access to them? Which tools
are indispensable? How are they obtained?
(6) How much energy does the technique require? What is the
amount of waste? What kind of energy?
(7) Does the technique pollute directly or indirectly? How much and
what kind?
(8) How much capital is required? How big must the undertaking be?
How vulnerable in times of crisis?
(9) How much administration is required? How much dependent

upon hierarchical arrangements?
(10) Does it promote equality or class differences at the place of work
or more generally?
Langdon Winner opens thefirstchapter 'Autonomy and mastery' of his
book Autonomous Technology (1977) with a quotation from Paul Valery:
'So the whole question comes down to this: can the human mind master
what the human mind has made?' An excellent opening, but it may be
added that the general trend of modern technological developments has
perhaps not been masterminded by anybody, by any group or any
constellation of humans. It may have developed largely 'by itself.
(b) 'The environmental crisis can be technically resolved. . .'

A widespread assumption in influential circles of the industrial
countries is that overcoming the environmental crisis is a technical
problem: it does not presuppose changes in consciousness or economic
system. This assumption is one of the pillars of the shallow ecological
movement.
Opposition to further economic growth in the industrial states is
unnecessary, it is said, and continued growth is often simply taken for
granted. Technical development will reduce pollution to tolerable levels
and prevent serious resource depletion. Present forests may be dying, but
we canfindor create new kinds of trees that thrive on acid rain, or we can
find ways to live entirely without trees.
Our governments are incessantly asked to provide good, liberal condi-
tions for centralised, highly technical industry which obeys the 'laws' of
the world market and the political pattern of the dominating Eastern and
Western industrial lands. The 'concise, factual, professional manner' is
on a level isolated from a discussion of values.
Those who believe in the possibility of a technical solution often refrain
from discussing a radical transformation to soft technology. There is little
demand on the market, so why bother? The market suggests a preference
for hard technology: tremendous new energy sources, a more extreme
'efficiency program' based upon centralisation, or technical solutions to
population growth.
W. Modell, MD, New York, has indicated to a group of pharmaceutical
manufacturers that, by studying organisms which live in the poisonous
atmosphere of volcanoes or the near boiling waters of a geyser, we can
find substances which could render future conditions on a devastated
Earth livable for mankind (Modell, 1973, pp. 153ff). The animals which
now live in sewage may supply us with knowledge so that we too could
survive in sewage-like conditions. Dr Modell concludes with the hope

that none of these possibilities will need to be realised. The approach is
characteristic of the one-sided technical approach to our crisis, but I am
glad to say that Dr Modell is not entirely serious about his solutions.
The essential ingredients for a technocracy are present when the
individual and the organisations in which the individual functions become
more occupied with means than with ends, and more occupied with
subordinate ends (buildings) than fundamental ones (homes). The more
the ability to dwell upon intrinsic value diminishes, the faster conscious-
ness turns from immediate experience to planning for the coming times.
Although the intrinsic values are ostensibly still the central themes, the
procurement of effective means is the principal occupation. The undesir-
able consequences of this become more and more aggravated as the
individual consumer has less and less to do with production. The
techniques are 'improved' constantly, requiring great sacrifices of time
and energy. Unnoticed, the time spent upon goals withers away. The
headlong rush after means takes over: the improvements are illusory.
A crucial objective of the coming years is, therefore, decentralisation
and differentiation as a means to increased local autonomy and, ulti-
mately, as a means to unfolding the rich potentialities of the human
person.
The great representative of intermediate technology, E. F.
Schumacher, spoke of 'production of the masses' as opposed to 'mass
production'. The expression 'local production' is also appropriate, as 'the
masses' is often associated with many people in a homogeneous milieu.
There are masses of small communities, but the techniques will vary
greatly if the message of ecosophy is taken seriously. In the same light,
'advanced technology' should be seen as technology which advances the
basic goals of each culture, not anything more complicated or difficult for
its own sake.
Schumacher emphasises that production of the masses mobilises the
inestimable resources which ordinary human beings possess: brains and
skilled hands. And the means of production of the masses assist them with
first-class tools. The technology of mass production is in itself violent,
ecologically harmful, ultimately self-destructive in its consumpton of
non-renewable resources and stupefying for the human person
(Schumacher, 1973).
(c) Soft technology and ecosophy

'To tread lightly on Earth' is a powerful slogan in the deep
ecological movement, and slogans such as 'soft technology' are obvious
corollaries. Which technologies satisfy maximally both the requirements

of reduced interference with nature and satisfaction of human vital
needs? Clearly the requirements cannot both be maximally satisfied
without getting into conflicts. It is a major concern to find a kind of
equilibrium, and the proposals are dependent on geographical and social
diversity of life conditions.
A widening circle of technically proficient people are devoting their
attention to the discovery of ecologically satisfactory techniques. The
increase in interest evidenced by those who direct research in industry and
governmental machinery is proceeding more slowly, and grants are
minuscule compared with the amounts received by projects indifferent or
blatantly irresponsible to ecosophy.
There are many useful works outlining the distinctive qualities of soft
technology. What is often missing in such overviews is a discussion of the
transition path between our present society and one which would make full
use of soft and appropriate technologies. Johan Galtung (1978) outlines a
way to utilise both alpha structures (big, centralised, hierarchical), and beta
structures ('small is beautiful') as instruments for a composite change to a
way in which the former will be phased out gradually, as structures move
slowly from the vertical to the horizontal. He asks for a mix of technologies,
thus a realistic and immediate alternative: see table 4.1.
In spite of the comprehensive nature of the list, the confrontation
between standardisation and diversity could be further highlighted.
Decentralisation, and emphasis upon local resources, climate, and other
characteristics would result in variations of a technique within the same
ecosophically sane technology. The same applies to the products of the
techniques. Diminishing standardisation and increasing diversity follow.
The demand for expert aid to carry out planned transitions to softer
technology is greater than the supply in Great Britain and elsewhere.
Work procedures are being reworked. Volvo's experiments with smaller
factories, improved external milieux, more all-round tasks and more
responsible decision making on the job are well-known.
But the dark outlook for an early transformation to soft technology in
Europe may be especially associated with three restraining political
factors: the fear for reduced industrial-economic profitability, the fear for
reduced material standard of living, and the fear of unemployment. The
last factor would appear to be paradoxical, as there seems to be universal
agreement that a transition to soft technology would increase the demand
for labour, and improve the opportunities for workers. The counterargu-
ment reveals a vulgar empiricism: it is said that historically the develop-
ment of non-soft technology over the last fifty years has occurred simul-
Table 4.1
Alpha Beta
Food build down trade in food, try to restore the old system
drop cash crop practices; that the food is grown within
build down agribusiness the horizon - local autarchy;
also local preservation and
storage; collectivise ground
that can be used for food
Clothes build down international try to restore patterns of local
textile business handicraft: symbiosis with
food production
Shelter build down housing business; try to restore local building
transfer more work to homes patterns with local materials;
to help dissolve centre- collectivise ground that can be
periphery distinction used for housing
Medical care rural clinics, control of drugs positive health care: participa-
tion, less separation between
healthy and ill
Transportation/ less centralised, two-way try to restore patterns of
communication patterns, collective means of walking, talking, bicycling,
transport more car-free areas, cable TV,
local media
Energy better distribution of centres solar/wind/wave/biogas net-
for large-scale energy works
production
Defence democratised armies, better local defence patterns, non-
distribution of commanding violent groups
positions
Comprehension maximum transparency small-size units compre-
through citizen participation hensible by anybody
and reporting
taneously with a decrease in unemployment. But where is the substance

of such a connection?
In technical circles, it is often said that a radical transition to soft
technology is politically unrealistic and unnecessarily drastic. But the
importance of the many small changes in the environment caused by hard
technology is presently underestimated. For example: even if we totally
avoid large oil catastrophes at sea, the many completely 'normal' small
leaks can result in a multitude of tiny detrimental effects upon organisms
which will ultimately be catastrophic for living conditions. The minor
spills and leaks are calculated to release between five and ten million tons
of oil into the seas each year. If the consumption of oil in the Third World
increases to the European level within thirty years, living conditions will
degenerate ten or more times faster than the present rate.
(d) The invasion of hard technology in the Third World

Faced with the dominance of hard technology, some are proud of
the fact that it is necessary to ask if it can be universalised. Can all
countries follow in our footsteps? Will people in poorer countries and the
generations of the future have a chance to live in our (seemingly)
magnificent way?
If not, should we not subscribe to the following norm: 'Choose a level
of standard of living such that you realistically may desire that all fellow
humans reach the same level if they want'? With the rate of destruction of
woods and degrading quality and quantity of good soils, and the prospect
of human population at least reaching 8000 million, there is no univer-
salisability present, no planet available for that. The average level in rich
industrial countries is unjustifiable and irrational considering its very
uncertain relation to level of life quality.
One central question in the Third World is: how much industrial
techniques can we import from the leading industrial nations without
being obliged to open the doors to undesirable characteristics of their
social structures? Do we have to develop a weapon industry like that of
the industrial countries to prevent our domination by them? Is it necessary
to develop a western technocracy in order to survive as a self-determining
nation?
For many years, the answers were overwhelmingly optimistic. The
leaders of these countries would say: 'We can assimilate whatever we find
technically useful, if we take care to retain our own ideology and our own
value priorities. Our cultures will remain unharmed.' This could be
termed the 'skim the cream' theory.
The military and administrative elite of the Third World has since 1945
to a great extent been educated in the industrial countries and has
adopted our predominant ideology, including a distaste for local tradi-
tions and cultural diversity in general. The optimism in this case ultimately
rests upon an evaluation about how little there was to lose if the ideologies
of the industrial countries happened to be introduced together with the
techniques: the integrated notion of technology, remember, includes
both.
Today, they have made a near total about-face. If one adopts a
technique from the leading industrial societies, e.g. a specific method for
treatment of cancer, experience has shown that it cannot be imported in
isolation - it presupposes much more importation. And this supportive
import is not purely technical. New patterns of human association, and

other subcultures of work are assumed. In short: cultural invasion and
increased dependence. One's own culture is gradually eroded.
In Tibet, Sikkim, and Bhutan, among other until recently isolated
places, the leaders throughout the ages have been aware of the 'domino
theory'. Tibet is a dramatic example. Tibet managed to remain isolated
for many years. When the leaders of Tibet felt themselves threatened by
the new China, they sought contact with the industrial states, to increase
their chances for a military defence of Tibetan society and culture. Too
late! Their cultural sovereignty has been destroyed. But in Bhutan in the
1980s the government is considering technology and influence from the
outside only with extreme caution. For example, any students who go
abroad for higher education must, immediately upon their return, spend
six months travelling through the countryside for a re-education on the
actual conditions and values of the people of their own country.
The transfer of technologies from the industrial countries to the Third
World has included dramatic, often tragic episodes. The Careless
Technology (ed. Farvar and Milton, 1972) illustrates the importance of
regarding a culture as a whole, and supplies crystal-clear examples of
actual results of thoughtless exportation of technology to the Third
World. This thoughtlessness is implicit in the 1940s concept of 'underde-
veloped countries'. One imagined that all cultures would and should
develop technology in the same manner as the leading industrial coun-
tries.
A widely unnoticed, but, in the history of the world, meaningful, clash
between spokespeople for hard and soft technology took place in India in
the years following the Second World War. On one side stood a group of
politicians with Nehru in the fore. They were inspired by the industrialisa-
tion philosophy of the Soviet Union. On the other side was Gandhi. His
social philosophy, sarvodaya, 'to the best for all', emphasised the impor-
tance of decentralised industrial life and extensive self-sufficiency in
India's 500,000 villages. His greatest goal was the elimination of direct
material and spiritual destitution. His propaganda for weaving looms is
particularly well-known, but he also supported other artisan crafts.
Centralisation and urbanisation were, for him, evils. The emphasis on
large industry and all technology which deepened the division between a
technical elite and workers stripped of their culture would lead to a
proletarisation of the cities, and increase in violence, and opposition
between the Hindus and Muslims.
The contest revolved around the extent to which free India's politics
would be based on the red or green dimensions (see chapter 6). Both
Nehru and Gandhi were aware of the implications in the choice of

technology. After independence, the opposition blocks led to com-
promises between the red and the blue factions. It has been said that the
two greatest catastrophes in India have been the elimination of Buddhism
and the deaf ear turned towards the green teachings of Gandhi. This may
be an exaggeration, but had priority been given to the technical develop-
ment of the local community, India's material needs would in all likeli-
hood have been met in the 1950s.
(e) Ecosophy and technology: a summary

(1) Objects produced by labour of a technical nature are in
intimate interaction, not only with the means and the mode of production,
but with all essential aspects of cultural activity.
(2) Therefore technology is intimately related directly or indirectly to
other social institutions, e.g. the sciences, the degree of centralised
government, and beliefs about what is reasonable. Change in technology
implies change in culture.
(3) The height of technical development is primarily judged by the
leading industrial states in terms of how the techniques can be assimilated
in the economies of these states. The more advanced Western science,
e.g. quantum physics or electronics, a technique presupposes, the higher
it is regarded. This untenable criterion of progressiveness is applied not
only to our own technology but also to the technology of other cultures.
This in turn leads to the general depreciation of the viability of foreign
cultures.
(4) The ecosophical criteria for progressiveness in technology are
relative to ultimate normative objectives. Therefore culture-neutral
statements of the degree of advancement cannot be formulated.
(5) The ecosophical basis for an appraisal of technique is the satisfac-
tion of vital needs in the diverse local communities.
(6) The objectives of the deep ecological movement do not imply any
depreciation of technology or industry, but they imply general cultural
control of developments.
(7) Technocracies - societies to an overwhelming degree determined
by technique and technology - can arise as a consequence of extreme
division of labour, and intimate merging of technologies of a higher order,
combined with extremely specialised, centralised, and exclusive educa-
tion of technologists. Although neither politicians, nor clergy, nor other
groups with authority in the culture can test the explanations granted to
the public, they can to some extent determine the political development.
The extent of this influence is dependent upon many things: how much
technical counter-expertise can be mobilised, and how willing the mass

media are to present these counter-reports in a generally understandable
form.
(8) When a technique is replaced by another which requires more
attention, education, and is otherwise more self-engaging and detached,
the contact with the medium or milieu in which the technique acts is
diminished. To the extent that this medium is nature, the engagement in
nature is reduced in favour of engagement in the technology. The degree
of inattentiveness or apathy increases and thus our awareness of the
changes in nature caused by the technique decreases.
(9) The degree of self-reliance for individuals and local communities
diminishes in proportion to the extent a technique or technology trans-
cends the abilities and resources of the particular individuals or local
communities. Passivity, helplessness, and dependence upon 'megasoci-
ety' and the world market increase.
Economics within ecosophy
1 The contact with total views

It has been said in the first chapter that what makes the ecological
situation especially serious is that there is a deeply grounded ideology of
consumption and production which is unecological. This kind of diagnosis
makes it essential to analyse economic conditions and to consider a
science with great influence, namely economics.
There is another motivation, namely that economics has traditionally a
broad contact with total views with normative content.
Economy comes from the Greek word oikonomos'. one that takes care
of the household, a normative undertaking. So to be a good and wise
economist is in this sense nothing terribly exciting, or special. Oikonomos
is a word that may be put in contrast to cosmonomos: the nature and world
administrator that very few beings can live up to. But already Xenophon,
Plato, and Aristotle treated the household problems for the community
as a whole, for polls. Xenophon was the first in a long series of thinkers
who looked at economics from a rather narrow point of view. They
became the ideological advocates primarily of the people who had
property, the landowners.
Economics is, in the European tradition, often defined as the science of
how to satisfy human needs. But since it clearly does not talk about every
kind of need it becomes necessary to define 'economic' needs. What are
these? It is said that they are those that have to do with external means
and how to obtain those external means, especially in relation to commun-
ity or nations. Thus there is no very sharp demarcation between
economics in a traditional sense and other activities of human society.
Looking into the pages of economics treatises you see however that
practically every aspect of society gets a section. But most of the authors
try to avoid too much contact with political problems, saying that the
Neglect of economics in deep movement 105
ultimate goals of economic policy are decided by the politicians. In this

way economists avoid taking wisdom into account. They play the role of
servants to whoever happens to have political power. Economists as
contemporary scientists do not judge political goals but only advise on
how best to realise goals announced by people in power. Unfortunately
this is largely unrealised by the public who get the impression that
economists personally endorse the goals of their clients. If the scientists
announced their persoal view more often in mass media, this impression
would weaken.
A feature of economics important for ecosophers is the highly
developed study of influences of one factor on other factors in society.
The famous Norwegian economist Ragnar Frisch said that 'economics is
like an infiltrated maze of mutual influences that runs in all directions'. If
you make a change of conditions in one place in one way you have to look
for the consequences of this in a vast number of ways and places. It is for
instance quite common in economics to require the consideration of a
hundred variables. As ecosophers we have something to learn!
It is not uncommon in traditional economics to admit that questions of
ethics are relevant in every consideration. There are always ethical
requirements which influence the practical arrangements of economic
affairs. Any analysis of economic activity presupposes that there are
certain norms which have to be satisfied in the analysis. The most
prominent economists until this century, including Francois Quesnay,
Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx, have been engaged as
much in moral philosophy as in detailed economic affairs. In this century
there has been a dangerous narrowing of the scope of textbooks in
economics so that very little of the normative philosophical basis of the
field is left. Economics is dried up. We are left with a kind of flat country
of factual quantitative considerations, with no deep canyons or impressive
mountain peaks to admire. Fortunately this is changing - in part owing to
the impact of environmental concerns.
2 The neglect of economics within the

deep ecological movement
Especially among activists within the ecological movement,
people have been so fed up with unecological policies that the term
'economics' itself has become a kind of nasty word. Economists have been
looked at as inevitable enemies to the green cause. What is especially
annoying to many environmentalists is this: in the papers and books of
economists nature is practically never mentioned, and, if it is, it is only in
very shallow argumentation as resources or as obstacles. So nothing can
106 Economics within ecosophy
be expected, think activists, from a study of economics - the economists

are to be fought.
Every time there is a conflict about policies in economic matters there
will be conclusions or decisions more favourable to sound ecological
policies than certain others and it is relevant for people supporting the
deep ecological movement to point out what is the best alternative when
decisions are made in economic terms. This means sometimes to propose
solutions which are from a deep ecological view not the best or even good
but which are much better than the others under consideration. If the
supporters of the deep ecology movement are to take part in politics at all,
they have to have opinions on economic decisions, but they should always
make clear if they personally are advocates for the decision, or, if it is not
completely satisfactory, how they would, if they had power, decide
otherwise.
What I am driving at is that we need in society even as it is now operating
people who are competent to take part in economic decision making and
take part in informing the public about the consequences of different
decisions. It is highly destructive to the deep ecology movement that
supporters are silenced because they cannot stand up in public discussions
with people who are well acquainted with economics.
3 'as seen from a purely economic standpoint. . .'

Social activity in non-industrial countries includes economic
activities. These have a high degree of complexity and are mostly directed
towards household needs of local communities. Much was ceremonial or
related to kinship. The economic mores of industrial countries have
ancestors in non-industrial cultures, the mores of hucksters. The essence
of economic activity tends now to be abstracted from the social matrix.
Expressions like 'from a purely economic standpoint' are instructive here.
Non-normative development of household wisdom has made it easy to
speak of 'pure' economics and to say by implication that every other
consideration such as social costs of an economic decision cannot be
relevant within economics. It is, however, clear that in practice it is
impossible for economists to avoid such questions. For instance, when it
is a question of employment and economists are asked to give advice on
how to diminish unemployment, they cannot say, 'All right, we can
transport people to those places in the country where there is some kind
of work and that would get rid of half the unemployment.' The politicians
would then say this is a completely valueless suggestion because it is
against the law to force people to move to such places where work is
available. Implicitly, economists must take values into account and must
An economic policy system fragment 107
themselves think up ethical solutions to their problems. There is no

practical point of view that could be called purely economic.
It is often said that the need for so-and-so is so big, where the need is
taken to be something we can measure by seeing what the demand for it
is. But it is clear that in economics (if economics has to do with the
satisfaction of needs) demand on the market is only one of many factors
suggesting a need. There are in international economics questions such as
how to meet the needs in certain areas of Africa where people are
starving. The demand there is practically zero because they don't have
any money, so if demand is taken to be the main criterion they need much
less than we do. Are starving people without needs!? Demand criteria
lead one to say that there is a maximum need for foodstuffs in certain parts
of, say, the US, where there is a great demand for the feeding of animals
essential for the modern human diet. Household policy will never be
determinable by pure consideration of such demand.
In modern economics texts there is much talk about rationality and
rational choice. In economics as in other sciences, rationality has to be
measured in relation to basic norms. If there is a non-basic norm in
relation to which something is expedient this does not imply that it is also
rational in relation to more basic norms. Whenever we bring questions of
rationality into economic life the ultimate norms of economy have to be
considered. When it is said that it is economically more rational to
transport heavy goods from A to B by means of trucks than by means of
horses, it does not exclude the possibility that it is unwise to transport any
heavy goods from A to B. Higher household norms than cheapness etc.
may be involved. Elimination of normativity in economics turned a great
deal of attention in the name of 'progress' towards irrationality or
something completely neutral in relation to rationality. Economic growth
in the Third World is still conceived largely in terms of non-normative
economics, the 'experts' being unaccustomed to reasoning from the
maximally wide and deep perspective of a total view.
4 An economic policy system fragment

We can illustrate a way of approaching normativity in economics
with the method outlined at the beginning of chapter 3. Fritz Holte gives
in his book Sosial0konomi ('Economies', 1975) an example of 'a set of
fundamental and derived goals for economic policy' (p. 241). What is
expressed 'according to Holte' has been the accepted view in Norway
from 1945 to the present day. Such goals were, characteristically enough,
not explicitly accepted by him.
Using the normative system technique, the set of fundamental and

derived norms may be formulated as follows:
Basic norms in economic policy:
Bl Full employment!
B2 High consumption now! (i.e. within the present electoral term)
B3 High consumption in the future!
B4 Much leisure time now!
B5 Much leisure time in the future!
B6 Reasonable distribution of consumption! (public vs. private,
private vs. personal)
Derived norms:
D7 High national product now!
D8 High national product in the future! (rapid economic growth =
high growth rate in GNP)
D9 High investment!
D10 Reasonable distribution of investment among different
industries
D l l Balance foreign trade!
D12 Hold prices stable!
The diagram of derivation (figure 5.1) illustrates three levels in the

system fragment. In order to reach the level of concrete decisions more
levels would, of course, have to be added. A normative pyramid is
formed. A derived norm (or goal) has the character of a means in relation
to the norm (or goal) it is derived from. Therefore, all the goals in the
system except the top six have the character of mainly being 'means to
ends'.
By saying that economics can concern itself only with means but not
with goals, one neglects the central things it should be concerned with.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
D12 D10
An economic policy system fragment 109
Such a proposition is clearly untenable. But it does point to the fact that
all human actions are goal-directed and work within a hierarchy of goals
which correspond to a hierarchy of gestalts. If one does not work with
goals one does not work with human actions. Model thinking is thinking
in terms of models. If one is not concerned with the goals, such models are
useless.
The aim of the diagram is to provide an easily perceivable skeleton
fragment of a complex system. Vagueness in formulation goes together
with the fact that the goals suggest broad guidelines for policy goals rather
than precise directives.
The decisive weakness of this fragment from an ecosophical standpoint
is the fact that a vast number of hypotheses are required to logically derive
the norms D7-D12 from the 'fundamentals' B1-B6. None of the required
hypotheses appear in the fragment.
An example: from 'Much leisure time in the future!' (B5) is derived
'High investment!' (D9). But in Ecosophy T 'voluntary simplicity' is
taken to be necessary to achieve much leisure time. High investment is
incompatible with voluntary simplicity. The derivation of D9 is only
possible with 'High consumption in the future!' (B3) as a basic norm.
From B3 follows D8, 'Rapid economic growth!', etc. With such anti-
ecosophical norms, the comparatively attractive 'leisure time' norm gets
absorbed into a total economic system which is decidedly un-ecosophical.
In short, the postulated relation of derivation between a norm of more
leisure time and a norm of more investment presupposes hypotheses
about how leisure time is to be increased. The fragment is one-sided and
reveals according to ecosophy the gigantic illusion that modern industrial
society guarantees leisure time.
A second weakness of our system fragment is that the basic norms are
not placed deeply enough: the justification of leisure time and norms of
distribution are already beyond the reaches of current economic science.
A kind of philosophical welfare theory seems to be assumed. Without
such, the choice of basic norms B1-B6 must be considered highly
arbitrary. Why should a wise household need high consumption as a basic
norm?
Norms can be divided up between those which function as rules and
those which function as guidelines. Economics as a social science is by
nature coloured by guidelines: one cannot by pure deduction come to the
solutions as they are generally given. The estimations of economists will
therefore only be one set of economic opinions. A set of norms together
with a series of evaluations will therefore lay the ground for results.
Economic tradition since the 1890s has put systematic weight on the
presuppositions of the models used. An example of what this means is

here found in Holte (1975, p. 37):
Many of the reasonings which were put forth in this book are built on the
following presuppositions. Every businessman has the goal of obtaining
the greatest possible profit from his business. Every businessman knows
how the possibilities of selling the business products vary with the price.
Every businessman knows how the costs in his business vary with the
level of production.
Those kinds of presuppositions make it possible to construct quantita-
tive economic laws' which we know cannot hold as strictly as the
economists would like. In modern economics quantitative formulations
are taken to be necessary and superior to make economics a 'science' (in
a narrow sense). Such presuppositions still dominate. We may get a
high-level methodology, a high level of deduction, a high level of preci-
sion, but a certain barrenness from the point of view of norms, barrenness
from a point of view of humanity, and extreme danger from the point of
view of ecosophy.
5 Gross National Product (GNP)

In this section I shall give a rather detailed critical comment on
GNP for two main reasons. People supporting the deep ecological
movement need to be able to discuss 'economic growth' because
unecological policy tends to be supported by referring to the necessity and
desirableness of such growth. But because of the disinclination to study
economics by environmentalists the economists' critique of GNP is
largely unknown.
The notion of economic growth which is most often talked about is
GNP growth. Calculation of the GNP is done by listing and adding up
the national accounts every year. The many entries in this enormous
product are published by the national bureau of statistics or its equivalent.
Production is the making of real objects by means of other real objects.
What are made are called products, and the real objects which contribute
to their creation are called production factors. Under the classification
'real objects' we include goods and services. Real objects are distinguish-
able from finance objects, such as shares and paper money. Production
includes therefore services of all sorts which can be bought on the market.
A certain equation ought to be mentioned:
GNP + imports = consumption + gross investment
+ increase of stocks 4- exports
A rguments for ignoring GNP 111
However, goods stands for the value of all goods and services which are
used as production factors. Holte says: 'in the production of milk,
production factors include among the other things hay, labour costs,
services from the cows, services from the workers, protection of the cows
against the weather, etc' (Holte, 1975).
Independently of the ecological movement, economists have in recent
years introduced a vigorous critique of economic growth and 'national
goal setting' as an indicator of welfare growth in the industrial countries.
But the key word 'economic growth' has continued to have great impor-
tance in politics, in spite of the growing evidence that it has negative
influence on contemporary quality of life in the rich industrial nations. As
to future generations their life conditions are heavily threatened.
It is a grave error within the ecological movement to fail to utilise
economists' own criticism of the economic growth propaganda. Every
day, every week of the year newspapers and television programmes
continue to mention economic growth as measured by GNP as if it were a
decisive ingredient of a successful economic policy. People engaged in the
ecological movement rarely protest at this. I suspect that if, in private and
public discussion, we had systematically inserted some of the economists'
own critique we would no longer have economic growth as a kind of
'superstar' in our overdeveloped industrial society. This is one of the
worst instances of our neglect of economics!
6 Arguments for ignoring GNP in the

industrial countries
(a) Historical background for the overevaluation of GNP
In the years immediately following the Second World War, it was
imperative to get wheels moving again. Experts assumed that it would
take a very long time to rebuild Europe. To the surprise of all, it took only
a few years' time for Germany to become an economic giant with a high
material life standard. In other lands (perhaps not the UK), growth was
more rapid than expected. The technological possibilities for enormous
industrial production became and perhaps continue to be underesti-
mated.
What happened from 1945 to 1965 in Europe was an economic growth
in the sense of building up and moving forward. Obviously GNP was
relevant. Unhappily it became such a popular notion that people sought
to clarify and explain economic progress in a wide positive meaning by
means of the narrow and ambiguous indicator of GNP.
Doubts made themselves felt already when talking about all the strange
things which began to turn up on the plus si:e of national accounts:

industry focusing on the elimination of pollution andfirstaid to victims of
traffic accidents, prisons, and absolutely everything which the industrial
countries need to repair the undesirable sides of this society are included.
The cost of the growth itself gets into the positive side of GNP accounting!
GNP is therefore in a certain sense a value-neutral quantity: a measure
of activity, not of activity of any kind of value. A first argument against
continued growth is just this. The GNP does not give any guarantee of
meaningfulness of that which is created. Growth in GNP does not imply
any growth in access to intrinsic values and progress along the course of
Self-realisation.
Obviously any kind of economic growth which is not related to intrinsic
values is neutral or detrimental. The measure of GNP is somehow related
to thefiercenessof activity in the society but thisfiercenessmay very well
have more to do with a lack of ability of the members of the society to
engage in meaningful activity than a measure of something humanity
should look upon with joy. There is no clear relation to life quality.
It is worth while to discuss GNP because in politics it is actually used as
if it has an intimate relation to life quality or the three kinds of ultimate
goals suggested in chapter 3, §4. In short GNP tends to be treated as Gross
National Quality of Life, Gross National Pleasure, Gross National Happi-
ness, or Gross National Perfection. The term 'gross' is important because
the same GNP is compatible with any distribution, for instance 95% of
people in utter poverty and 5% in extreme opulence, or all people having
the same standard of living.
(b) GNP is not a measure of welfare: why not?

An essential argument against GNP growth concerns its differ-
ence from welfare growth. The editor of the specialists' magazine
Sosial0konomen (The Economist') put it in this way as long ago as 1972:
1. The national product comprises fewer goods and services than even
the average person has use of.
2. The valuation components for the single entries in national
accounting do not respond to the effect of welfare on the components.
3. The national product says nothing on the distribution of goods
between persons.
4. The national product shows running activity yet doesn't reflect over
time. It says nothing on the tapping or elimination of limited resources
and irreversible changes.
Elaborating an example used by Hazel Henderson (1981, p. 300) we
note that an increase of £lm to £2m spent on anti-smoking educational
A rguments for ignoring GNP 113
measures combined with a decrease from £80m to £70m on advertising

and promoting tobacco represent a 'lamentable' decrease of £9m pounds
in GNP. Any increase in self-reliance, eating at home rather than in
restaurants, choice of work near home - practically everything signifying
progress towards sane, ecosophically justifiable life, may result in 'la-
mentable' decrease in GNP and will be noted as 'worrying' decline of
economic growth. Ecology is suspect (see Jansson (1984)). Life quality
itself is suspect. Every use of anti-depression pills is a plus in GNP.
The tapping of unrenewable resources and other milieu-destroying
irreversible processes stand in intimate connection with the level of
welfare, globally and in the long run. The expression 'running' activity
indicates time neutrality and is different from creative activity. Perhaps
'galloping' activity is a little more apt. Sustainability is completely
ignored.
GNP cultivation adds to the distraction from problems of distribution.
The platform of any green politics contains the elimination of skewness in
the distribution between the centre and the periphery as one of its goals.
Concentration on GNP favours still more development of the already
strongly industrialised and centralised areas.
(c) GNP growth favours hard and distant technologies

GNP increases not so rapidly with soft and near technology as
with hard technology and technology which requires long transportation
times and distances. In the short run, this just fits into the following motto
of the paradigm of economic growth: if something can be done in a
complicated way and thereby generate more profit, why do it simply?
(d) GNP growth favours wants, not needs

In GNP there is no place for a distinction between waste, luxury,
and a satisfaction of fundamental needs. The difference here, which is so
essential for wise communal living for our household, between what one
has desire for and what one needs, is ignored. Desperate attempts at
continuing GNP growth favour the unlimited nature of desires. They also
favour, therefore, the belief in the necessity of market expansion.
People have tried to measure to what degree economic growth has
increased the satisfaction of basic needs. The conclusion has on the whole
been that any positive effect at the outset is now steadily decreasing.
Poverty, especially relative poverty, is not seen to be eliminated with
increasing GNP. GNP growth tends towards increasing the distance
between the individual's material aspiration level (world of material
desires) and the individual's actual economic possibilities.
(e) GNP discriminates against people working at home

From the entries in GNP calculations it is clear that an important
part of all present-day work is neglected: unpaid work in the home.
Housewives' or househusbands' work is not taken into account in spite of
the fact that it is relatively easy to calculate how many millions it would
cost if all housework were paid at the usual rates. An important traditional
component of the working man's or woman's welfare thus does not come
into the GNP: that someone works for him or her at home.
In less traditional family structures such things are twisted about quite
a bit, but still there is certain work that must be done in the home. And
whoever does it, it still does not get considered in any of the entries
leading up to the GNP. What counts tend to be complicated means to
reach poor goals.
(f) GNP growth supports irresponsible and unsolidaric

resource consumption and global pollution
When the industrial lands' wealth and level of technology lay the
ground for the measuring of the resources of the globe, one gets the usual
conclusion that they are practically unlimited. Experts hired by govern-
ments of the technically most 'advanced' nations reckon that, with the use
of a small percentage of the national income, we can shape new
technologies to solve any ecological problem. Even if true, this conclusion
is not worth much because it does not take up the relation between
developing and industrial countries. That which is a usable resource for
Britain or Norway may not be usable in a developing country.
(g) The irrelevance of economic gro wth

How ought an ecologically responsible policy to be carried out?
Should GNP grow rapidly, show decreasing rate of growth but still grow,
remain stationary, or decrease? There is no simple answer. In principle,
GNP is irrelevant. What counts in the economic policy of a state is each
entry which is summed up in the form of a single number - GNP. And the
nation state is not the most important economic unit in an economy of
needs, the economy of communities has precedence.
If green policy does not support a reduced GNP but a programme for
the change of the individual entries, exactly which changes are to be
suggested? The answer will not be simple.
There is no economic philosophy of zero growth. It is the defenders of
the actual growth increase who have postulated fictional zero-growth
philosophies as comfortable but non-existent opponents. A state council
minister has, I think, accurately called zero-growth philosophy 'lunatic
Arguments for ignoring GNP 115
moonlighting of a spinning brain'. But which brain did the spinning? -

Someone in opposition to the deep ecological movement. The term 'zero
growth' has a clear meaning in the study of populations. When a popula-
tion holds itself at a constant level it is said that there is zero growth. There
is no reason for economics to take over this term.
The attention on GNP continually focuses on the aggregate size of
practically everything. Sosial0konomen (2,1973) has laid down this issue
editorially:
The thought itself that it should be possible to come to a single quantity
for a country's welfare or national happiness shows a certain naivete and
lack of insight into the aggregation problem. Even if one comes up with
such a number, so what? One number cannot be any foundation basis for
a concrete policy. The policy must start and end with individual activity.
GNP's lack of import for green politics also stems from the fact that it
does not move attention away from the state towards the two essential
extremes: the economics of local communities and the global economic
links. The average growth in GNP in Norway of 3.47% from 1950 to 1962
indicates mainly the transfer of production factors from branches with
low productivity to those with high productivity. Such transfer is very
suspect from the green political standpoint. The next most powerful cause
is increasing capital input per worker, per working place. The third is
named 'progress in technology and organisational knowledge', implying
mainly a movement to centralisation and 'high tech'. The fourth is
increasing size of businesses.
The statement of causes must of course be used with care but they show
with decisive import that attention must be directed at every single entry.
If decentralisation and small businesses are to seek strength and to be
strengthened one cannot at the same time look for growth in GNP.
(h) Misplaced attempts at salvation of GNP

Many would like to reform the GNP measure so that it gets to be
an expression for good things produced. From this follows advice on
discount entries in calculation of a company's gross product. If the
method of work in a company is associated with stress and this leads to
exceptionally large public health expenses, these must be deducted. In
the same light, if the workers travel a long way to reach work this increases
traffic, accidents, pollution, etc. If the company releases gases into the
atmosphere or pollutes in other ways, this must also be deducted from
GNP. In short, all the costs for society must be deducted. If we destroy
something for future generations this must also be put on the minus side,
for people still are interested in children.
But estimates of the social cost of pollution vary expectedly with

political philosophies and ethics. The same holds true for other factors
which we give as shadow prices - prices that cannot be observed on
markets. We move away from seemingly clear quantitative measures to
systems of value priorities. If the term 'GNP' is to be revamped and given
a positive meaning, we are led towards a measure of progress relative to a
normative system.
So we are back into philosophy. To talk about reform of GNP is then
sheer evasion of the issue.
(i) Employment and growth

It is taken for granted, especially in Europe, that there is a rather
definite correlation between level of employment and economic growth.
But economics does not at all support this hypothesis. If you change the
economic policy, for instance, from capital-intensive to labour-intensive
ways of production, economic growth will stop or decrease (measured by
GNP) but level of employment will improve.
Then there are the notions of economically 'good times', high consump-
tion, and high demand. High demand, in a society, means there are a lot
of things which are felt to be lacking. It does not indicate a higher degree
of satisfaction or higher degree of happiness or perfection, nor does it say
anything about distribution or sustainability. This is not to say that trade
or demand is something completely neutral in terms of Self-realisation.
Our main conclusion is, however, that any estimate of general economic
progress presupposes a set of values or norms, some of which have to be
basic. The professional economist has to relate his estimates to such sets.
7 Basic notions in economic welfare theory

(a) The notion of economic welfare
In this century a very sophisticated branch of economics has
developed in Europe, namely welfare theory. By 'welfare' is here meant,
in a very gross manner, the satisfaction of a need. Higher welfare is higher
satisfaction of needs. Specialists generally do not use the term 'satisfac-
tion' but instead 'utility'. We should remember that increase of utility
means increase of satisfaction of a need by means of a good or a service.
How then do we study increase of satisfaction? It is in welfare studies
generally done like this. We may register actual true choices of a person
NN between two goods A and B in a situation S. If NN chooses A before
B this person is said to prefer A to B and if we then get hold of A we note
down that it is a plus for satisfaction, a plus in utility.
Basic notions in economic welfare theorv 117
But what we can collect of data in this way is very limited. The person
can, of course, be observed on the market but for instance it is very
difficult to observe his choice between A and B when choice A is 'living in
the city' and choice B is 'living in the countryside'. And if there are five
hundred goods on the market his choices will not of course cover all five
hundred. So it is necessary to introduce a notion of 'conjectured' choice,
or hypothesised choice, about how A would act, not in a real situation S
but in a constructed situation. We can ask in an interview: 'If you were to
choose between A and B what would you choose?'
This is how satisfaction is introduced, simply as another term from what
is chosen among relative choices, in definite real-life situations or in
conjectured situations.
We must also look into another case. If you think of getting hold of one
kind of good A, and more and more of it, the rate of satisfaction of each
unit of this would generally diminish after a point. If you have then six
units, one may ask what satisfaction the addition of a seventh unit would
give you. This is called the marginal utility of the good A when a person
NN already has some acceptable number of such units.
Now another notion, namely profile of goods and services. You have,
for instance, questions of where to have your home, where to have your
place of work, and to what extent you will need free nature in the
neighbourhood of where you live, and more generally what kind of
society you prefer. Then the choice between A and B would imply choice
of economic policies, even choice of ways of democracy. The choices of
individual things will then depend on one's choice of profiles. The term
'profile' is used because you then have to compare a tremendous number
of goods and services, put into the various classes of such things. This
leads to other important notions, namely individual welfare, interna-
tional, global welfare, and then something very important for environ-
mentalists: the welfare of any living being which can be said to experience
satisfaction or have preferences.
Most of the welfare theories so far have thought of human beings
exclusively, whereas if you use the theories of classic utilitarianism
(Bentham, Mill), then utility is related to every living being capable of
experiencing satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Individual human welfare is
then only one, rather narrow, application of welfare theory. The equa-
tions of welfare can be related to any kind of social unit and also of course
the ecologically important extremes of local community and the bios-
pheric whole.
The last notion of relevance is welfare optimum. Clearly if you have a
hundred people there will be different kinds of increase of satisfaction,
such as an increase of one member's which requires the decrease of

another's, or one which is favourable to the increase of others'. It is of
course only the latter which is compatible with an increase in Self-realisa-
tion.
A society's realistic welfare optimum depends among other things on
production. If resources are taken as a given, it is then the highest norm
of the economic policy to realise the kind of production and the produc-
tion quantity which will increase overall welfare in the society with the
least possible work of the sort which does not have intrinsic value. To give
good advice, especially with regard to quantities, it is clearly desirable
that the welfare profile itself be quantified. This implies an attempt at
measuring preferences. It is admitted by economists that this involves
enormous difficulties. Many think it is impossible.
There is a great difference between the higher level of abstract thinking
in the more or less axiomatic theory of welfare and the rather low level of
applications to real problems of society. This has primarily to do with the
rather basic characteristics of people as they make choices: their choices
are not like atoms but they are in actuality part of very large packages of
choices, such as how to live at a given place and how to care for children.
Preferences vary with their intended validity in time.
We will come to place great attention on the term 'satisfaction'. It is
implied in welfare theory that one has notions of satisfaction and there
philosophy is only a help. Some people will have more or less hedonistic
views. Others have utilitarian, and again you have the perfectionists.
One's choices will depend very much upon what kind of philosophy one
espouses; not so much on individual quantitative choices (which are of
course preferred by economists because they can get so much data from
markets). So welfare theory is not philosophically neutral.
When pleasure/displeasure is brought in to the marginal utility usage
notions, welfare is accused of being hedonistic/pleasure-philosophy.
When utility/disutility is brought in, it is accused of being utilitarian.
When choices or decisions are laid at the base, it can be called volun-
tarism/will philosophy.
Evidently, welfare theory requires that we choose beforehand whether
the society we are talking about is to be seen as a hedonistic, utilitarian,
or voluntaristic society. Of course such a welfare theory would largely be
an indirect application of normative systems and be very far removed
from practical economics.
A much deeper criticism is that welfare theory seems to suppose that
the population knows its possibilities for choice. This may not be the case.
Basic notions in economic welfare theory 119
(b) From welfare theory to normative systems

When conclusions are practical in the form of real green or red
lights for definite incursions into the business, the point of departure must
be normative, not simply a 'toothless value priority point', but an
expression using deontic expressions like ought, shall, or must. It will not
be enough to say 'If we are going to give high priority to the increase of
economic growth then . . .'.It would be necessary to say 'We should give
high priority to economic growth! Therefore . . .'. There should be
statements with exclamation marks, not only public opinion references
and technical economic analyses!
Hard econometric welfare theory takes as its starting point a normative
system following Debreu and Rader: an economic system is composed of
(1) a specification of two possible states in the world A and B, (2)
specification of a value system with optimisation norms, (3) optimisation
of the value system within the possible world states. It is easy to see that
what is here taken to be a point of departure is a normative system as
defined in this book, but in practice the normative character is somehow
put under the carpet. There are, of course, reasons for that: if you really
go deeply into a particular normative system, you see that there can be no
science built up from it as a whole. But if value priority postulates are laid
down, parts of the system may satisfy scientific methodology.
That this is so is, in an instructive way, clear from economic thinking in
the Soviet Union. A gigantic central bureau with big data machinery tries
to keep in contact with lesser bureaus all over the vast country and the
highest goal is optimal long-range national economic planning
(Fedorenko, 1972). The stated normative system has one and only one
top norm: consolidation and development of the socialistic system!
Thanks to the vagueness and ambiguity of this formulation it is not
difficult to see then that the lesser norms further down in the pyramid of
norms can be taken care of by the lesser bureaus. The interpretation of
the top norm is from time to time altered by pronouncements in the
Politburo by top economists of the country. In practice this means that it
is not really a completely stable top norm through history, but a flowing
development of interpretations of the meaning of socialism, revised
through time.
From this top norm a long list of lesser norms are derived. N4 has the
key term: 'Increase welfare for the members of the socialist union!'
Derived from N4 is N4.1: 'Increase material welfare!' and N4.2 is
'Increase social welfare!' The whole pyramid is explicitly called the 'tree
of goals'. Very instructive for a student of norm systems!
From these norms politicians get tentative projections of what ought to

happen in the near future. There is always at least a formal argumentation
from the top norm. In short, a philosophy is ostensibly implied which is
thought to be invariable from an ideological point of view. In fact there
are different interpretations when it is seen in a historical light. And
individual interpretations in different departments? We can speculate on
the extent to which the system allows for such. Obviously semantic
manipulation is important.
The kind of solution tried out in the Soviet Union is not the same as the
mixed economy of Scandinavia, but whatever we wish, whether in blue,
red, or green politics, we have to admit that there are no solutions, no
decisions to be taken, except from within a total view, including norms
which are accepted as basic without justification. We do not avoid
fundamental value priorities and we are only making things less clear if we
forfeit the forcefulness of exclamation marks! We simply have to admit
that we as humans have to try to act as integrated persons, and societies
must be integrated societies even if they are to be pluralistic. A philosophy
is pre-supposed. In this book, I have proposed as an example Ecosophy T.
(c) Welfare to Self-realisation: from WtoT

In what follows there is a suggestion of how to transform welfare-
theoretical sentences into Self-realisation sentences. The indication illus-
trates the dissimilarities between the viewpoints of contemporary
economists and those of ecosophers. It is our hope that the future will
bring with it fruitful cooperation.
Let us take as the starting point of welfare theory sentences of the
following kind: NN would choose A before B if NN had the opportunity
to choose. Here A and B are situations characterised by two different
profiles or qualitative sets of goods and services. From the point of view
of Ecosophy T which has 'Self-realisation!' as the most fundamental
norm, such a sentence will be taken as a sign and only as a symptom that
situation A would imply better conditions for fuller realisation of NN's
norms within his system than B. The choice of A harmonises better or is
in better conformity with NN's philosophy than choice B, or choice A
creates better conditions for the carrying out of NN's philosophy than the
choice of B.
How successful the choice will actually turn out to be depends not on
relation to one single norm - there will always be many norms relevant
and the consequences of the choice will spread like waves and contact the
validity domain of many norms. With this as a starting point, we can offer
for inspection three kinds of propositions with the same basic meaning:
Life quality research: deep interviews 121
NN's Self-realisation would reach a higher level in, with or by A than

in, with or by B.
= A implies better conditions than B for Self-realisation (not just of
NN,butoftheatman)
= NN's total Self-realisation increases when NN attains or obtains an
A and does not at the same time lose some other positive.
The two goods or services, or profiles of goods and services A and B do

not therefore define Self-realisation but can be said to have a positive or
negative import for Self-realisation.
What is now said to be decisive is a hierarchy of norms and hypotheses
in a Self-realisation philosophy: the conclusion that A is better than B is
built upon a set of hypotheses of actual relations, for instance, resources,
but also including hypotheses about oneself. If there is a norm Nl which
together with hypothesis HI implies that one should choose A over B it is
clear enough that NN's as well as the social scientist's task is to investigate
Hi's tenability and relevance.
If a norm runs 'Seek security against unemployment!', it is mostly clear
that NN's security depends on the economic policy of his community and
on many other things outside the world NN knows fairly well. NN will
therefore try to support a policy which he thinks secures him, or adds to
the probability that he can secure himself against unemployment. NN is
not totally egocentric, and will think of the security of others against
unemployment as well, and this makes NN's opinion about which policy
is the best quite important for the whole society. Any purchase of goods
and services must be seen in the light of at least one such norm, fairly high
up in the pyramid of norms.
It may be necessary for NN to take a job which is higher salaried but
more insecure. We are led to quite different kinds of investigations from
the usual kinds within practical economics.
8 Life quality research: deep interviews

People relate their value system to that of others by comparing
how they see family life, the importance of job or profession, the level of
economic security vs. economic risk-taking, how they value interesting or
useful work vs. well-paid work (where such a contrast ensues), the
relative importance of education. But, they are also willing and able to go
into more abstract matters such as what they find especially meaningful,
worthwhile, or representative of an ethically justifiable lifestyle.
Insofar as an interviewer can get a clear view of the various value
judgements of a subject, the road is open to find out to what extent the
subject considers themself in a position to live in accordance with these

judgements. The higher the attained harmony between ideal and reality,
the higher the life quality.
The question of economic policy enters: what economic policy does the
subject consider favourable to the realisations of their value priorities?
What economic policy is most favourable to the level of life quality?
The relevant new social science here is called life quality research. The
term life quality is introduced more or less in opposition to the economic
notion of standard of living and to the confusion of demand on the market
and needs. For literature see e.g. Chamberlain (1985). Relation of
income to quality of life is central, see e.g. Duncan (1975).
A research technique in these investigations is the deep interview. If we
are in positions in which we are responsible in some way for people in our
community, we have to try to map their normative systems by means of
in-depth interviews and relate these results to the resources as we see
them and as the people see them.
Life quality has a strong centre in psychological life quality: you
investigate how men and women experience their life situation, whether
they feel threatened by something and what they are threatened by,
whether they feel uncertain about something and what they feel uncertain
about, whether they feel inferior in some way and what they feel inferior
to, and what kinds of frustrations they have in general. In other words, an
empirical investigation of normative systems by continually asking the
question 'why?'
Of course, some people then feel threatened by things that a social
researcher doesn't think exist and on the other hand it can happen that
they are not threatened by things the researcher thinks should threaten
them, and they feel secure in spite of insight that they may lose their job
or be hurt in some other way. So the social scientist must weigh his or her
own hypotheses against those of the person being questioned - the
discrepancy between the hypotheses themselves is in itself of interest and
should be taken into account by decision makers.
It is up to the people who are responsible for the policy of the
community to decide whether and to what extent to take the sayings of
each person at face value. They have to plot a policy in part on the basis
of the different hypotheses. This also holds true for the norms. If the
person clearly acts on the basis of a felt threat, thereby hurting other
people, one has to try to influence the norms of how people behave
towards other people in the community.
It is clear that the data that one gets from deep interviews in life-quality
research are a much better basis for policy than what one gets from
Shadow-pricing nature 123
market research. The term 'deep' here is used because the interview
should take place in the natural milieu of the person being interviewed,
and take at least several hours and proceed in a relaxed and natural
manner, hoping to reach ultimate value priorities and outlooks on life.
One needs say on average at least half a day's work before any useful
information can come out. This may be a very costly affair, but results so
far indicate that the real norms, and real satisfactions people experience,
are different from what researchers have supposed. The money is well
spent. We discover great differences between conventional views as to
what people want, and what they really want.
In Ecosophy T it is of basic importance to realise that the minorities,
that is to say groups with very different normative systems from the
majority, are helped to retain those conditions for life which they think
are essential without destruction by majority voting and prioritising. On
the whole, the democratic ideal of the majority is undermined quite a bit
by life-quality research. People are diverse! Too many decisions are made
on the basis of majorities which tend to coerce the minorities in their most
vital interests.
Concluding, it should be clear that, whatever the usefulness of welfare
theory and the kind of empirical data obtained from its conceptualisation,
it remains superficial, and it hinders the necessary move from the
descriptive to the normative point of view. As soon as normative impact
is acknowledged, the theoretical tools should be changed from welfare
terminology to the terminology of normative systems, defining level of
welfare as the level of agreement of actual life with a life in harmony with
one's norms and values.
9 Shadow-pricing nature
In cost-benefit analyses and in many other investigations,
economists handle prices found by observing markets. The value of
certain goods and services which are not exchanged on markets is
estimated in other ways - they get their 'shadow prices'. So why not
consider pieces of free nature, for instance, the value of not developing a
certain river? If it should and could be done, conservation projects might
be said to create vast monetary values and thus be economically on a par
with industrial production.
There is not much data on the question, but I guess social scientists, and
among them economists, are on the whole less favourable in their
attitudes towards environmentalism than natural scientists, humanists,
and medical scientists. There are, of course, exceptions. And among
these it is a natural goal to work for environmentalist causes using the

professional tools of their trade (Rolston 1985). One goal is clearly to find
ways to get protection of nature into the framework of quantitative
economic analysis. After all, if this is impossible, concern for the environ-
ment will not appear in this analysis except as concern for fisheries, fur
trade etc. Concern for fish, wolves, and wilderness in themselves cannot
appear in the calculations.
In March and April 1985 two investigations were made by means of
questionnaires (Hervik (1986)). In March, a representative sample of
1000 persons were asked what they would be willing to pay in increased
cost of electricity if this payment would protect a certain class of rivers
from being developed (including making dams, etc.). It was made clear
that the abstention from developing the river systems might perhaps lead
to higher prices per unit electricity for household purposes. Definite
amounts of money were suggested in a somewhat complicated and
methodologically sophisticated manner.
In the April investigation it was said that the development of the rivers
might presumably lower the price of energy (with the amounts of money
corresponding to the amounts dealt with in March). People were asked
what would be the minimal reduction of price which would make them
favour the development of the river systems.
It would require considerable space to discuss the methodological
refinements. Here I propose to discuss the normative problem: whether
such investigations should be supported by people in the deep ecological
movement.
The intuitively clearest denial of the value or even meaningfulness of
the investigations has been worked out under the heading 'you cannot
slap a price-tag on nature!'
An expert on energy problems of international repute and a firm
supporter of the deep ecological movement, Paul Hofseth, has sum-
marised the main normative arguments against 'pricing nature': if some-
body A asks a person B what he or she will pay in order that A does not
break B's arm, the amount suggested by B cannot, says Hofseth, be taken
as a measure of the price or value of the arm. B has a right to his arm. It is
not permitted to break human arms. Analogously, access to free nature is
a right.
If a government A asks a population B what price it will pay for
protecting a part of nature, the price is not the price of that part of nature
as $5000 is the price of a certain car!
Suppose the 'disutilities' brought about by destroying a part of free
nature get the price tag $5000, and the utility for the population at large is
placed at $10,000. The government should nonetheless not be permitted

to destroy it. It corresponds to breaking the arm of person B because A,
representing the population at large, has calculated the utility being
greater than the disutility. The parcel of nature in question is part of his
or her Self!
A price of $5000 for a car on the market implies that you can change
$5000 into a car or a car into $5000. At least in the case of irreversible or
irreparable damage to nature, there is no such relation.
Hofseth compared access to free nature with 'access' to education. For
some well educated groups within a society it may be of great desirability
that certain other groups are not offered decent education, but this is not
right. Cost-benefit analysis breaks down in the case of rights.
An article by two environmentalist journalists is witty and superbly
well illustrated ('Crosscountry skiing with Uncle Scrooge', Mil-
j0magasinet, 1985). Wherever they go skiing, tiny bureaucratic creatures
crop up and start to interrogate: 'How much would you give to save this?',
etc. If 'a million' is the answer, the interviewer immediately prints out that
the amount must tally 'with the income of the skiers'. Prices are obtained
for everything.
Of course pained, frustrated environmentalists, who practically every
day are seeing or hearing or reading about new destructions of free
nature, relish reading such articles. They also, at least hopefully, read
about actual environmental decisions at least in part based on estimates
of the money, the expenditures, people who go fishing, hiking, or
otherwise 'use nature' actually give out for equipment, travel, etc. This is
then compared to income obtained if a hotel were built or a parking lot or
a dam.
Enough along these lines. How do economists specialising in environ-
mental conflicts defend their efforts? Having 'objectivity' as a high ideal,
one cannot expect such amusements or catchy phrases. As social scien-
tists, they also tend to avoid ethical pronouncements.
Whatever the actual defence tactics, I think the authors of methodolog-
ically sophisticated empirical investigations should state and repeat that
they are not placing any price-tag on nature! Furthermore they should
remind the environmentalists that the way decisions today are taken, the
lack of quantitative data in support of protection often, or at least
sometimes, functions as if quantitative data actually were offered, namely
the price zero. Thus the economists may claim that what they try to
prevent is the price zero from being used in the decision-making process.
Both March and April 1985 investigations end with the conclusion that
to develop certain categories of not yet protected rivers is non-economic
- the disutility is greater than the utility measured in money. The same
conclusion may turn up in every other environmental conflict. People are
more willing to protect than politicians believe.
But, says the concerned environmentalist, what if the quantitative
treatment in serious cases goes in disfavour of free nature? The
economists think they have convincing answers to that. Their conclusions
should never be taken as the only basis for a decision. The report of their
studies should be delivered to the decision makers as only one set of
relevant material, and the weakness of the methodology and the limited
relevance of the conclusions should of course be made plain. Environ-
mentalists tend, they conclude, to misconceive both methodology and
conclusions.
Some environmentalists I suspect will answer that the quantitative
nature of the conclusions will impress decision makers, and rarely will
they have time to study the methodology. They will be glad to give up
'subjective' and 'intuitive' evaluations in favour of 'objective data'. Their
responsibility will be lighter. In the long run a question of principle should
be faced as the most important: the surveys conducted in March and April
1985 are explicitly used in decision making on the highest levels, support-
ing the view that we may interfere with free nature without limitation so
long as people of the present generation indicate little interest in protec-
tion. The ethical and philosophical problem is evaded. And this would be
fatal.
To all this the economist may answer that it is based on the premise that
politicians are already used to 'quantifying everything'. A mother asks for
a sign 'Children at play' to be placed in her street, and gets the answer 'It
would cost too much if everybody in your situation were offered such a
sign. The price is $1000.' The mother says: 'Shame on you! Putting a
price-tag on my son!' As it is now, disutility of an intervention is measured
by a listing of interests interfered with. Examples: fishing, regional
economy, pollution, cultural heritage. With no weighting it is tempting to
count each alike. If careful weighting, and thus quantifiability, is intro-
duced it may support protection of nature. In one study (Wenstrup, 1985)
the economist author finds that a sample of people attached weights
which, if plotted from 10 to 100, give the following results arranged from
100 and down: protection of nature 100, agriculture 90, friluftsliv 70,
protection of cultural heritage 60, . . . . The big pressure groups which
seem strongly to influence decisions are in rich democratic welfare states
very unlikely to arrive at a favourable ranking.
With increasing awareness of the tremendous exciting and awe-inspir-
ing past, reaching back 3500 million years, the conviction strengthens that
the role of Homo sapiens cannot possibly be to destroy on the present

scale. Furthermore the awareness of the vast time scale of the past
strengthens the conviction that our concern cannot be only for our
children and grandchildren but must be for remoter generations and for
the planet as a whole. Nuclear waste problems have at least the plus that
we now feel responsible for pollution a thousand years from now. Can this
concern be quantified?
Accepting the inevitable concern on a geological time scale, the
so-called discount of future values must be considered anew. Now the
diminished concern for the nth generation after us is very roughly similar
to a function like Vn1. That is, the negative value our children will
experience because of contemporary misbehaviour counts only \ of the
negative value for us (putting n = 2). The total negative value has then
only risen from 1.0 to 1.25. The negative value for grandchildren will only
add i to the total. In short, with increasing remoteness our concern
vanishes more and more. The possibility of the disruption of nuclear
waste containers after 500 years can be ignored - practically no concern is
required according to the adopted function.
Against such a cold view of our responsibilities for what is happening
even in the geologically and evolutionary close future, a different view
should become predominant. The concern for the future should add up
towards infinity. Putting first generation concern equal to 1, the concern
for generation n from now might be symbolised by IIn. The total concern
will then approach the infinite (sum equal to I + 4 + J . . .). Those who
think that Homo sapiens is 'programmed' to eventually destroy life on the
planet should perhaps advise that we leave it before it is too late. There is,
however, no good reason to believe that there is such a programming.
And the great uncertainty about the remote developments of Homo
sapiens and its technologies makes it natural for us to concentrate on
possible effects of our behaviour for the first thousand years to come.
(Population reduction towards decent levels might incidentally require a
thousand years.)
The above crude quantification can of course be refined. But this does
not change the conclusion that, whatever quantification is chosen, it will
be of limited direct help in the decision-making process.
Quantification plays a dominant role in shaping the policies and
attitudes in modern industrial society. Before the Second World War, to
calculate 'everything' in dollars was ridiculed in Europe and considered
degrading, but after the war the tendency, for instance in the branches of
entertainment and sport, has been to calculate more and more in monet-
ary terms. It is therefore natural to find more or less generalised negative
attitudes towards calculation. But within the deep ecological movement

there are many kinds of quantitative studies which are valuable for the
movement, for instance the distribution of environmental attitudes, and
the studies of factors increasing or diminishing concern for the planet.
The March and April 1985 statistics furnish some highly relevant
materials. People in Norway living in the three biggest cities are willing to
pay much more to avoid development than people in thinly populated
areas. People's attitudes of this kind ought to be included among the data
utilised by decision makers.
The dramatic criticism by Paul Hofseth of the willingness to pay and
willingness to forgo makes it natural to ask what he would recommend. In
short he favours the boundary or limitations strategy. That is, a good time
before any big pressure group casts its eye on a piece of free nature to push
for legislation against any 'development'. A key term here is 'enduring
protection'. A list of river systems in Norway should be declared in-
violable by the government. This idea is the basis of the 'Master Plan' of
protection which the government of Norway has now (1986) endorsed.
The question is: how operative and binding will the legislation be? What
Paul Hofseth and other environmentalists hope is that the 'ideology of the
broken arm' is taken seriously. Nobody is entitled to break the arms of
fellow humans, however useful this may appear to be, and nobody is
entitled to destroy any part of the protected river ecosystems.
Whatever the outcome of the Master Plan approach, thousands of
environmental conflicts in the years to come will not be influenced by the
Plan. Therefore the efforts of economists to quantify may still be worthy
of discussion. Economists clearly on the side of strong environmental
policies tend to be pessimistic: the initiative has been taken away from the
environmentalists and remains with hired economists. The latter develop
quantitative methods which suit the bureaucratic and political leadership.
As long as environmentalists look upon economists as enemies instead of
people to cooperate with, economists will sway towards unintended,
one-sided cooperation with people in power, and easily find financial
support for their efforts. It is to be hoped that this situation will change.
This brings us back to the motives for writing this chapter.
10 Summary
(1) The debate in economics in the 80s has not yet in all serious-
ness taken into account the ecosophically valuable contribution of
economists like Georgescu-Roegen, Fritz Schumacher and Kenneth
Boulding.
(2) Environmentalists contribute to a change in this situation by
acquaintance with the work of some of these green economic classics.
Summary 129
(3) This implies also, however, acquaintance with the kind of economic
doctrines they (sometimes rather rhetorically) criticise, perhaps even an
acquaintance with the quasi-philosophical welfare theory.
(4) Humans' gross interference in nature mirrors our economic
activity. Protection of what is left of free nature depends largely on the
way humans are willing and able to change their ways of production and
consumption - and the ideologies justifying the present economic misuse
of the planet.
(5) The development of the Western science of economics has stressed
value-neutrality and quantitative relations, but its insights into the com-
plicated web of contemporary existing economic factors are of importance
in any environmental conflict. In many questions, like that of the relation
between GNP and economic progress, some economists hold critical
views useful to environmentalists, who cannot avoid partiality in discus-
sions of an economic character.
(6) Because so many major destructive projects carried out by state or
private capital have been judged and found profitable by some hired
economists, it is natural that the profession is looked upon with suspicion
by environmentalists. But there is a growing treasure of economic
literature which supports environmentalists' views.
Ecopolitics within ecosophy
1 The ecological movement cannot avoid politics

(a) All is politically relevant, but not
all is politics
All our actions, and all our thoughts, even the most private, are
politically relevant. If I use a clipped tea leaf, some sugar, and some
boiling water, and I drink the product, I am supporting the tea and sugar
prices and more indirectly I interfere in the works and capital conditions
of the tea and sugar plantations of the developing countries. In order to
heat the water, I may have used wood or electricity or some other kind of
energy, and then I take part in the great controversy concerning energy
use. I may use water from a private source or a public source, and in either
case I participate in a myriad of politically burning questions of water
supply. I certainly have a political influence daily in innumerable ways.
If I reflect on all these things along ecological lines and make my
opinions known, I contribute to the strength of the politically conscious
ecological movement. If I do nothing instead of drinking the tea I
normally drink I may contribute to the difficulties of the developing
countries because then their export becomes smaller. But perhaps not: I
may think that they should not export tea but rather produce more food
and therefore I make it easier for the politicians of the developing
countries to change their economic policies in the direction of self-
reliance.
But to say that every action and every thought is politically relevant is
not the same as to say that 'all is polities'. Nothing is only political, and
nothing is not at all political. Ecopolitics is concerned not only with
specifically ecological activity, but with every aspect of life.
In principle, it is desirable that everyone in the ecological movement
engage in political activity. Many people whose vital need it is to live in
Ecological movement cannot avoid politics 131
nature, by nature, and for nature, do not make themselves felt in political
life. This is a great obstacle for those politicians who try hard to satisfy to
some extent the needs of people engaged in conservation of the planet.
On the other hand there are plenty of jobs in environmentalism which do
not require any political participation beyond mere voting and similar
tasks.
(b) Power analysis is necessary

The force of democratic institutions in our time in determining
policies is gradually decreasing because powerful pressure groups take
over much of the influence on the decisions. Also, if we consider the big
multinational firms, we discover they can have a greater power than small
states, and within the states the department of energy, say, may have
great influence and will of course tend to support decisions to use more
and more energy, whatever the actual need. In environmental conflicts, it
is therefore important to map out the power structures relevant in pushing
the decisions and determining the different stages in the conflict. Even in
a small country like Norway, in one relatively minor conflict on the
development of a river, the map of power sources included more than
twenty power centres. Each stage of the conflict could to some extent be
predicted through mapping out the relative strengths of all these centres.
This kind of activity, to map out power structures in a cold and
detached way, neither over- nor underestimating the strengths of the
opponents themselves, is mostly uninteresting for people who are
engaged in conserving nature. So there has to be an intimate cooperation
between conservationists, journalists, people knowing political ways and
means, and all those who are vitally interested in the workings of big
societies.
One of the most important points in conflicts is this: people in the
conservation movement do not know enough about how production and
consumption are determined so that they try to effect change on society
by changing their own lifestyles through a decrease of private consump-
tion instead of using political means. Both ways are of course necessary
and complementary but Galbraith (1973) was wise to point out that 'the
thought that individual choice determines kind and quantity of production
is wrong'.
There has been a change in the 1970s and 1980s in thinking about
analysis of power, and analysis of propaganda, and analysis of the power
of the mass media. Before this time, there was, especially among people
interested in nature, such strong aversion to these themes that they were
shunned completely, whereas the new generation is more used to harsh
132 Ecopolitics within ecosophy
realities, and there is a hope that this will lead to a greater interest in green
politics in the near future.
(c) The politicisation of conservation

Until the fight against uncritical use of pesticides started in the
early 60s and the international ecological movement burst forth it was
widely held that attitudes towards nature could be significantly changed
through direct work on these very attitudes. The pesticide conflict
revealed in a clear and dramatic way that ways of production and
consumption had to be tackled straight on. E. F. Schumacher describes in
a dramatic but simple way what we are up against. Slightly condensed and
modified we may formulate it this way. A system of production has
immanent forces or implicit aims which mould society. Society accepts
the aims as if they were its own and becomes captive to the system.
Consequently society cannot adopt different aims and values unless the
way of production is altered. Even when captive we may form ideas about
a different system, but these are but expressions of wishful thinking
without efforts to alter the dominating system (Schumacher, 1974, p.
132). This implies that unless the ideas are acted upon through politics
there will be no major changes.
As an example of the politicisation of subjects formerly being isolated
from politics, one might mention the conservation of spectacular animals
in Africa. When it became more and more clear that a number of species
were in danger, the policy wasfirstjust to tell people not to hunt, then to
make it illegal. But one didn't think much about the sociopolitical
implications of this. Through research in cultural anthropology, know-
ledge about the very interesting and highly developed cultures of these
regions was increased, and it was clear from individual observation that
through the protection of the spectacular animals we were at the same
time contributing to the destruction of certain cultures of which hunting
was an integral part.
The opponents of the deep ecological movement try to keep the
question of saving this planet from destruction of various kinds away from
politics. It is clear that there are very strong forces trying always to show
that questions having to do with ecology are cleanly scientific- confinable
to physics, chemistry, mineralogy, and resource research in general. A
strong slogan in Europe is therefore 'fight against de-politicisation!'
Governments try to hire experts from every natural science discipline
so as to avoid the question of how to change our societies in order to make
sane ecopolitics possible. The researchers and the experts then publish
Political triangle and its limitations 133
conclusions which are highly compatible with continued economic

growth. By selecting this type of expertise the general public is influenced
in the direction of slackness and acceptance of 'development' as it is now
commonly understood.
2 The three poles of the political triangle -

the blue, the red, and the green;
the limitations of triangular analysis
One convenient way of naming main contemporary currents and
parties in some industrial countries is to present a political triangle (figure
6.1). It illustrates three main political poles. These colours are familiar
symbols in European discussion.
Essential for supporters of green policies: to maintain and to show that
they cannot be placed on the line between red and blue. A second
dimension is needed.
Also essential: political abstractions such as green, red, and blue are
dangerous if taken as being merely points. They are more like magnetic
poles: dynamic pulls in more or less definite directions. They must be
distinguished, then, from particular parties or platforms. These are
definable in relation to the poles, not placed at them.
So we can try circles (figure 6.2).
If circles are used, they should be overlapping. Most supporters of
green politics see a greater affinity between green and red than between
green and blue. But from a wide historic and systematic point of view it is
prudent to let the circles overlap equally, rejecting any quantitative
interpretation of the overlapping areas.
Examples of similarity between green and blue: stressing the value of
personal enterprise (overlapping the blue private enterprise). Very high
priority offightingbureaucracy.
Similarity between green and red: stressing social responsibility. Very
high priority of fighting undesirable ethical, social, and cultural conse-
quences of the unrestrained market economy. Equality, opposition to
hierarchical structures.
Political parties in many countries can roughly be located within or
along the borders of the political triangle. More accurately (but still in a
rough way of course) in three dimensions like a cartesian coordinate
system (figure 6.3).
But is green to be seen as merely another alternative of the same kind
as red and blue? No - the essential point here is that green is not merely
another pointy circle, or dimension. It is a dynamic wave-likaforce which
Figure 6.1
green
blue
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
green
, red
-*• blue
Figure 6.4
red
• green
blue
Checklist of ecopolitical issues 135
should affect all points along any shallowly conceived spectrum or

frontier of political opinions. Hence the British Ecology Party (now
renamed the Green Party) makes it clear that its own existence will be
rendered unnecessary by its success, as 'all parties will in time become
more or less ecological' (Porritt, 1984). A quite ecological attitude about
one's own existence!
So probably the most satisfactory diagram would be one which indicates
clearly the dynamic and asymptotic nature of the green influence (figure
6.4).
Every political decision has green relevance. A consequence: green
parties must be big enough to have people well-versed in each of the
major issues. (No single politician can really be well-informed on all.) It
is thus not enough to take up the problems which people in general
perceive as being typically ecological (nuclear energy, acid rain, etc.). An
instructive survey is found in Devall and Sessions (1985), p. 18.
In industrial democracies, the supporters of green policies must keep
track of how the politicians of the various parties talk and vote on specific
matters, evaluating them as seen from the green outlook. Their ecology
'score' should be widely publicised. The same holds true for party
platforms, but experience, at least in Scandinavia, suggests that every
party platform can look as if a responsible ecological policy is being taken
seriously, while decisions may nevertheless turn out to be consistently
anti-green.
People have reason to be suspicious about societies planning to imple-
ment green policies: do they not ask for still more regulations (laws,
coercive rules, etc.) than we already have? The answer is 'not necessarily!'
But, in order to avoid suspicion, keeping down regulations must con-
stantly be in the minds of green organisers. A typically blue attitude? Yes
and no. Private industry is, in spite of its official 'free and competitive'
nature, shot through with internal regulations, mostly unknown to the
general public, but no less coercive for that. The smaller-unit industry of
green societies will, because of less hierarchical power structure among
other reasons, need less regulation. Much depends on change of mental-
ity: the less mental change in the green direction, the more regulations.
3 Checklist of ecopolitical issues and their expansion

It is easy to become lost in absorbing ideological currents and
counter-currents in place of concentrating on the following definite
question. At what points and how much would ecosophically responsible
and justifiable political programmes be different from the present political
programmes in the industrial states? In what follows I shall mention some
areas of major parts of political platforms which would have to look quite
different if the deep ecological movement became influential. We begin
with a checklist of the basic areas of ecopolitical interest, and expand
them in several directions.
Questions: What is the proposed politics of x in regard to subject yl
x - a person, an institution, a nation, a group
y - any of the subjects listed below
(1 A) Politics of pollution of human environment
(a) short vs. long term perspective
(b) local vs. regional vs. national vs. global perspective
(c) class aspect: local vs. regional vs. national vs. global perspec-
tive
(IB) Politics of pollution of the habitats of other life forms
(c) discrimination: favoured vs. unfavoured life forms
(d) politics related to specific species, ecosystems, landscapes
(2A) Politics of resources for humans
tive
(2B) Politics of resources for non-human life forms
(3A) Politics of population of humans
(a) short vs. long term perspective; stabilisation or reduction?
(b) local vs. regional vs. national vs. global perspecive
tive
(3B) Politics of population of non-humans
What is the basic aim of the above pedantic enumeration? It is to

contribute to the turning of the shallow ecological debate into deeper
channels. We have a formidable task of communication and need
Checklist of ecopolitical issues 137
techniques to solve it. The above list facilitates intervention in debates of

the following sort: 'Yes, I agree about the short term question, but what
about the long term?', 'Yes, but don't we at present just leave the
problem to future administrations?', 'Yes, GNP is increased, but look at
the deplorable ecological consequences!', 'Sure, the protection of nature
here is not a local or regional responsibility, it is national and inter-
national!', 'Yes, but you have not taken into account the protection of
these living beings not for our sake, but for their own sake.' 'Sustainable
population? You mean of humans? What about the sustainable popula-
tion of others?'.
These three classes of issues constitute the core of ecopolitical issues in
a narrow, standard sense. The above list may be helpful. But there is a
wider, and in my terminology, deeper sense in which ecopolitical issues
also directly cover problems within traditional politics.
In relation to 1A-3B, green politics opposes the red, and especially the
blue, in the following ways.
(1) Long time perspective. We intimately feel that we are parts of an
emanation of life where a million years is a short time. We are concerned
with soils that can be destroyed in 5 minutes but which would take a
thousand years to restore. We are unimpressed by short political
election periods and reject the superstition that a few years of research
and technical development can solve any major ecological problems of
any kind. Nevertheless, we must be alert and try to anticipate the next
move of our governments, and main unecological agencies such as the
so-called forest services.
(2) Green politics combines local and global perspectives, trying to tone
down the excessive role of national and international structures. What is
known as 'national identity' is based on local communities. Inter-local
communication largely supplants international. Assistance to the third
world, for instance by the organisation The Future in Our Hands, is
done through direct contact between local communities, and help is
conceived to be mutual. It is difficult to avoid governmental institutions,
but nearly a thousand global non-governmental institutions have their
seats in Geneva and can be used to facilitate inter-local rather than
international contact.
The main arguments used in Norway when rejecting membership in the
European Common Market (EEC) in 1972 were mainline ecopolitical
(issues 1A and 3B). We rejected centralism endangering local and
'peripheral' communities, forced worker mobility, increased competitive-
ness on the world market. We said 'no thank you' to the EEC's introduc-
tion of four times as many officially accepted medicines, and we said no to
opening still wider our gates for immense multinational firms.
(3) Green politics supports the elimination of class differences locally,

regionally, nationally, and globally.
The global aspect makes it clear that the majorities in the rich industrial
states belong to the global upper class. This is easily forgotten by trade
unions, and by some Marxists-Leninists who still unilaterally focus on the
liberation of the workers of their own rich countries.
The core of class suppression may be seen basically as a cross-genera-
tional suppression of life fulfilment potentials in relation to fellow beings.
(Or in my terminology Self-realisation potentialities.)
The politically significant green-red alliances in Scandinavia use this
name because green political issues are mostly conceived rather narrowly
as comprising only issues 1A to 3B. Using such a narrow concept a great
many political problems seem to fall outside the green framework. But
every main political issue can be considered in a green way, using green
value priorities.
In the 80s the deep ecological movement has been enriched by
increased consciousness of the uniqueness of our planet. It is not a 'use
and throw away' planet. It may take more than a million years toflyto a
new one of the same incredible beauty and richness. The Gaia-hypothesis
of James Lovelock - whatever its scientific worth - has not only opened
new areas of research, but evoked a new wave of reverence and pride
(Lovelock, 1979). What has Mother Earth done to stay alive and keep
evolution going! She has got more friends than ever - people who gladly
would pay higher taxes and whatever else is needed to support efforts to
conserve what there is still of wilderness and areas in general, big and
undisturbed enough to let mammalian and other evolution continue.
(About minimum requirements see Soule (1986).) But clear, forceful
signals from the grass roots are necessary for politicians to permit
themselves to put forth programmes of real significance.
4 More comments on the basic ecopolitical areas

of pollution, resources, and population
(a) Pollution
Pollution is the oldest and best-treated subject of ecological/
political concern in the industrial states. But there is still great ignorance
of what is really involved in combating pollution with adequate intensity.
First of all, there is of course a tendency to try to get rid of pollution
where it is visible and where it is politically dangerous. It is tempting to
place heavily polluting industries along the border of one's state so that all
the bad air will leave the state. Furthermore it is less dangerous politically
to pollute in areas of low density of population or those with poor people
More comments on pollution, resources, and population 139
and low power consumption. Consequently it is politically wise to place

polluting industries in developing countries.
In Hong Kong, by chance, there was an oil spill just in front of the place
where there was to be an international competition in sailing. Powerful
rich people were exposed to pollution problems. Chemicals were
immediately used and the fishing population and the fish themselves were
exposed to the ill effects of both the oil and the chemicals. They had to pay
for it: the water looked clean but the fish were killed.
Furthermore it is politically dangerous to be responsible for pollution
that will clearly show itself within an election term, but it is much less
politically dangerous to arrange things so that it will be the next generation
or the generation after that who will suffer the real effects.
Regarding pollution of the oceans, some people who own the ships or
who are otherwise in the midst of shipping proclaim quite honestly that
they are in favour of strict rules about oil spills and cleaner tankers, but as
long as these rules are not acknowledged by their competitors they will
not be able to compete. This may sound like ducking the responsibility.
But for the future we may envision global institutions with some power
not only to criticise certain states or companies but also to implement
certain measures against the states which violate the rules. We need such
international institutions with more than the simple power of criticism.
But how to establish them?
In the shallow movement pollution is mainly thought of as relating only
to Man's dominion, that is to say polluting human values, whereas in the
deep movement one has to look for room for every living being and the
ecosystem. Polluting for whom? For this or that species or system?
(b) Resources
Politically, resources in a narrow context are now a main issue.
But the experts appointed by governments of the rich countries have
nevertheless not realised that there are ethical problems attached to the
industrial countries' consumption in relation to developing countries,
future generations, all living beings, and what is left of free nature. There
is not a sufficient distinction between usable and nonusable resources as
Georgescu-Roegen (1971) and others have tried to point out. Neglecting
wide contexts, governments can continue resource waste and use profes-
sional resource optimists to powder their conclusions.
Neither the ideals of private economic profitability (USA) nor those of
volume of production (Soviet Union) have had implications unfriendly to
resource waste. A close relation between political growth ideology and pro-
ducers' interests makes a green resource policy extraordinarily difficult.
Without a broad rejection of the struggle-growth ideology, there can be no

effective criticism of the dominant policies of resource waste.
On the other hand there has been a tendency among the supporters of
deep ecology to underestimate oil and other resources because it is good
for their political stance to be among those who are shouting loudest
about dwindling resources. This has decreased their credibility. It is
better to take a normative stand that you shouldn't do so and so than to
propagate prognoses of doubtful character which will be publicly disputed
by experts who know many more facts about the resource situation for
humans.
(c) Population
In the beginning of this century, the terms 'empty' and 'desolate'
were frequently used to refer to land without human settlement. If the
land seemed to be capable of development it seemed to cry for humans,
longing only for exploitation by humans. With the human population
doubling again and again, and with increasing alteration per capita,
explorers, tourists, and naturalists use a considerably different terminol-
ogy now at the end of the century. The term 'free nature' is used about
land with no settlements or major signs of present human activity.
Because of the steadily shrinking areas of free nature, human attitude
towards their own imprints is radically changing. Until recently, it was
generally assumed that people born and raised in cities would not develop
love of free nature. That has turned out wrong. Free nature is seen by
them no longer as empty nature, but as full of life and other marvels.
Earlier in this century there was also vivid interest in how many people
the Earth can support - its carrying capacity. In an excellent textbook this
is said to be like asking how many cigarettes you can smoke before you get
cancer (Miller, 1975, p. 107). The question of optimum population is now
found more relevant, but unhappily the general term is used in a narrow
way, referring to only one species, Homo sapiens, and the mature human
need of a superbly rich planet is ignored.
According to Richard A. Watson and Philip M. Smith (Watson, 1970)
a United Nations study poses the following question: 'Given the present
world-wide industrial and agricultural capacity, technological develop-
ment, and resource exploitation, how many people could be supported on
earth today with the standard of living of the average American? The
answer is just 500 million.' The authors think that 500 million would not
result in a uniform, stagnant world and refer to the seventeenth century.
Agreed, but the question raised refers only to humans. How about other
living beings? If their life quality is not to be lowered through human
dominance, for instance agriculture, are not 500 million too many? Or:
Strengthening the local and the global 141
are cultural diversity, development of the sciences and arts, and of course
basic needs of humans not served by, let us say, 100 million? A question-
naire in Norway suggests that there is a minority who think 100 million are
enough. (Naess, 1985d). But many more do not really answer, but brush
the question away as 'academic', 'Utopian'. They immediately think of the
difficulties of reduction in a humane way.
Maps with colours showing distance from nearest road are made to
make people see how little is left of the planet still free from major,
manifest human interference and domination. Extension of agriculture
into new areas has lost its function because only little of the present areas
is used directly for vital human needs. With present natural parks being
slowly ruined through excess numbers of visitors, policies are changed,
new areas must be found. But there is also an increase of respect for the
'empty' areas without any prospect for income from tourism. Politically
slogans like 'Let evolution continue!' and 'Earth first!' are increasingly
appreciated. With greater and greater requirement of space per capita in
rich industrial countries it is seen that a similar development elsewhere is
physically impossible and a total failure of conservation. The overpopula-
tion in the rich countries is manifest from a global viewpoint.
'Untouched' nature was a rather popular term in the 60s and early 70s;
with increase in knowledge both of the history of landscapes of the past
and of the ubiquitous pollution of soils, air, and oceans, the term tends
now to be used with a s<id smile. The increasing negative reaction towards
the increase of human population is not to foster any animosity towards
humans as such - on the contrary, human fulfilment seems to demand and
need free nature. 'Homocentrism' and 'anthropocentrism' which so often
have been used in a derogatory way should be qualified by an adjective,
'narrow homocentrism' etc. Gradually the prospect of protecting the
planet as a whole and for its own sake is seen as one of the greatest
challenges ever. And it certainly is a specifically human task. A deep
human need is involved, we realise a unique potentiality in revising
political decisions so as to satisfy such a need. The time is ready for
political realists to permit themselves to refer to that need.
5 Strengthening the local and the global

(a) Self-determination
Implicit in a system with a basic norm of Self-realisation is the
assumption of a capacity for self-determination, a capacity for realising
potentialities.
Preliminary studies of attitudes among 'experts' and politicians who
participate in decisions on environmental problems (Naess, 1986a and
1985d) indicate a positive attitude - rarely or ever announced in public -
towards not only stabilisation of the human population, but major

reduction of the human population. It is of course a very long-range
problem and politically today a non-existent issue. It is important,
however, that such attitudes should be known by people at large.
Otherwise there is little prospect that the groups with a reduction as a
distant goal will press for appropriate changes in taxation and other tools
of influence.
One of the strange misconceptions which make people reluctant to
support a policy of reduction is the view that the immense number of
humans testifies to an immense love of children. Consequently, that
reduction implies lack of enthusiasm and of love of children. Who would
like to be declared enemy of children! Realistic studies of how the
population of humans got out of balance do not support any romantic
general view of why people get many children.
Social conditions may be good or bad for the development of self-deter-
mination.
This implies that, in as many as possible of the essential aspects of life,
one should be able to resist coercion. These freedoms are diminished
every time there is a centralisation of a decision in the sense that some
actor at a distant centre contributes to the decision in a way that must be
felt to come from the outside, unduly narrowing one's own freedom of
choice. Therefore ecological policies will be on the side of decentralisa-
tion.
For instance, in energy. If you centralise energy then anything happen-
ing to the central sources makes you more or less helpless and any
disturbance which affects the distribution and intensity of the energy you
get will pose problems where you are not able to do much. On the other
hand, strongly decentralised sources of energy may be less profitable
from a narrow economic point of view and require a little more work for
the consumer, but you have it inside your own sphere of action and power.
It is common in our industrial states to talk about periphery and centre
of the society. Centralisation means also that you have certain places,
mostly big cities, where creativity is acknowledged to be highest and this
determines conditions in the periphery. In the music you choose, in the
clothing you wear, and in a hundred other ways there are centres which
determine to a large degree how people in the periphery will live. This
centralisation tends to lower self-determination. Yet it must be stressed
that self-determination does not mean ego-trip. Being together with
others is essential to the realisation of the Self.
In Scandinavia decentralisation and the support of small units in the
economy is something that the politicians say they are in favour of. But in
practice it is clear that such political opinions have not stopped the
continued tendency towards bigger units. And the greater the size of the
units as a whole the less possibilities exist for individual creativity. There
is less possibility for each member of the unit to have a comprehension of
what is going on.
But again one should warn against absolutism. A worker in a big firm
with a strong central authority may have better conditions of self-determi-
nation in work than one in a small firm. 'Small' is not always 'beautiful' as
Schumacher himself clearly announced.
(b) Self-reliance
The economics of the industrial states has tended to favour any
increase in trade between nations, and the main thing here is that certain
places on the Earth can produce certain products more cheaply and one
should always then import from places where they can do things in the
cheapest way, and one should export enough to pay for this import. It is
very difficult to counteract the force of such argumentation.
The positive effects on material standard of living from international
export/import relations are obvious. Some trade has been going on for
thousands of years while enhancing cultural diversity. But social and
cultural costs may be staggering. Lifestyle and entertainment import has
led to a dependence upon international economic fluctuations, leading to
uniformity, passivity, more consumption, less creativity.
The likelihood for continued cultural diversity diminishes on a global
scale. This undermines the independence of different cultures but mostly
what it does is make it very difficult to be self-reliant, that is to have the
possibility of maximum self-activity: creating, rather than consuming.
Doing, not being done to. The basic ecosophical terms here would be
activeness, inner and outer, in reaching goals.
In some of our industrial states like Norway, we are clearly to a high
degree dependent on the resources of other countries, and one district or
community is dependent on others. What is suggested through self-
reliance is not that all kinds of such communication should cease, but that
they should be carried out only if favourable for Self-realisation, and not
done as a necessity for satisfying needs that could be satisfied locally just
as well.
Self-realisation is not against cultural communication, but it favours
intrinsic values, material and spiritual. For instance, if you make a
journey that you do not feel has any intrinsic value to a distant point in
order to get hold of a good or service, the communication has been a
minus, if it would have furthered you better to get the thing locally. On
the other hand, if you have friends or if you have something at a distant
point which you cannot furnish locally, or if the travel itself is a valuable
experience, then of course the communication is acceptable from the
point of view of Self-realisation, and therefore Ecosophy T.
Unhappily, increase of self-reliance requires individuals to be very
conscious of their values, the obstacles, and what might be done politically
to improve conditions. So it is natural that only a minority have had the
opportunity to work for a very high level of self-reliance. It is only
possible within a coherent, local, logical, and natural community.
(c) The realisation of local communities

In European sociology, a distinction is made between community
and society, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Locality and togetherness in
the sense of community are central key terms in the deep ecological
movement. There is, so to say, an 'instinctive' reaction against being
absorbed in something that is big but not great - something like our
modern society. It is, however, not easy to make quite clear what are the
essential characteristics of a desirable local community.
The so-called green communities have over the last twenty years
developed certain properties which are considered positive.
(1) The members are not so numerous that they cannot know each
other by acquaintance and there are inherent stabilising factors that keep
the population at a fairly constant level.
(2) Decisions in areas which affect all the members are taken through
direct communication, so there can be a direct form of democracy.
(3) Counteracting antisocial behaviour is done directly with friendli-
ness. There is little direct influence from the outside which interferes with
that order inside.
(4) The ways and means of production relate most strongly to primary
production. This has as a result a high economic self-reliance.
(5) Technology is essentially soft. We could also use the term 'near',
because what things are made of must come from the neighbourhood, or
at least from areas as near as possible, preferably not from outside the
country.
(6) Culture and entertainment have to a high degree local colour and
this holds for work as well.
(7) Schooling is directed towards acquaintance with technology needed
in the local area but of course the possibilities for formal literary and
artistic education should be present.
(8) Differences in income and wealth are small. Those at the bottom
and those at the top are sufficiently near in ways of life that they can go
together and work together.
(9) The geographical extension is small enough so that personal trans-

port such as bicycling is sufficient to go from one end to the other.
(10) In some of the communities there may be institutions which
belong to a greater unity, such as hospitals and international research,
law, and technical institutes. Some local communities must take care of
the central institutions necessary for the function of society at large. This
fact is not incompatible with the notion of local communities.
A number of political obstacles remain for the conservation and further
development of green local communities.
(1) Economic policy is strongly centralised nationally. It sets the goals
for the whole state under it. This has as a result a steady stream of
ordinances and demands issuing at the centre and determining behaviour
in the districts and townships. For instance, the requirements for sewers
and building size. All these ordinances tend to make the local administra-
tion units indebted and bankrupt. This has a sharp demoralising effect:
when there is a possibility of some kind of economic gain, they tend to
jump at the chance without criticism. Local communities are thus fragile
and easily destroyed.
(2) Cultural politics are centralised through the mass media, especially
TV.
(3) Entertainment is standardised through the centralised media and
the international culture market. It has not been possible to counteract
this tendency even if the undesirable and detrimental results are clearly
seen by many politicians. Economic growth is furthered by the standardi-
sations, but it leads to much less variable creativity at the grass roots.
Entertainment at the grass roots is not priced on the great market.
(4) Health authorities and social policies are centralised and specialised
and more weight is placed on symptoms than on causes. The traditional
generalist doctors disappear. Local communities feel they need money to
protect themselves from illnesses and this also makes it difficult to avoid
passivity towards the central authorities.
(5) Competition, especially on a world market, seems to necessitate
rather big firms and hard and distant technology. A greater mobility of
workers is needed in order to move according to markets which again
destroys local communities, especially the continuity between genera-
tions so essential within them.
(6) Economic policy in the international markets is such that self-
reliant or soft technology is unprofitable. In many places local resources
are misused by the society and firms are introduced from other nations.
(7) Generalism in the sense of developing skills of a large number of
different kinds is discouraged because of its unprofitability. Top levels of
artists, scientists, technicians, stars in sports and trade from all over the
world set levels which are completely unattainable except through profes-
sionalism. Panis et circensesl Material standard of living and professional
entertainment make the active use of one's own creative potentials seem
unnecessary. Local achievement and ability are unknown centrally in big
societies and near the local subcultures.
Without strong counter-measures the destruction of local communities
and non-industrial culture will continue.
It is also important in the ecological movement to counteract the
tendency to equate local community with local administrative unit. The
pressure from the central administration down to local administration
units is so hard that we often find, especially in northern Europe, local
administration units continuously on the verge of economic collapse. This
leads them frequently to an anti-ecological stance, even when the com-
munity whom the administration is supposed to serve has conservation as
a high priority.
6 Direct action; norms of Gandhian nonviolence

Under this heading I think of the special, visible, nonviolent ways
in which the environmental grass roots try to fight in public, collective
ways. In conflicts concerning the environment there have been hundreds
if not thousands of direct actions and most have been nonviolent in the
Gandhian sense.
One of the first things to remember when starting to plan direct action
is that decisions of an anti-ecological kind usually come after long plans
on the part of industry or bureaucracy and that direct action which is
performed late in the planning process has much less chance of being
successful than a direct action which proceeds at the early stages of
planning. The reason is primarily that the planning costs a lot of money,
millions of dollars, especially if it includes investigations of feasibility
(however perfunctory these may be). When a lot of money has been
already used there must be quite a strong argument before anyone will say
it was wasted. The project will 'have to' proceed. This point makes it
imperative to get as many people as possible acquainted with the plan at
its earliest stages. And they must know the plan thoroughly before they
speak out on its dangers.
The Gandhian approach is such that the plan to do something illegal,
against the laws, should occur as rarely as possible. Most actions can and
should be made within the sphere of legality.
In the US more than any other nation lawyers have been able to
mobilise laws against unecological decisions. In Scandinavia the lawyers
Direct action; norms of Gandhian nonviolence 147
have been rather passive, but what should be remembered is that the
question of the legality of the decision should always be looked into.
Another point I would like to mention is the necessity of having a very
clear, concrete, easily understandable goal for an action and that the
opponent should be told very clearly what the goal of the action is. And
the opponent is hardly ever the visible police, but usually people of high
standing in the pyramid of power. Here a couple of distinctions are
relevant: an action for instance stopping a road or work on a dam is an
action dated for a definite time and there is a precise activity limit for what
will or could happen. But the action may be part of a larger campaign, say
for instance to save a river, a large number of rivers, or a forest. The
action itself may be unsuccessful but this does not destroy the possibility
of the success of the campaign, which may contain and comprise many
actions. Its success does not depend on total success of every single
component action. A main aspect of actions is to attract the attention of
the public. The condition of success is then dependent on the tenability of
the hypothesis that, if the public only knew, the majority would be on the
right side.
Not only is the distinction between action and campaign important but
also the distinction between campaign and movement. A movement may
be for instance to protect a large landscape, making it into a national park
after years of campaigning. Such a movement may require a hundred
years before eventually reaching its goals.
One of the most important uses of the notion of campaign is to
counteract the frustrations after an unsuccessful direct action. Most
actions are unsuccessful, and perhaps have to be. It does not reduce their
importance. The campaign continues* Most campaigns are unsuccessful,
but perhaps they need not be so in the future. But certainly, in so far as
they are unsuccessful, it is important to see them as part of a movement.
As a movement, deep ecology is psychologically and culturally based on
fundamental attitudes. To stop support means to negate these attitudes-
or to find a different, better expression of them.
Experience from Scandinavia and many other places shows that the
possibility of success is highly dependent on the level of nonviolence in the
actions, campaigns, and movements. It is for instance essential to take the
initiative to contact the opponent before a demonstration or a direct
action. In the Alta demonstration in arctic Norway the powerful oppo-
nents were continually contacted for at least nine years of the campaign,
and at the direct action any opponents present were treated with coffee
and were immediately invited by the demonstrators to discuss the action
and thus avoid misunderstanding. In the Mard0la action the police were
treated with fresh mushrooms (but those who were standing near the chief
of police didn't take the risk of accepting).
It is a central norm of the Gandhian approach to 'maximise contact with
your opponent!' Nonviolent direct actions must be a part of the fight for
sound ecopolitics, but on the other hand those actions must not result in
neglect of the daily, weekly and yearly type of struggle of a far less
spectacular kind. And one must plan exactly what influence the direct
action is trying to have on the politicians. If not properly handled,
politicians may move from being moderately in favour of an anti-ecologi-
cal decision to becoming fierce defenders of that same decision.
To avoid such misunderstanding, in what follows we shall give a
systematic account of the rules for Gandhian nonviolence as interpreted
inNaess(1974).
First level norm:

Nl Act in group struggle and act, moreover, as an autonomous
person in a way conducive to long-term universal, maximal
reduction of violence!
Second-level hypotheses:
HI The character of the means used in a group struggle determines
the character of the results.
H2 In a group struggle you can keep the goal-directed motivation
and the ability to work effectively for the realisation of the goal
stronger than the destructive, violent tendencies, and the tenden-
cies to passivity, despondency, or destruction, only by making a
constructive programme part of your campaign and by giving all
phases of your struggle, as far as possible a positive character.
H3 Short-term violence contradicts long-term universal reduction of
violence.
Second-level norms:
N2 Make a constructive programme part of your campaign!
N3 Never resort to violence against your opponent!
N4a Choose that personal action or attitude which most probably
reduces the tendency towards violence of all parties in a struggle!
N4b Never act as a mere functionary, a representative of an institution
or an underling, but always as an autonomous, fully responsible
person!
Third-level hypotheses:
H4 You can give a struggle a constructive character only if you
conceive of it and carry it out as a struggle in favour of living
Direct action; norms of Gandhian nonviolence 149
beings and certain values, thus eventually fighting antagonisms,

not antagonists.
H5 It increases your understanding of the conflict, of the particip-
ants, and of your own motivation, to live together with the
participants, especially with those for whom you primarily fight.
The most adequate form for living together is that of jointly doing
constructive work.
H6 If you live together with those for whom you primarily struggle
and do constructive work with them, this will create a natural
basis for trust and confidence in you.
H7 All human (and non-human?) beings have long-term interests in
common.
H8 Cooperation on common goals reduces the chance that the
actions and attitudes of the participants in the conflict will
become violent.
H9 You invite violence from your opponent by humiliating or pro-
voking him.
H10 Thorough understanding of the relevant facts and factors
increases the chance of a nonviolent realisation of the goals of
your campaign.
HI la Incompleteness and distortion in your description of your case
and the plans for your struggle reduce the chance of a nonviolent
realisation of your goals.
H l l b Secrecy reduces the chance of a nonviolent realisation of your
goals.
H12 You are less likely to take a violent attitude, the better you make
clear to yourself what are the essential points in your cause and
your struggle.
H13 Your opponent is less likely to use violent means the better he
understands your conduct and your case.
H14 There is a strong disposition in every opponent such that whole-
hearted, intelligent, strong, and persistent appeal in favour of a
good cause is able ultimately to convince him.
H15 Mistrust stems from misjudgement, especially of the disposition
of your opponent to answer trust with trust, mistrust with mis-
trust.
H16 The tendency to misjudge and misunderstand your opponent and
his case in an unfavourable direction increases his and your
tendency to resort to violence.
H17 You win conclusively when you turn your opponent into a
believer and supporter of your case.
Third-level norms:
N5 Fight antagonisms, not antagonists!
N6 Live together with those for whom you struggle and do construc-
tive work with them!
N7 Formulate the essential interests which you and your opponent
share and try to cooperate upon this basis!
N8 Do no humiliate or provoke your opponent!
N9 Acquire the best possible understanding of the factors relevant to
the nonviolent realisation of your goals!
N10 Seek unbiased description in all matters!
N i l Refrain from secrecy!
N12 Announce your case as clearly as possible, distinguishing essen-
tials from non-essentials!
N13 Seek personal contact with your opponent and be available to
him. Bring conflicting groups into personal contact!
N14 Do not judge your opponent harder than yourself!
N15 Trust your opponent as you trust yourself!
N16 Turn your opponent into a believer in and supporter of your case,
but do not use coercion!
There are also several points which should be kept in mind to encourage
the success of actions within a movement and within the larger social
sphere.
(1) Avoid proclamations like 'My movement is the most important', or
'Without first reaching the goals of my movement nothing can be done.'
(2) Resist the tendency to look for weaknesses in alternative move-
ments other than your own which have similar practical goals in mind.
(3) The 'stupidity' or 'badness' of opponents is not to be an issue.
(4) In debate, avoid technical or academic language as much as possi-
ble. Every profession has the tendency to think that the serious discussion
must proceed in its own technical jargon.
(5) Always keep in mind how the goals of your movement relate to the
ultimate values and goals of others.
7 The rich and the poor countries:

from exploitation to mutual aid
Pollution and resource problems make up a real part of the
concerns of the ecological movement, but the way these problems are
taken up in the industrial countries has not been satisfactory for several
reasons, neither in short- nor in long-term perspectives. Firstly a priority
has been given to them without attacking deeper links of the causal
chains: the systems of production and consumption, the technologies, the
Critiques of Limits to Growth approach 151
lack of global and local solidarity, the lifestyle anomalies. One can
perhaps go as far as to say that pollution and resource discussions have
pushed away all the deeper aspects. The shallow movement has domi-
nated the deep.
Industrial countries can control outflow of garbage and pollutants in a
way that is economically impossible for developing countries to follow.
Industrial countries can reduce the requirements in turn for political
benevolence from the side of the developing countries, for example press
them to open their countries for certain hard technologies and immense
industrial undertakings which can ignore the environmental laws of the
rich industrial countries.
It seems powerful multinational corporations still lead the current
development. Government's and people's opinions permit them to
exploit the poor lands' cheaper resources and raw materials and labour on
the grounds of a long-lasting relationship of exploitation where the
developing countries are the losers. Their Capacities forfightingenviron-
mental degradation are different from ours. We are not all in the same
boat, but in several different boats, all of them charting a course for
catastrophe.
This is a real problem today: for people knowledgeable in the field of
ecology to decide to what degree they will let themselves become involved
only in the shallow approach, as experts or advisers in currently available
positions. Most jobs that stand open for them as advisors require that they
keep silent in public about their deeper sentiments (Naess, 1986a, 1987b).
Employers choose the questions, mostly shallow. Advisers are asked to
compare projects A and B leaving out C which goes deeper. Potential
employers choose the questions which the ecologically learned are paid to
answer. Ecologists can freely choose more essential questions but certain
opinions remain dangerous to their careers if they are published under
their names.
Experts within most institutions still are forced by constraint to take up
the shallow approach. Yet more and more within the elite in developing
countries are asking for assistance in carrying out ecological policies.
They seek to use publications like the World Conservation Strategy (1980)
and here is the hope for the future, if strong enough institutions can
enforce such policies. Its implementation would herald a transition from
exploitation to mutual aid.
8 Critiques of the Limits to Growth approach

The reception received by the text Limits to Growth sponsored
by the Club of Rome was politically very significant. It made an impact on
certain powerful sections of society which until then did not see any limits
to human exploitation of the planet. The quantitative and sophisticated
approach made the report readable within circles of experts who never
would read the more romantic literature of the deep-ecology movement.
What I find interesting to note is the politically unsatisfactory reaction to
the report within the deep ecology movement itself. The issue is not
without importance because every new report which is quantitatively
tinged with statistics, computer-generated printouts, and in general what
is called sophisticated technology tends to be received negatively within
the movement. This is something which weakens the impact of the
movement in the long run: in discussions with opponents with some
technical background, reference to such reports are likely to have more
impact than reference to any other kind of literature.
Among the negative comments which in my view are rather weak I
should like to mention the following.
(1) The investigation was financed by big industry. That could only
happen because the conclusions are in favour of the unecological policies
of those industries.
Historically that is incorrect. The industry supported the research
without being so clear on what sort of result would be obtained. In the
actual case, the results pointed towards a change that would adversely
affect current ways of production and choice of products within those
industries.
(2) Limits to Growth supported the maxim that we are all in the same
boat. The class differences, national and international, were ignored.
Thus it serves the overclass among the nations and within nations. People
are in different boats.
But the investigation only set out to treat global quantities. It did not
serve only the 'overclass' in doing that. Later works in the field of global
modelling modified the overly simple procedures of Limits to Growth.
This is well outlined in Donella Meadows' history of the first decade of
global modelling, Groping in the Dark (1984).
(3) The investigation does not show the exploitation of the poor by the
rich. Johan Galtung reacted as follows.
When the evils are placed at the foot of the weak they are not resisted,
not even pointed out, because the weak are too weak to do so . . . [as]
their life is a struggle to obtain very primary, essential goods. No cry of
WOLF printed out by a computer in the very centre of the Centre part
of the world can change these priorities . . . . What is almost incredible
is that it has not struck the authors that over-population, over-pollution,
and over-depletion are just those three conditions under which perhaps
Green political parties 153
the majority of the population of the world are already living, and have
been living for a long time. (Galtung, 1973)
These arguments are mentioned because again and again investigations
made within the framework of the establishment are met by similar
criticisms which are then published in such a way that makes the investiga-
tion less read among people neutral towards the deep ecological move-
ment. Being more or less neutral they can be swayed one way or the other.
We need more readers within such circles. The best thing to do so far as I
can see is to get as many people as possible to read these things and think
critically upon them. One cannot rely entirely on literature written by
explicit members of the movement. One must also consider literature by
people who take a more establishment line. Different methods of com-
munication and different types of rhetoric will reach different kinds of
people, and that is essential if the movement is to be anything but a small
partisan faction.
Looking back over the last fifteen years, I think it is justifiable to
conclude that the work of the Club of Rome has had a positive impact on
policies concerning the environment. Even in the most optimistic
technological circles there is now acknowledgement of the limits to
growth. From surveys done in several countries it would seem that in
Germany and in the UK this thought is now the opinion of the majority
and that only in the US do the majority still tend to believe there is no limit
to growth (Milbrath, 1984).
9 Are green political parties desirable?

Fundamental within the deep ecology movement is the insight
that its goals cannot be reached without a deep change of present
industrial societies. This means the goals cannot be reached without
change in politics. One of the debates which will go on and has been going
on forfifteenyears at least is the following: should we work within existing
parties or should we try to create a special party?
One may immediately answer that conditions in the various countries
are so different that no general outlook can be maintained. The next thing
to say is that we should distinguish between green parties which are
created with the aim of achieving the status of a well-established party,
and those created with more of an aim of making a temporary political
impact within the special milieu of the politicians, but not presupposing
anything about having a long political lifetime themselves (Porritt, 1984).
The last alternative is an alternative somewhat between party creation in
a usual sense and working within the existing parties. In short: (1) change
existing parties in a green direction; (2) establish a new party; (3) change
existing parties through the creation of an intermittent new party. Of
course such reasoning is most appropriate in countries which work within
a framework of a handful of competing parties, not the bipolar division of
such as the United States.
Following the first line of thought, one tries to change current politics
by establishing 'fifth columns' in existing political parties, pressing for
change in the deep ecological dimension. In Scandinavia for many years
thisfirstsolution has been favoured and as recently as 1985 a proposal for
a green party in Norway was abandoned after much discussion among
once-eager proponents.
If there is a big, clearly recognised, and established issue of an
ecological kind in a country, for instance the question of nuclear energy
plants for energy purposes, then there is a possibility of creating a party
with that as a central theme. There is the possibility of attracting the
attention of all people in the country. But if there is no such central
controversy on which the green party could focus then it is difficult to
create enough interest among the populace for a new party. And how
successful can a single-issue party be in the long run?
A difference here exists between Sweden and Norway because in
Sweden there is a tremendous debate concerning nuclear power whereas
in Norway, with its great hydropower potential, there is no central
political controversy with a marked green aspect.
In Germany there has been success with introducing a green party with
central aims relevant to the total population and the results so far seem to
confirm the conclusion that green political parties may have substantial
impact (Capra and Spretnak, 1984). But it would also confirm possibility
(3) - namely that even if the Green party explodes into competing small
groups and even if those who are against taking part in established politics
gain headway the era of the green party will have had a lasting impact. It
was certainly a good idea.
A negative aspect of a green party is that if it only gets three or four per
cent of the vote then the population gets a wrong picture of the real
importance of a green point of view and the number of people who are
really in favour of the principles behind green politics. It may be better
not to have a party than to have one that clearly cannot reach even 10 per
cent of the population.
As regards the third possibility I think that this is a way that in any case
must be continued even if a party is created. There is always a need to
have fifth columns in the other parties again and again taking up green
Green political parties 155
points of view without needing to mention them as green, but merely as

responsible positions within the established frameworks. An important
plus here is that the traditional parties are then not going to gather against
the green party: they do not feel the necessity to do so if they are quietly
able to absorb some of the green positions without being threatened. They
have no new party to hunt out and kill.
In politics tactics are important. Even if this goes against the grain in
many deep ecology people, it is important at least that they do not turn
against those few supporters who are tactically minded. If we work within
existing parties, we must use a terminology that encourages the voters to
listen. For instance, it is not good to write and talk as if one is against
industry in general. Our point of view should be that we should support
'industry', and then point out that 'industry' has historically been some-
thing very different from what is going on at the moment - big industry.
Similarly, we should not have general slogans against technology or
belittle its importance. The diversity of human cultures through history
shows a tremendous diversity of technologies, and without this diversity
we would not have had deep cultural diversity. This could also be said the
other way round, but certainly in any culture so far the way people make
and use things and the way priority is given to certain techniques over
others has largely coloured the culture in general. It is here of course
important to remember that advanced technology is to be seen as those
techniques which advance the basic goals of a culture, not any equipment
that is itself the more complicated or difficult (see chapter 4).
Furthermore, derogatory talk about big cities and city lifestyles may be
counterproductive. For centuries human population is likely to be colos-
sal (if there are no major nuclear wars) and big concentrations within
small areas are necessary to minimise devastating effects upon other
kinds of life than the human, and upon the landscapes of the planet in
general. More effort is needed to improve life quality in the areas of
concentration, not more effort to spread the population all over the globe.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of easy criticism of politicians
among supporters of deep ecology. It is 'easy' in the sense that they are
critical of the rhetoric of politicians even when this rhetoric seems to be
necessary within the current system. Politicians who have been courage-
ous enough to take up fairly radical green positions on controversial issues
must be hailed by supporters of the movement. They cannot be expected
to continue being courageous if those who should be grateful only give
criticism, reprimand, indifference, or silence.
Does the population get the politicians it deserves? To ensure this, one
should from time to time send politicians letters of acclaim and support
when one thinks they have done well. Fan mail as well as hate mail is
needed.
A person active in politics should try to make it clear to the public that
they as a private person may entertain some views which are politically
unrealisable within election terms, but which nevertheless are important
for their personal political motivation. The impact of continued popula-
tion growth on conditions of life and on the ecosphere in general is into-
lerable and still increasing geometrically. Even if it is politically suicidal
to plan changes of this dimension as part of a political platform, it is irres-
ponsibility on the part of the politically active not to admit that they as
private persons entertain these green views. If these views are hidden,
the many people who do not play an active part in politics, but entertain
radical green views, feel even more powerless than they are. They get the
feeling that taking part in the struggle for power is incompatible with hav-
ing green views.
10 The deep ecological movement and

the big political issues
(a) The basic ideological choices
Which are the political traditions or ideologies or systems most
likely to colour green politics - using the customary vague and ambiguous
terms? Let me immediately admit that I feel uncomfortable when having
to use those terms.
(1) Reform or revolution? I envisage a change of revolutionary depth
and size by means of many smaller steps in a radically new direction. Does
this essentially place me among the political reformists? Scarcely. The
direction is revolutionary, the steps are reformatory.
I can only say that I do not think that something resembling the
revolutions we read about in history textbooks, or which we may wish
would take place in South America, would be of help in the industrial
countries.
(2) Capitalism or socialism? While there may be said to be economic
policies conveniently called capitalistic, there is hardly any capitalistic
political ideology. Socialism has one, but is it sufficiently concerned with
nature instead of its own bureaucracy?
(3) Any relation to communism and anarchism? Roughly speaking,
supporters of the deep ecology movement seem to move more in the
direction of nonviolent anarchism than towards communism. Contem-
porary nonviolent anarchists are clearly close to the green direction of the
Deep movement and big political issues 157
political triangle. But with the enormous and exponentially increasing

human population pressure and war or warlike conditions in many places,
it seems inevitable to maintain some fairly strong central political institu-
tions. Recommendations such as that contained in the World Conserva-
tion Strategy (1980) are steps in the right direction, but there are no
authorities strong enough to implement them. Experience suggests that
the higher the level of local self-determination the stronger the central
authority must be in order to override local sabotage of fundamental
green policies. Or is this too pessimistic? Anyhow, the green Utopias, such
as those of Sigmund Kval0y, Johan Galtung, Erik Dammann (The Future
in Our Hands), Edward Goldsmith (the Blueprint for Survival), Ernest
Callenbach (Ecotopia), much as thepanchayat Utopia of Gandhi, are not
focusing on how to combine life in green communities with concern for
safeguarding it from forces of disruption and violence which are likely to
continue for some time on this planet.
(b) Socialism and ecosophy

The most forceful and systematic critique of capitalism is found
in socialist literature. This makes it natural for supporters of the deep
ecology movement to use socialist criticisms of capitalism in their own
work, and, looking at the slogans of green parties it is immediately clear
that many of these slogans are also socialistic or at least compatible with
some sort of socialism. As examples: no excessive aggressive indi-
vidualism. Appropriation. Community, production for use, low income
differentials, local production for local needs, participative involvement,
solidarity.
On the other hand, it is also clear that some socialist slogans still heard
are not compatible: maximise production, centralisation, high energy,
high consumption, materialism.
Historically there has been a move from traditional socialist positions
to ecological positions among many people. Many of the most self-relying
teamwork-oriented direct action people have a background in socialism
(learned or experienced). It is still clear that some of the most valuable
workers for ecological goals come from the socialist camps.
One of the basic similarities between socialist attitudes and ecological
attitudes in politics is stress on social justice and stress on social costs of
technology. The basic question raised in ecologically oriented socialism
is: what are the social consequences of a definite environmental policy?
What is the social cost of products which are polluting the environment
and how should the social costs somehow be integrated with market costs?
On the other hand, there is a usage of the terms 'people' and 'society'
which is dangerous in ecopolitics if it is said that society or community
should have control of the means of production. The application of these
terms is such that it is not the society or the community itself that gets
control but certain politicians or central administrative units deciding on
behalf of the community. (Using the term 'community' in these contexts
makes the slogans of socialism much more valuable.)
The Utopias of green societies point towards a kind of direct democracy
with local control of the means of production as the best way of achieving
the goals.
Because of the ambiguities of the terms it is perhaps a bit paradoxical
to say that the rather backward ecological position in Eastern Europe is
irrelevant to the socialist-capitalist question. On many points, these
states are not looked on as being truly socialistic. There was an attempt,
but it failed. Supporters of the deep ecological movement may however
find some confirmation of their anti-bureaucratic attitudes by looking at
Eastern Europe. But, at least in the Soviet Union, the problems ecologi-
cal movements have to face are not so different from our own. Boris
Komarov (1980) writes on the official hearings on the future of Lake
Baikal:
At one such meeting one old academician began to scream at us: 'But
why are we going on so about this Baikal? Pollute it if we have to. Now
we have nuclear energy, and if later we have to, we can easily make a big
pit and fill it with water, and that's that. We'll make Baikal again.' This
nonsense resounded under the vaults of the Academy of Sciences, yet
the vaults of our Temple of Science did not crumble. No one even chased
out this senile academician. The meeting went on and the attacks on us
continued. I repeat, this was a time of real arm twisting . . . (p 8-9)
11 Bureaucracy
This leads us to the basic question of bureaucracy. In capitalist
countries mixed or pure, there is a distinction between private initiative
and public initiative where public initiative involves channelling through
the bureaucracy. In ecopolitically sane societies we shall retain the term
'initiative' as a greatly positive term, but it will be personal initiative
rather than private initiative, and a maximisation of personal initiative
will be one of the norms. This means a fight against bureaucratic
dimensions which is just as hard as in capitalistic societies. Socialism here
seems to be in a weak position because when it is said that the people
should rule, very often it implies that the government should take up a
Bureaucracy 159
great many questions which in green Utopias will be decided by each

person, family, or small community. One of the salient aspects of socialist
critique in Europe is that at present there are too many meetings and too
many decisions made for the people, not by them.
Then to the term 'regulation' which is such a minus in capitalism - from
the literature on green Utopias one gets the impression that its supporters
are not afraid of regulations. This points again to the importance of
personal initiative: regulations can only be minimised through an inter-
nalisation of norms (see chapter 4).
The main point here is that we need a change in mentality such that
many of the regulations will be unnecessary. But there will nevertheless
be a danger of proliferation of regulations in a green society: witness what
makes regulations increase in our own society: we have so many minute
regulations for each little situation or problem, instead of broader
regulations that cover more situations in a holistic and integrated way.
Few regulations in our current system could stand to be internalised as
norms. We need those with a greater depth of intention, and a more basic
quality.
Theoreticians like Nils Christie look upon the question historically and
show how the tight communities of the last century solved the problem of
regulations. They solved the problem by simple daily interaction within
the small community. Children learnt not only in school or from their
parents but from everyone in the community. In such a way they also
learnt the skills they would need for the rest of their lives. If there was too
much drinking, immediately members of the community would make it
unpleasant for transgressors within the community. But also if there were
too little drinking there might be some pressure. Here there was little
police activity and very little violence within the community. There was a
pressure towards conformity, 'structural violence', which cannot be
tolerated in the green society. It reduces both personal initiative and
self-determination. According to Christie we must find a way in between
the bounds of tradition and the complete chaos we have today in big cities.
How are we going to do this? The answer 'through green education' is
not very convincing because, if you mean formal education, we know that
is not such a powerful agent of change any more. If we mean informal, not
much has been done (Pepper, 1984, pp. 215ff).
A term that is useful here is 'naturalist', in its original, deep romantic
sense (Sessions and Devall, 1985, pp. 79ff). We engage not teachers as we
know them today but instead people who have internalised the deep
ecological norms, even if a small minority, and make them more central
in the day-to-day dealings of communities. It is here that such naturalists,

by their very example, can get people aware of things that they never
thought of before, and they will thus help with internalising of norms in
the larger populace.
In short, there is clearly both in capitalist and socialist politics things
which can be modified and used in sane ecopolitics but essentially green
politics will be something deeply different.
12 The deep ecological movement and the peace movement

In the early 70s close cooperation between supporters of deep
ecology and activists in the peace movement was out of reach. Rather
suddenly this situation is totally changed. Nuclear war would be an
ecological catastrophe. The planet does not deserve such treatment. No
life forms except one are vitally interested in different political ideologies
or big power rivalries. The present level of armaments with its exponential
growth is a heavy burden ecologically. One factor often overlooked is the
mishandling, even torture, of millions of animals in experiments involving
nuclear radiation. These animals live and die in a nuclear war today. (This
reasoning may sound ridiculous at present in the face of the human
horrors of the nuclear world, but in ten years such thinking will, I suspect,
be commonplace.)
Some of us, like myself, favour unilateral disarmament and establish-
ment of unheroic nonviolent defence (Naess 1986c). But politically it is
completely unrealistic in northern NATO nations to work for getting out
of NATO. This is not necessary, however. The basic documents of
NATO establish it as a defence organisation with no clauses against
nonviolent defence. More realistic politically is a gradual introduction of
anti-nuclear and pro-nonviolent proposals within NATO.
Politically it has been important to clarify that the highly successful
anti-nuclear campaign (as part of the peace movement) is a definite,
limited campaign. Supporters of a more radical disarmament, or of
non-nuclear politics of various kinds, should not try to force the campaign
to widen or change its identity. One may take part in several campaigns,
but the frequent attempts to change the anti-nuclear campaign so as to
cover other goals are politically dangerous, leading to ruinous struggles
among campaigners.
13 Green political programmes from day to day

We need not agree upon any definite Utopia, but should thrash
out limited programmes of political priorities within the framework of
present political conflicts. Our questions are of the form 'What would be
Green political programmes from day to day 161
a greener line in politics at the moment within issue x and how could it be
realised?' rather than of the form 'What would be the deep green line of
politics within issue xT Green is dynamic and comparative, never abso-
lute or idealistic.
The term 'political voluntarism' is a term that may be helpful in this
connection - as something to be wary of. It is a term characterising
political activity in which you think that you can rapidly force a deep
change of society by sheer will power through direct action. It was used,
for instance, by Marxist criticisms of students engaged in the so-called
student revolutions of the late 1960s. Some Marxists said that universities
are peripheral institutions: Tower inside universities does not count. The
will to change society by means of student power is nonsensical. You must
have a much broader and more realistic basis of activity.' In this sense,
political voluntarism is a kind of romantic delusion.
Back to the problem of combining basic ideals of ecopolitics and
day-to-day political fights for very limited green gains! An example may
make the complicated situation clearer.
An energy problem exists in Norway and Sweden, but it is primarily the
problem of how to reduce the fantastic waste of energy. It is a problem of
how to limit the use of energy essentially to vital needs. From the green
point of view the present level of yearly consumption is more than
sufficient for any needs. Nevertheless some supporters of green policies
take part, and should take part, in discussions concerning which sources
of increased energy supply have the least detrimental consequences
socially and for life conditions in general. The situation is rather awkward:
the greens are led to promote decisions they detest. As long as we
constantly make clear that any increase of energy production is unneces-
sary and detrimental, the participation in the debate on how to increase it
with the least detrimental effect is justified and important. At the moment
policies of stabilisation or decrease of energy production should be
vigorously propagated, but politically they are dead or hibernating.
Proposals for such policies have no chance of being adopted at the
moment, and existing parties avoid them. Presently politically powerful
plans call for exponential increase of energy production until 2020,
retaining the wasteful production to the aluminum industry. A green
party, however, would have to adopt stabilisation or decrease as a
programme even if this immediately would limit the number of votes.
'Everything hangs together.' This is still a good slogan. One conse-
quence of the interrelatedness is that we all have the capacity to do
something of relevance within a framework of our own interests and
inclinations. The ecopolitical frontier is immensely long but we can only
work effectively at one place at at time. It is more than long, it is

multidimensional, and the pull of the pole of greenness can be felt in all
our political positions and actions.
14 Concluding remarks
(1) The green Utopias draw pictures of societies and ways of life
expressing how people in the deep ecological movement would like to see
the future. The pictures, if fairly detailed, include political institutions. In
thinking about future life conditions on the planet, questions of political
structure are unavoidable.
(2) Different from sketching Utopias, but not entirely independent of
them, we find environmental thinking focusing on how to move in the
direction of the Utopias.
(3) For the shallow or reform ecological movement, the central politi-
cal questions are significantly different from those of the deep movement.
For the former the task is essentially one of 'social engineering', modify-
ing human behaviour through laws and regulations posed by ministries
and departments of the environment - for the short-term well-being of
humans.
(4) The deep ecological movement sees the present unecological poli-
tics as necessary consequences primarily of social and economic priorities,
the ways of production and consumption, and only significant changes of
this will make the goals of the movement realisable. This implies deep
changes of political priorities, and possibly new green parties.
(5) In the early 70s ecopolitical thinking hammered out a great number
of concrete goals marking steps on the way to a green society. Looking
back fifteen years later, most of these goals are still considered to be
well-chosen and important. But no established party anywhere grabbed
the chance to incorporate the goals into its platform. The strength of the
movement to realise these goals is scarcely less than it was in the past
decade, but the inertia of the old material growth policies is holding back
the change.
(6) It seems that life conditions will have to worsen considerably before
the formulated goals are adapted by any major political parties.
(7) There is no point of no return.' This holds for the prospect of
stopping the accelerating devastation of life conditions on the planet. It
does not hold for a large number of devastations like that of the
rain-forests. But it does hold for an immense diversity and richness of life
forms and landscapes. Green political activism is one of the assets we
must count on.
7
Ecosophy T: unity and diversity
of life
In the face of increasing environmental problems, the solutions

proposed during the late 60s and early 70s revealed two trends, one in
which it was presumed that a piecemeal approach within the established
economic, social, and technological framework is adequate, another
which called for critical examination of the man-nature relation and basic
changes which would affect every aspect of human life. The latter trend,
that of the deep ecological movement, involves both concrete decisions in
environmental conflicts and abstract guidelines of philosophical charac-
ter. It is not a mere philosophy of man-nature.
In the previous chapters a large number of problem areas have been
touched upon, primarily the technological, economic, and political.
Ultimate foundations have also been considered, particularly the contrast
between atomistic and gestalt thinking. It remains to go into a number of
philosophical issues, and also to touch upon the religious background of
man-nature thinking in the West. The treatment will have to be more
personal in the sense of leading into particular aspects of my ecosophy,
Ecosophy T. But it is not the aim to point to my own particular view in
special detail. Much has been already said without explicitly connecting it
to the Ecosophy T logical structure. The main goal, as announced in
chapter 2, is to emphasise the responsibility of any integrated person to
work out his or her reaction to contemporary environmental problems on
the basis of a total view.
The chapter falls into three parts. The first will elaborate the notion of
Self-realisation through identification, thus connecting the individual's
unfolding to that of the whole planet. The second part brings in, rather
schematically, some antecedents to ecosophy from Western religion and
the history of ideas. The third and final part of the chapter will present a
brief systematic exposition of the more logically basic norms in Ecosophy
T.
164 Ecosophy T: unity and diversity of life
1 The universal right to self-unfolding and the

correlative intrinsic value of every life form
(a) Ecosophy ties together all life and all nature
To have a home', 'to belong', 'to live' and many other similar
expressions suggest fundamental milieu factors involved in the shaping of
an individual's sense of self and self-respect. The identity of the indi-
vidual, 'that I am something', is developed through interaction with a
broad manifold, organic and inorganic. There is no completely isolatable
I, no isolatable social unit.
To distance oneself from nature and the 'natural' is to distance oneself
from a part of that which the T is built up of. Its 'identity', 'what the
individual I is', and thereby sense of self and self-respect, are broken
down. Some milieu factors, e.g. mother, father, family, one's first
companions, play a central role in the development of an I, but so do
home and the surroundings of home.
Ecological and psychological research furnish overwhelming evidence
of the connection our unfolding self has with an unsurveyable variety and
richness of natural phenomena, predominantly with the life in the ecos-
phere, but also with non-organic nature. The tiny infant gradually
distinguishes its mother from the rest of its surroundings, and it concen-
trates positive feelings around the relations, the context, with her. The
'grown-up child', the naturalist, extends this positive feeling to all of
nature through the insight that everything is interconnected.
This vaguely outlined development can naturally be destroyed by
severe tragedy - such as loss of mother and later repeated losses and
self-denials. Self-realisation receives a blow which can contribute to a
hostile attitude towards a great deal, even to everything: a destructive
urge addressed to the whole world and existence as such. There are many
examples of this, but the essential point is that such development is not a
necessary progression. Favourable conditions for Self-realisation extend
the radiation of good feelings to more and more nature.
In this chapter a basic positive attitude to nature is articulated in
philosophical form. It is not done to win compliance, but to offer some of
the many who are at home in such a philosophy new opportunities to
express it in words. This is necessary so that society and politics will give
consideration to the kind of lifestyle which is a natural consequence of
such a philosophy.
(b) 'The unfolding ofpotentialities is a right'

That one order is just and another is unjust is an old thought, and
it has never been restricted in application only to humanity. One exercises
justice or injustice to plants and animals as well. In the newer so-called
The universal right to self-unfolding 165
tradition of the 'rights of nature', we find these thoughts expressed

philosophically. Through countless ages, they have been expressed religi-
ously and mystically. Plants and animals also have a right to unfolding and
self-realisation. They have the right to live.
What is the right to live? A definition is often arbitrary, and it leaves out
the mythic component. A good definition, by definition, lacks a mythic
function. But sentences with mythic function are still required today. The
scientific and philosophical turns of phrase can easily come to overlook
important sources of meaningfulness and general appeal. 'All living
creatures are fundamentally one' is a good example of a sentence which
has a mythic function, but which may also be precisised in the direction of
a testable hypothesis or norm. While it has cognitive usage, it is also
associated at the same time with the more or less mythic conception of a
just or in just order in the world. In the beginning of the 60s, Rachel
Carson incited opposition to the poisoning of nature, using both scientific
and 'mythic' forms of expression. She felt that mankind did not have the
right to devastate nature and found it unjustifiable that we, mere 'drops in
the stream of life', should permit ourselves to do whatever we please with
'the work of God'.
We are not outside the rest of nature and therefore cannot do with it as
we please without changing ourselves. We must begin to see what we do
to ourselves when we say 'only change external nature'. We are a part of
the ecosphere just as intimately as we are a part of our own society. But
the expression 'drops in the stream of life' may be misleading if it implies
that individuality of the drops is lost in the stream. Here is a difficult ridge
to walk: To the left we have the ocean of organic and mystic views, to the
right the abyss of atomic individualism.
(c) Life as a vast historical process

The geological history of our globe tells of tremendous changes:
the uplifting of mountain chains, the unceasing work of erosion, the slow
movements of the continents. Among these enormous processes in time
and space, one is nearest to us: the unfolding of life. Human beings who
wish to attain a maximum perspective in the comprehension of their
cosmic condition can scarcely refrain from a proud feeling of genuine
participation in something immensely greater than their individual and
social career. Palaeontology reveals the various phases in the develop-
ment: the extension of the boundaries for where life can thrive, the
establishment of ever more potentialities for life in the inorganic environ-
ment, the development of a nervous system culminating in the brain of the
mammals.
The entire study leaves the impression that the development of life on
earth is an integrated process, despite the steadily increasing diversity and

complexity. The nature and limitation of this unity can be debated. Still,
this is something basic. 'Life is fundamentally one.'
Homo sapiens is singularly well equipped to comprehend this unity in
the light of human extreme lack of biological specialization. Our hand is
just as 'primitive', i.e. unspecialised, as that of the lizard, and much more
primitive than horse hooves or eagle claws. The cortex cerebri is the
decisive factor. It takes over more and more instinctual activities, and
allows us to approach the unspecialised state of a clump of protoplasm.
Our lack of a definite biological place to call home allows us to feel at
home everywhere. We can sympathise with all the more specialised life
forms. The educational value of palaeontology in its fullness is not yet
appreciated, but will in the future be seen as greater than mere attention
to evolution and some spectacular dinosaurs.
The traditional way of expressing what is common to all species of life,
and more generally to all forms of life, is to point to a basic striving, that
of self-preservation. This term is misleading, however, in so far as it does
not account for the dynamics of expansion and modification. There is a
tendency to realise every possibility for development, to explore all
possibilities of change within the framework of the species and even to
transgress its limits. Palaeontology tells of the 'conquest' of, or 'expan-
sion' from sea to, land and air, and the development of mutual aid.
In view of the defensive passivity suggested by the term self-preserva-
tion, I favour Self-realisation or Self-unfolding. Historically I trace the
conception back to Spinoza's perseverare in suo esse, to persevere in one's
own (way of) being, not mere keeping alive. Ecosophy T concentrates
especially upon the aspect of general unfolding in suo esse. For life in
general it implies the 'creative evolution' (Bergson), the steady extension
of the biosphere, from the comfortable lukewarm, shallow seas to arctic
oceans and steaming hot-water springs. The emergence of human ecolog-
ical consciousness is a philosophically important idea: a life form has
developed on Earth which is capable of understanding and appreciating
its relations with all other life forms and to the Earth as a whole.
(d) The universal right to live and blossom

The right of all the forms to live is a universal right which cannot
be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular
right to live and unfold than any other species. Perhaps it is not the best
way of expressing this to say that there is a right - the equal right for all life
forms - to unfold its specific capacities. 'Equality' suggests a sort of
quantification that is misleading.
From the point of view of analytical philosophy the term 'right', like
many other terms used in daily life - 'fact', 'verification' ('shown to be the
case'), 'duty', 'value in itself - is rather suspicious. Does it have any
meaning that can be clarified? Is it just a question of coercive power when
somebody says that we have no right to do so and so? I do not think so. As
I use the term I do not pretend that it has a clearly formulatable meaning,
but that it is the best expression I have so far found of an intuition which
I am unable to reject in all seriousness. But I completely accept that some
environmental philosophers avoid the term and advise others to do the
same.
When we attempt to live out our relationships with other living beings
in accordance with such a principle of equal rights of all fellow beings,
difficult questions naturally arise. (This always happens when a normative
idea in the central reaches of a norm system is practised.) It suggests a
guideline for our behaviour, but it does not tell anything about behaviour.
Additional norms and hypotheses are, for instance, necessary as premises
in order to derive a norm that killing violates the right. It is not some kind
of unconditional isolatable norm to treat everything the same way. It is
only a fragment of a total view. Our apprehension of the actual conditions
under which we live our own lives - that is, certain 'hypotheses' high up in
the systematised total view - make it crystal clear that we have to injure
and kill, in other words actively hinder the self-unfolding of other living
beings. Equal right to unfold potentials as a principle is not a practical
norm about equal conduct towards all life forms. It suggests a guideline
limiting killing, and more generally limiting obstruction of the unfolding
of potentialities in others.
Many contend that living beings can be ranked according to their
relative intrinsic value. The claims of rankable value are usually based
upon one or more of the following contentions.
(1) If a being has an eternal soul, this being is of greater intrinsic value
than one which has a time-limited or no soul.
(2) If a being can reason, it has greater value than one which does not
have reason or is unreasonable.
(3) If a being is conscious of itself and of its possibilities to choose, it is
of greater value than one which lacks such consciousness.
(4) If a being is a higher animal in an evolutionary sense, it is of greater
value than those which are farther down on the evolutionary scale.
None of these standpoints, so far as I can see, have been substantially
justified. They may appear to be reasonable at first glance, but they fade
after reflection and confrontation with the basic intuitions of the unity of
life and the right to live and blossom.
The contention that one life form has a higher value than another
sometimes leads to the argument that the more valuable being has the
right to kill and injure the less valuable. A different approach is to specify
under which circumstances it is justifiable to hunt or kill other living
beings. We might agree upon rules such as will imply different behaviour
towards different kinds of living beings without negating that there is a
value inherent in living beings which is the same value for all. But it is
against my intuition of unity to say 'I can kill you because I am more
valuable' but not against the intuition to say 'I will kill you because I am
hungry'. In the latter case, there would be an implicit regret: 'Sorry, I am
now going to kill you because I am hungry.' In short, I find obviously
right, but often difficult to justify, different sorts of behaviour with
different sorts of living beings. But this does not imply that we classify
some as intrinsically more valuable than others.
Modern ecology has emphasised a high degree of symbiosis as a
common feature in mature ecosystems, an interdependence for the
benefit of all. It has thereby provided a cognitive basis for a sense of
belonging which was not possible earlier. Family belonging, the tie of
kinship, has a material basis in perceived togetherness and cooperation.
Through the extension of our understanding of the ecological context, it
will ultimately be possible to develop a sense of belonging with a more
expansive perspective: ecospheric belonging.
The task is to find a form of togetherness with nature which is to our
own greatest benefit. Any other definition is hypocritical.' If such a
statement is accepted, 'our own benefit' must then mean 'that which
serves the great Self, not merely the individual ego or human societies. If
a lesser self is implied, the sentences are misleading. One can desire
well-being for an animal or a plant just as naturally as one can for a
person. For some dog owners, their dog's well-being is more important to
them than that of their neighbour. The identification is stronger, and
empathy is greater. One can, without hypocrisy, desire something which
is for the benefit of other living beings - and one normally obtains great,
rich satisfaction from it.
The technical development together with our insight into mutual,
symbiotic relationships makes it possible for human beings to allow
cooperation and togetherness to colour our work days and leisure life
much more than before. Unfortunately this is at the moment primarily a
theoretical possibility. The coming decades will probably see certain
dichotomies between human societies play themselves out (e.g. the
North-South conflict), as well as between mankind and other living
beings (the destruction of habitats of other species).
Let us examine a rather provoking thought experiment. Homo sapiens

may be capable, in suitable circumstances, and upon the basis of a wide
perspective, of recommending its own withdrawal as the dominant living
being on earth. By such an act humans would confirm (just as we do in
many other actions) that mankind is not bound to the values 'useful for
human beings' or 'suitable to human self-preservation' when 'utility' and
'self are taken in a narrow sense. If the terms are understood very
broadly, we are bound to our Self, but then as the circle is bound to TT
(3.14159 . . .). To the great Self of mankind, it may be useful to transfer
some power over others to a more sensible and sensitive species.
It is realistic to ask how we would behave faced with living beings from
distant planets which look like Homo sapiens, so that identification would
be easy. Would we as human beings subject ourselves freely to the
political will of an alien species which had more or less the same
characteristics as us, but which lacked our tendency to torture, torment
and exploit one another? The decision would perhaps take a few cen-
turies, but I believe it would be positive. We would abdicate, if we were
sure of them.
This thought experiment makes assumptions which cannot be said to be
probable. Members of Homo sapiens are not genetically or in any other
way bound to torture, torment and exploit one another for all eternity.
The possibility that future research will indicate such a dismal conclusion
about human nature can presumably be characterised as extremely
unlikely. But the thought experiment intimates that human drive for
Self-realisation requires us to give way for the more perfect. Human
beings would lose something of their own essential nature if they refrained
from abdication.
(e) The uniqueness of humankind should not

be underestimated
Palaeontology teaches us about the overwhelming richness and
diversity of life forms. There have perhaps been 100 million species which
now are extinct. But among these and the present living ones, Homo
sapiens is in many ways unique. Unique biologically through its brain,
unique physically through its hundreds of main, and bewildering manifold
of lesser, but not less original cultures.
Such statements are important to make from time to time because
environmentalism often, and deep ecology always, underlines what we
have in common with other life forms and how intimate our relations are
and ought to be with life forms and the ecosophere more generally.
Why, it is sometimes asked, should not the unique capacities be used to
'conquer the world' and complete the job of creating one great human
habitat of all the habitable parts of the Earth? Why should a creature limit
its Self-realisation by letting other life forms retain their habitats - if they
are not obviously useful?
Such questions seem, however, to be characteristic of only a fraction of
human cultures. Perhaps they reveal, not a concern for specific human
Self-realisation, but its neglect.
A biology which clearly states the biological peculiarities of human
beings, as well as the differences, e.g. between human and animal
communication, is fully compatible with an ecosophy of identification and
equal right. A specific feature of human make-up is that human beings
consciously perceive the urge other living beings have for self-realisation,
and that we must therefore assume a kind of responsibility for our conduct
towards others.
Ethology, the general study of behaviour of living beings, suggests that
the violence found within modern industrial societies is more malignant
and self-destructive than that found in almost any other mammalian
society. The methods other mammals use to avoid and reduce violence
appear to be more effective and less brutal than our own. These animal
societies are worthy of study and in some limited respects worthy of being
used as models for human behaviour. This does not imply a lower
evaluation of mankind and our future possibilities.
Modern ecologists almost unanimously emphasise the importance of
togetherness and cooperation in the plant and animal world. The
ecologists emphasise the restrained forms and conduct displayed in
conflicts, and the importance of the utilisation of dissimilar 'niches' in
existence, that is the avoidance of direct collision.
We regard some of the abilities of animals with admiration and
astonishment. For instance, the ability of salmon to cross untold reaches
of ocean, find a given river mouth, and brave the many rapids to reach
their spawning grounds. There is no reason to think of the human ability
to discover this about salmon as anything less awesome. My concern here
is the human capability of identification, the human joy in the identifica-
tion with the salmon on its way to its spawning grounds, and the sorrow
felt upon the thoughtless reduction of the access to such important places.
The principle of biospheric egalitarianism defined in terms of equal
right, has sometimes been misunderstood as meaning that human needs
should never have priority over non-human needs. But this is never
intended. In practice, we have for instance greater obligation to that
which is nearer to us. This implies duties which sometimes involve killing
or injuring non-humans. (Naess, 1984a.) But it is a serious matter when
Identification, wholeness, and Self-realisation 171
animals are submitted to painful experiments in order to test the chemi-

cals used, for example, in food colourings. Human beings are closer to us
than animals, but there is no unsatisfied vital human need driving the food
cosmetic industry. The norm about the precedence related is only one
norm. Responsible decisions closely require one to consider the entire
norm system. The dimensions of peripheral needs of humans must be
compared with vital needs of other species, if there is a conflict.
1
You shall not inflict unnecessary suffering upon other living beings!'
This norm offers an important guideline here. The necessity must be
legitimised in a statement of objectives plus a statement which explains
why the objective cannot be achieved without the infliction of suffering.
There is no necessity of meeting demands on a market.
On the surface, paradoxical tendencies seem to be afoot. On the one
hand, we find thoughtless mistreatment and domination, on the other
hand a clear front against 'unnecessary suffering'. In Oslo, if a rat is
discovered trapped in an inaccessible ventilator, it is clearly cause to warn
the SPCA to come and end its suffering - by putting it out of its misery.
This tradition of concern has proceeded side by side with extermination
campaigns which use unnecessarily painful means. In the long run,
increased awareness of such inconsistencies will (I hope) result in merciful
means or, better, in making extermination unnecessary, and the joys of
symbiosis more widespread.
The uniqueness of Homo sapiens, its special capacities among millions
of kinds of other living beings, has been used as a premise for domination
and mistreatment. Ecosophy uses it as a premise for a universal care that
other species can neither understand nor afford.
2 Identification, oneness, wholeness,

and Self-realisation
(a) Identification and alienation;
ideas of oneness and wholeness
In the heading of this section four terms are brought together.
Perhaps four contrasting terms should also be kept in mind: alienation,
plurality, fragmentarity, and Self-abnegation. The interrelations of these
terms may perhaps contribute to the clarification of ecosophy. Let an
example introduce the issue.
In a glass veranda with one wall open away from the sun a bunch of
children are playing with an insect spray. Insects are trappedflyingagainst
the wall pointing towards the sun. Spraying makes them dramatically fall
to the floor. Amusing? A grown-up appears, picks up an insect, looks at
it with care, and utters dreamingly: 'perhaps those animals might, like
you, prefer to live rather than to die?' The point is grasped, the children
for a moment see and experience spontaneously and immediately the
insects as themselves, not only as something different but in an important
sense like themselves. An instance of momentary identification! Perhaps
it has no effect in the long run, or perhaps one of the children slightly
changes an attitude toward small fellow creatures.
Before the intervention the children saw the movements of half-dead
insects but presumably did not react. From the point of view of ecosophy
they were alienated in a particular sense of the word, namely being
indifferent to something that with normal upbringing would have caused
empathy based on identification. Indifference, rather than feelings of
strangeness, apartness, aloofness, is of prime importance in the situation.
So much about insects. But what about identification with mountains?
The more usual terms are here 'personalising', 'animism', 'an-
thropomorphism'. For thousands of years, and in various cultures, moun-
tains have been venerated for their equanimity, greatness, aloofness, and
majesty. The process of identification is the prerequisite for feeling the
lack of greatness, equanimity in one's empirical self. One 'sees oneself in
the other', but it is not the empirical self, but the self one would aspire to
have. Given adverse conditions a mountain will stand for threat and
terror, an adversary to be overcome. The so-called conquest of mountains
relieves the threat.
The term 'identification' is used in many ways and the way it is used in
the story may be rare and difficult to make clear except through many
instances, positive and negative.
The relationship between identification and the narrower process of
solidarity is such that every deep and lasting state of solidarity presup-
poses wide identification. The essential sense of common interests is
comprehended spontaneously and is internalised. This leads to the depen-
dency of Ays Self-realisation upon B's. When B seeks just treatment A
supports the claim. A assumes a common stance upon the basis of an
identification with B. A may also assume a common stance upon the basis
of abstract ideas of moral justice, combined with a minimum of identifica-
tion, but under hard and long-lasting trials the resulting solidarity cannot
be expected to hold. The same applies to loyalty. When solidarity and
loyalty are solidly anchored in identification, they are not experienced as
moral demands; they come of themselves.
Continental European critique of western industrial society stresses the
alienation caused by a kind of technology that reduces everything to mere
objects of manipulation. Verdinglichungl Not only animals are thus
treated, workers tend to be mere factors - mostly causing trouble - in the

production process. Big finance tends to enhance this trend. What is
produced and how it is produced is irrelevant, what counts is profitable
sale. Comparing the alienation process in various cultures one might
often find technologies involving cruelty and vast indifference to suffer-
ing. What is expected today is that societies are rich enough to afford the
gradual elimination of alienation.
From the identification process stems unity, and since the unity is of a
gestalt character, the wholeness is attained. Very abstract and vague! But
it offers a framework for a total view, or better, a central perspective.
The above seems to point in the direction of philosophical mysticism,
but the fourth term, Self-realisation, breaks in and reinstates the central
position of the individual - even if the capital S is used to express
something beyond narrow selves. The widening and deepening of the
individual selves somehow never makes them into one 'mass'. Or into an
organism in which every cell is programmed so as to let the organism
function as one single, integrated being. How to work out this in a fairly
precise way I do not know. It is a meagre consolation that I do not find that
others have been able to do this in their contemplation of the pair
unity-plurality. 'In unity diversity!', yes, but how? As a vague postulate
it has a specific function within a total view, however imperfectly.
(b) Identification and Self-realisation

Death of individuals and extinction of species are indispensable
parts of evolution. So is the killing of one individual or species by another,
even if non-organic environmental causes predominate. But evolution
also shows the rise of mutual aid, and mature human beings cannot but
work toward a state of affairs a little more like what their phantasy
suggests could come in the very long run.
The maxim 'live and let live' suggests a class-free society in the entire
ecosphere, a democracy in which we can speak about justice, not only
with regard to human beings, but also for animals, plants and landscapes.
This presumes a great emphasis upon the interconnectedness of every-
thing and that our egos are fragments - not isolatable parts. We, as egos,
have an extremely limited power and position within the whole, but it is
sufficient for the unfolding of our potential, something vastly more
comprehensive than the potential of our egos. So we are more than our
egos, and are not fragments, hardly small and powerless. By identifying
with greater wholes, we partake in the creation and maintenance of this
whole. We thereby share in its greatness. New dimensions of satisfaction
are revealed. The egos develop into selves of greater and greater dimen-
sion, proportional to the extent and depth of our processes of identifica-
tion.
The conceptually simplest and historically speaking most ancient access
to such an ecosophy is perhaps the one which analyses dissimilar concep-
tions of the 'self. The first years of life, the self is not much broader than
the ego - the narrow selfish centre which serves to satisfy the simplest
biological needs. It is then best to eat the whole cake alone. About the age
of seven, and until puberty, a socialisation takes place which extends the
self appreciably: the self comes to comprise one's family and closest
friends.
The intensity of identification with other life depends upon milieu,
culture and economic conditions. The ecosophical outlook is developed
through an identification so deep that one's own self is no longer
adequately delimited by the personal ego or the organism. One experi-
ences oneself to be a genuine part of all life. Each living being is
understood as a goal in itself, in principle on an equal footing with one's
own ego. It also entails a transition from I-it attitudes to I-thou attitudes
- to use Buber's terminology.
This does not imply that one acts, wishes to act, or consistently can act
in harmony with the principle of equality. The statements about bios-
pheric equality must be merely taken as guidelines. Even under condi-
tions of intense identification, killing occurs. The Indians in California,
with their animistic mythology, were an example of equality in principle,
combined with realistic admissions of their own vital needs. When hunger
arrives, brother rabbit winds up in the pot. 'A brother is a citizen, but oh,
so temptingly nutritious!' - This exclamation is too easy: the complicated
rituals which surround the hunt in many cultures illustrate how closely
people feel bound to other beings, and how natural it is to feel that when
we harm others, we also harm ourselves. Non-instrumental acts develop
into instrumental.
Immanuel Kant's maxim 'You shall never use another person only as a
means' is expanded in Ecosophy T to 'You shall never use any living being
only as a means'.
A lack of identification leads to indifference. Distant objects or events
which do not seem to concern us are at best relegated to the indifferent
background.
The pesticide azodrin reduced the number of certain 'obnoxious'
insects to almost zero, which was the intention, but in addition it
exterminated the natural enemies of the pest. The result after some time
was more unwanted insects than ever. Such accidents have motivated a
new slogan: you must know what will occur upon intervention in nature.
If you don't know the consequences, don't intervene. But is this realistic?
No more than a small fraction of the consequences can ever be known.
Our ignorance now and in the near future about the consequences of
intervention is appreciably greater than was initially assumed. Our
indifference to the environment of life has meant that it is ordinarily
experienced merely as a grey background. With identification, all this
changes.
Suppose we spread a chemical substance upon a piece of land and take
up a singly gram of earth. What is happening in this tiny piece of our 'grey
background' and what would happen in the event of our intervention? An
investigation of just such a small clump of earth revealed that an astound-
ing number of small organisms lived there: among other things 30,000
protozoa, 50,000 algae, 400,000 fungi and 2,500,000,000 bacteria
(Ehrlich, 1970, p. 180). The fertility of the Earth depends on an unsurvey-
able, intricate interaction - a crazily complex symbiotic network which
embraces all these small living beings.
The greater our comprehension of our togetherness with other beings,
the greater the identification, and the greater care we will take. The road
is also opened thereby for delight in the well-being of others and sorrow
when harm befalls them. We seek what is best for ourselves, but through
the extension of the self, our 'own' best is also that of others. The
own/not-own distinction survives only in grammar, not in feeling.
Philosophically, the concepts ego, self, and Self (the deep, comprehen-
sive and ecological self) are braided into dissimilar systems which origi-
nally were closely associated to the world religions. Because of the
reduced influence of these religions in our industrial societies, the
philosophies of identification have become almost inaccessible. The
hotbed for many kinds of spontaneous religious experience is no longer a
cultural gift of the cradle.
It is noteworthy that a 'democracy of life forms' is or was characteristic
of some primal societies. Their conception of the human situation is more
realistic than that offered in our techno-natural scientific education.
While we derobe nature as such of all sensory diversity, and assert that it
is really colourless, animism moves in the opposite direction.
While warning against an 'unconscious' plunge into the technocratic
society of the future, one of our foremost scientists has remarked: 'We
own nature together with our fellows'. But the ideology of ownership of
nature has no place in an ecosophy. The Norwegian people or the
Norwegian state does not own Norway. The resources of the world are
not only resources for human beings. Legally, we can 'own' a forest, but
if we destroy the living conditions for life in the forest, we are transgres-
sing the norm of equality.
This egalitarian attitude is manifested when the hunter has a long
discussion with the spirit of the bear, and explains apologetically that the
larder is bare and that he must now kill the bear to nourish his family. In
return, the hunter can remind the bear's spirit that both he and his family
will die one day, and turn to dust, and so to vegetation, sustenance for the
descendents of the bear. In other words, this is a realistic egalitarian
attitude, an acknowledgement of the cycles of life and their interconnec-
tion in nature.
Wildlife and forest management, and other professions in intimate
contact with nature, change people's attitudes. It is only through work,
play, and understanding that a deep and enduring identification can
develop, an identification deep enough to colour the overall life condi-
tions and ideology of a society.
The egalitarian attitude is not restricted to pre-industrial societies.
'Nature mysticism', as it is often called, is a genuine aspect of Western
culture. To identify with all life does not imply an abandonment of our
cultural heritage. Moral exhortation, punishment of ecocriminals,
economic sanctions, and other negative tools have their place, but the
education towards greater and wider identification though widening the
Self is a thoroughly positive way.
(c) 'That which is not of value to any human being

is of no value at air
Some people who partake positively in important environmental
decisions report that they are inhibited by the thought that somehow any
valuation whatsoever is a human valuation and therefore must be a value
for humans. They feel that there are philosophical reasons for downplay-
ing or eliminating reference to nature as such, the planet as such,
wilderness as such. To avoid irrationality, one must stick to homocentric
utilitarian positions: one must point to usefulness for humans.
Philosophical reflection convinces us that only humans formulate value
statements on this planet. Value statements, like theories of gravitation,
are formulated by humans in human language, not by mosquitoes in
mosquito language. We may speak of gravitation for us and its absence
whether we are in a gravitational field or not. Newton's laws were made
by Newton, but stones fall without him.
Our conclusion is quite simple: the mere fact that humans say 'this is
valuable', does not imply that 'this is beneficial for humans'. It is

misleading terminology to maintain that values humanly conceived as
valuable are such for human beings.
The subjective stance implied by 'good means good for mankind', if
applied consistently, easily leads to solipsistic egotism: 'good is good for
me\ If I give anything, it is because I get satisfaction from it. If I am
altruistic, it is solely because I am better off when others are better off.
Few have any conception of the entire human population, or of what is
good for such a mass of people. Good 'for myself, my family and friends'
is perhaps more clearly meaningful for most of us. But we correctly refuse
to admit that we, by 'JC is good', mean 6x is good for myself, my family and
friends'.
Common sense can be a guide here. We acknowledge our mixed
motives, and realise that our evaluations are more or less egocentric, that
we have our own benefit more or less in mind and seldom give priority to
others before ourselves. The demarcation lines cannot be drawn, and
there are great individual and collective differences. Often, however, we
will completely agree in practice. Let us say that we are planning a trip
together. Some places will be visited because it is to A's advantage, while
we others see no value in it, other places may be chosen by B, etc. At the
same time, we are, as friends, aware that each of us thinks it is valuable
that we visit a place someone thinks valuable to visit. This brings in
evaluations of relevance on the meta-plane.
These propositions suggest that to ascribe value to animals, plants,
landscapes, and wilderness areas independently of their relation to
human utility or benefit is a philosophically legitimate procedure. To
relate all value to mankind is a form of anthropocentrism which is not
philosophically tenable.
Human nature may be such that with increased maturity a human need
increases to protect the richness and diversity of life for its own sake.
Consequently, what is useless in a narrow way may be useful in a wider
sense, namely satisfying a human need. The protection of nature for its
own sake would be a good example of this.
(d) Friluftsliv: exuberance in nature

Contrary to expectation, urbanised life has not killed human
fascination with free nature, but only made the access more difficult and
promoted mass tourism. There is fortunately a way of life in free nature
that is highly efficient in stimulating the sense of oneness, wholeness and
in deepening identification.
The words 'outdoor recreation' are often used for the activities more
and more people in the industrial societies are engaging in during their
leisure time. But in Norwegian, there is a clearer, more value-laden word
that refers to the type of outdoor recreation that seeks to come to nature
on its own terms: to touch the Earth lightly. Literally, 'friluftsliv' means
'free air life', but it has been translated as 'open air life' and 'nature life'
(see Reed and Rothenberg (1987)). In the following, we retain the
original term to indicate a positive kind of state of mind and body in
nature, one that brings us closer to some of the many aspects of identifica-
tion and Self-realisation with nature that we have lost.
The satisfaction of the need for outdoor life and the need for machine-
oriented technical unfolding cannot take place simultaneously. At pres-
ent, the socio-economic forces in the industrial countries are lobbying in
favour of priority for the capital-intensive apparatus: the apparatus-poor
life is a hindrance to 'progress'. We should see true friluftsliv as a route
towards paradigm change.
Friluftsliv plays a more and more important role as the dark shadows of
the urban lifestyle of the industrial states have become more evident. The
polar explorer and Norwegian national hero, Fritjof Nansen, remarked
that 'friluftsliv is a partial continuation of an aspect of an earlier form of
life'. Human beings, until quite recently, have been hunters and gather-
ers, that is, lived and worked in nature. Much less than one per cent of our
history has been devoted to the attempt to live a life characterised by
machines and crowded quarters. As recently as the beginning of this
century, many prominent futurists, including H. G. Wells, believed that
'progress' would succeed, and that human beings would be completely
happy in their new radical form of life.
At the same time, friluftsliv caught on: more or less playful kinds of
short excursions in nature. These excursions do not serve to procure food,
nor do they fit any other characterisation as work. Outdoor life has
assumed forms which resemble the physical activities in the hunter and
gatherer cultures: on water-swimming, diving, rowing, paddling, sailing,
fishing, infieldsand forests - hiking, camping, skiing, riding, hunting; in
mountainous terrain - glacial walks, climbing, cross-country skiing,
mountain climbing on skis, fishing, hunting. Where do the competition
sports fit in? Nils Faarlund (1973) says:
Competition as a value represents a form of self-realisation which is
reserved for the select. The competition-motivated lifestyle
presupposes 'losers'. Self-realisation for the elite presupposes that the
others are denied self-realisation. Competition as a value is thus
excluding and elitist. Outdoor life in the sense of exuberant living in
nature presupposes on the other hand the self-realisation of others to
achieve one's own (i.e.: a presentation of self which does not separate
the individual from nature).
An important element is the necessity of effort. Without effort, no
quality, and without quality, reduced enjoyment. Enjoyment of the
quality in one's personal life conduct is an autotelic experiencing of
value, or inner motivation. Competitive motivation is external
motivation and thus a weaker mode of motivation.
With the near future in mind, it is important to stake out guidelines for
ethically and ecologically responsible friluftsliv. These can be formulated
as follows.
(1) Respect for all life. Respect for landscape. The elimination of plea-
sure hunting necessarily follows, except for 'photographic hunting'. Hunt-
ing must be restricted to ecosophically justifiable wildlife management.
Traceless passage through the wilderness: one leaves no tell-tale 'drop-
pings' in the landscape. No more cairn construction, and no expansion of
backwoods urbanisation (highways, motels, etc.) of the natural areas.
(2) Outdoor education in the signs of identification. Children's (and
adults') longing and capacity for identification with life and landscape is
encouraged. Conventional goal direction: to get there, to be skilful, to be
better than others, to get things done, to describe in words, to have and
use new and fancy equipment - is discouraged. The ability to experience
deep, rich and varied interaction in and with nature is developed.
(3) Minimal strain upon the natural combined with maximal self-
reliance. This is a great challenge today. Greater knowledge about the use
of local plants and other locally available material allows one quite often
to live in nature with local resources. But acquaintance with nature's
carrying capacity is simultaneously required. This limits the number of
people who can be almost self-sufficient within a given landscape.
(4) Natural lifestyle. All-sided forms of togetherness with as much
dwelling upon goals as possible, as little as possible upon that which is
solely a means. The greatest possible elimination of technique and
apparatus from the outside.
(5) Time for adjustment: those who come from urban life ordinarily
have a certain appreciation for peace, stillness, and other aspects which
contrast sharply with the stressful lifestyle of the city. After a few days, or
a week, a certain underestimation usually sets in: the lack of radio,
television, cinemas, etc. It takes time for the new milieu to work in depth.
It is quite normal that several weeks must pass before the sensitivity for
nature is so developed that it fills the mind. If a great deal of technique and
apparatus are placed between oneself and nature, nature cannot possibly
be reached.
The foregoingfivepoints are meant to be guidelines. In the eyes of the

growth economy, these points are poison. One cannot count on any
immediate government efforts to protect the existing basis for ethically
and ecologically responsible fritluftsliv. Recently, though, the Norwegian
Ministry of the Environment {Milj0verndepartmentet) has gone quite far
in limiting the notion of friluftsliv to what is compatible with these five
points. In the growth economy at large, goals and intrinsic values are
forgotton in favour of tourism and profitable capital investments.
Extremely powerful forces are attempting to replace friluftsliv with
mechanised, competitive, and environmentally destructive intrusions
into nature. These forces can only be countered through a long contest
upon many fronts.
When rampant urbanisation began to cripple human life in the rich
industrial states, the establishment of national parks and other large free
areas was advocated. Nonetheless, the need for elbow room and activity
under the open sky has been shown to be much more than a luxury need
of the elite. Among many people it has developed into a vital need.
The easily accessible free areas have proven to be insufficient, and
quickly assumed an urban facade - lineups, littering, the devastation of
vegetation, fatal curtailment of freedom of movement, luxury residences
and luxurious living rather than simple life.
In the 1980s, many parks in the USA are so overloaded with people
(often Europeans in caravans!) that extremely strict regulations have
been introduced. A typical stepwise trend can be traced: forbidden to
camp in certain areas - forbidden to camp except in designated areas -
camping forbidden; forbidden to prepare food except in cement grilles -
forbidden to prepare food outdoors; forbidden to move in steep terrain
(erosion) - forbidden to walk off the paths - forbidden to stray from the
asphalt - only short sojourns allowed - ticket required every day -
'Entrance forbidden: trespassers will be prosecuted'.
Instead of entering a realm of freedom, one feels that one is in some
kind of museum ruled by angry owners.
In a country where friluftsliv is accepted as a vital need, such restrictions
would be considered an outrage.
Cooperation between the representatives of industry and competitive
sports has created an outfitting pressure: new so-called improvements
appear and are marketed continuously, and norms about equipment
replacement are impressed upon and accepted by large sections of the
population. A refinement which can be important in top competition, but
is frivolous in friluftsliv, is nonetheless sold to the well-to-do and more
lethargic groups of the public who are susceptible to sales pushes. As
equipment to outdoor generalists is much less expensive than specialised
Cruelty in nature; tragedy and comedy of life 181
equipment, people are encouraged to specialise. Furthermore, it is more

profitable to sell things which require large capital outlays.
After a gigantic outpour of resources and technique, the barriers are
overcome - the happy consumer stretches out on the simple bunk in the
log cabin, listens to the birds singing, opens a creaky wooden door to
watch the lively salmon jumping in the swirling waters. People swallow
the equipment hook, line, and sinker, and lengthen their working day and
increase stress in the city to be able to afford the latest'. Worn out, and
with only a little time to spare, they dash off to the outdoor areas, for a
short respite before rushing back to the cities. Still starved, they keep
right on biting!
Friluftsliv is a rather concrete theme, but it cannot be separated from
metaphysics. So the jump back to philosophy is not unduly long. Under-
standing of anything in nature begins with direct experience, but this soon
stimulates reflection.
3 Cruelty in nature;
the tragedy and the comedy of life
We may 'praise nature' using unconditional superlatives in our
poetry and rhetoric, but not in our philosophy or our politics. The
phenomena of social Darwinism, fascism, and national socialism con-
tained an unrestricted 'cult of life' with special emphasis on exploitation
and brutal competition. These political trends made use of untenable
descriptions of life, but we should as ecosophers avoid making people
believe we say 'yes!' to everything in nature.
The process of identification leads us to see much cruelty in nature. But
it does not necessarily lead to conceiving any animal to be cruel. A
behaviour may be deplored without applying negative ethical standards
to the actor.
In the 'oneness and diversity' philosophy which Ecosophy T presents,
independent treatment of four different fields of phenomena is required:
(1) Identification with living beings individually (distributively) and
within limited life situations;
(2) Identification with living beings collectively or in their essence ('life
itself, ecosystems, species);
(3) Ethical judgement (by different scales) of the individual beings in
specific situations;
(4) Ethical judgement of life collectively or in its essence.
Contemporary inspiration from naturalism essentially leads to identifi-
cation with all life, distributively. Abhorrence and rejection are scarce,
and arise, for example, at the sight of or treatment of the cruel conditions
caused by overpopulation. Presumably these reactions often have an
ethical component. But they do not imply an ethically negative judgement

of animal life as a whole.
A more adequate treatment of this topic would require a discussion of
various ethical standpoints and their relevance for an appraisal of nature.
The literary historian Joseph W. Meeker (1972) has combined his exper-
tise with experience in ecology. Is the conception of the human relation-
ship with nature found in literary comedies more true and useful in the
environmental crisis than that found in the tragedy? He suggests that it is.
The heroes in Greek and other tragedies generally struggle with
tremendous forces and their heroism ultimately destroys them. Their
suffering is as great as their passions - soaring love, burning hate, glowing
patriotism. The ideals are sky-high, but nature doesn't measure up.
Storms kill heroes as much as villains. The hero succumbs to metaphysical
desperation: natural forces are not on his side - as they should be.
In the comedy, sky-high ideals and the resulting extravagant sufferings
are jokingly depicted as some kind of madness or as ungenuine. Like
animals, humans have their small weaknesses, enjoy life more or less as it
is, have simple pleasures, moderate virtues, moderate level of aspiration,
and a sense of humour. The unheroic fumble and stumble their way
through existence without pretentions. The 'heroes' of the comedy
survive in a fairly decent manner while those of the tragedy succumb,
leaving a trail of sorrow and despair in their wake.
Meeker could also have referred to the Faustian character, longing and
longing, grasping to get hold of something ephemeral, always hurrying to
something else because 'happiness is where you are not'.
The tragic view of man, Meeker suggests, leads to cultural and biologi-
cal catastrophe, and it is time to look for alternatives which might
encourage better the survival of our own and other species.
Comus, the demigod whose name may have been the origin of the word
'comedy', was preoccupied with fertility, harmonic family life, and social
togetherness. He left matters of great intellectual importance to Apollo,
and gigantic passions to Dionysus.
Meeker believes that biological evolution shows more of the elasticity
of the comedy than the weight of 'monolithic passion'. Mature ecosystems
are arranged in a relatively stable equilibrium between a host of various
species of living beings.
Mankind during the last nine thousand years has conducted itself like a
pioneer invading species. These species are individualistic, aggressive,
and hustling. They attempt to exterminate or suppress other species.
They discover new ways to live under unfavourable external conditions -
admirable! - but they are ultimately self-destructive. They are replaced
by other species which are better suited to restabilise and mature the
Historical perspective I: the Bible 183
ecosystem. If mankind is to avoid being replaced then the struggle against

nature must cease. Some kind of 'back to nature' attitude must be
nurtured. This does not imply that lifestyle and society will become too
simple in relation to our great intellectual capacity. On the contrary, the
relationships in a mature ecosystem are more composite than any man-
kind has mastered. With increasing understanding, increasing sensitivity
towards internal relations, humans can live with moderate material
means and reach a fabulous richness of ends.
Ecosophy T has certain of Meeker's comedy characteristics: equality,
joy, unfolding in small communities. But also a little of the tragedy: ideals
(guidelines) for nonviolence are suggested which are impossible to attain
if they are understood strictly and absolutely. Furthermore, it actively
stresses inspiration for working to better social conditions. The more
relaxed comic mode with its penchant for personal adaptation seems to
abandon the less resourceful to the mercy of the elements. The comic
mode may be the mode of the future, but hard political contests stand
between us and that goal. Our time is not one for total relaxation!
Human conduct still today as a pioneer invading species present a
catastrophic cultural lag. It is a conduct systematically counteracting the
process of identification with its fruit of compassion and living light on
Earth.
4 A historical perspective I: the Bible

Why haven't we in the Western countries managed to reach high
levels of identification? Because it is not primarily a technical problem?
Because our submission to technology as such requires alienation from
the object of our manipulation? It is difficult to furnish a complete answer.
The Bible has influenced and still influences our view of our place
within the ecosystems. This is true for Christians, and for non-Christians.
The Bible has already been studied from an ecological viewpoint.
Radically different attitudes appear. This must be expected when the
history of the origin of the Bible is taken into consideration. I will restrict
myself here to a few notes on positive passages.
Many places in the Bible indicate that God has given human beings
some kind of privileged position in relation to the rest of the creation, but
the question 'what kind of privileges?' necessitates an examination of
specific statements within special sections.
According to Genesis, chapter 1, verse 28, it seems that God intends
man to subdue the earth and fill it with his offspring. We are allotted
dominion but far from a free hand do do whatever we like. The Authorised
Version reads, \ . . replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea . . .'. This verse, in isolation, can be used to
cultivate an arrogant and inconsiderable attitude towards the entire

Creation.
According to Genesis 9:3, God gives 'all things' to Noah. But Noah's
ship must have been quite crowded and uncomfortable for him, and he
may have looked with great annoyance at the many completely useless
creatures, perhaps mumbling, 'if I had dominion I know what I would do!'
His dominion seems to include those things Noah and his descendants
require to lead a healthy and God-fearing life. In other words practically
nothing in comparison with the average Western material standard of
living. The passage can be interpreted to mean that God bequeathes the
earth as some kind of personal property, but a more reasonable interpre-
tation is that God places everything at Noah's disposal with the strict
stipulation that it be used in accordance with the commandments of God.
Noah receives rights of use, not property rights. Rather extensive dominion
of the same sort is intimated in the Book of Psalms, 8:5 and 8:6. 'For thou
has made him a little lower than the angels,.. .thou hast put all things under
his feet.'
But there are also more egalitarian tendencies in the Books of Moses.
Great whales, and every living creature, and winged fowl are to be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the seas and earth (Genesis I: 21, 22). God
scarcely had the whaling business in mind! It seems to be presumed that
human beings are to fill the Earth, but not by squeezing out other
creatures He created. It would be difficult even for Norwegians to justify
our whale and seal catch with Genesis 1:22. God blesses all equally: each
thing is blessed separately and referred to as good. 'And God saw that this
was good.' A strong value judgement was made even before He created
Adam. The individual parts of the creation seem to be afforded intrinsic
value. Nothing of that which is created has value only as means. Nothing
is created only for the sake of human beings alone or solely for any other
earthly being. A principal point in 'egalitarianism in the biosphere' is
thereby won: every living being is equal to all others to the extent that it
has intrinsic value.
Other places in the Old Testament also deny our autotelic uniqueness,
e.g. Psalm 104:18: 'The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the
rocks for the conies.' It does not seem to be implied that human beings are to
gain from the conies (alpine rabbits). The high hills and rocks were placed
at the disposal of the conies in the same way that He allowed human
beings use what we need for a healthy and God-fearing life.
The human function as guardian or keeper is much more important for
ecosophical interpretations. 'And the Lord God took Man, and put him
into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.' (Genesis 2:15). The
garden was small and presumably not a threat to the habitats of other
living beings.
In this and other passages, it appears that human beings must answer
for their activities on Earth. In certain situations, mankind must moderate
the effects of wild animals upon other beings, extermination, seeing to it
that a certain order and harmony reign. That which God has created is not
to be exterminated, not even snakes in the Garden.
Mankind is accountable to God, in the light of our uniquely responsible
position; regent, caliph, deputy, guardian, administrator, steward, and
servant are some of the terms used in the Bible and the Koran.
Unhappily, the role of guardian with its duties and responsibilities
cannot be said to be systematically outlined anywhere in the Bible. In the
New Testament it is natural to refer to the parable of the faithful and
unfaithful servants. 4A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge
about it, and dug a place and went into a far country' (Mark 12:1). The
husbandmen did not give the owner any wine. Things did not go well for
them. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruit thereof (Matthew 21:43).
Many have used this parable in support of the attitude that mankind
must be accountable for how he behaves ecologically. There is a great
deal of evidence which corroborates the importance this interpretation
has had throughout the ages.
The Earth does not belong to mankind, according to Paul: Tor the
Earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.' (I Corinthians 10:26).
Everything which God has created is good (I Timothy 4:4). There is, all
in all, less mention of external nature in the New Testament. The world
has soon to end. The spiritual salvation of mankind is more central than
in the Old Testament. There was no time to lose by nature conservation
as James Watt among others let us understand.
But back to the Old Testament. . .
Everything which is created by God is good and more wisely arranged
than-anything mankind can create, and more diverse. Therefore, nature
bears witness to God, not only in its diversity, but also in the ecosystem
where the food chains lead to lower conditions:
The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
(Psalm 104:21)
O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them
all: the Earth is full of thyriches.(Psalm 104:24)
So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping
innumerable, both small and great beasts. Psalm 104:25)
. . . the LORD shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the Earth, and
it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. (Psalm 104:31,32)
In this ecologically famous psalm, mankind is not glorified by humans. An

unsurveyable diversity of animals and processes geological of not the
slightest utility to mankind are praised on an equal footing with everything
else.
The Lord is encouraged in the Bible to rejoice in earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions. These events are meant to be good and beautiful, but not
especially for human beings.
The Lord rejoices in His Creation, says the Bible. And so did mankind.
But sometimes too much! Enjoying the Creation, but forgetting the
Creator. This is one of the sources of Christian contemptus mundi,
contempt for the world. Sinners 'who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creatures more than the Creator . . .'
(Romans 1:25), even though 'the invisible things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. . .'(Romans 1:20). It is
tempting to draw the ecosophically desirable conclusion that 'Paul attri-
butes the sin of man to his failure to see in nature the works of God'. This
is C. J. Glacken's conclusion in his exceptional eco-historical work,
Traces on the Rhodian Shore (1967), p. 161. However, Paul seems to say
that human beings presumably see God in the Creation, but that they
transgress his commandments nonetheless. Paul emphasises the manifes-
tation of God in the Creation, that is, nature, because this very manifesta-
tion renders human misdeeds sinful. They have no excuse. They know
their God, and see him in Creation, but they conduct themselves godlessly
and unjustly nonetheless.
Praise of creation without praise of God is thus a form of heathenism.
So is the identification of God with creation. To refute the latter, the
wonder of God has been contrasted with that of nature, a mere reflection.
Preoccupation with nature has therefore been regarded as pernicious.
Another source of contemptus mundi builds upon Genesis 3:17: 'And
unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy
wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, thou
shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake . . .', Genesis 3:18
begins Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee . . .'. Some
have concluded that less hospitable things like thistles were created after
the fall of man from divine grace. After the fall of man, nature was
reduced in quality. This poor quality then justifies contempt.
It is difficult to decide how influential such nuances of interpretation
have been. The foregoing quotations have only intimated how much
ecosophically relevant material there is in the Biblical Scriptures.
Throughout the ages, the Bible has been referred to as a support for vastly
different and mutually inconsistent positions. In recent years, some rep-
resentative interpretations have emphasised the human responsibility

to God for how to deal with the wonders of nature. The preceding has
essentially tried to undermine the impression that our role has been
uniformly interpreted down through the ages, and that this interpretation
has only expressed arrogance, utilitarian thinking, and blind dogmatic
faith. A person's opinion about the ecological movement cannot be
derived from the fact that he or she 'believes in the Bible'.
The wisdom of God is ridiculed if He is said to have engaged so ignorant
and so ignoble a creature as Homo sapiens to administer or guard the
vastness of nature, of which we understand so little. Nature is not a
vegetable patch!
The arrogance of stewardship consists in the idea of superiority which
underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly
respected middleman between the Creator and the Creation. We know
too little about what happens in nature to take up the task.
The most important weakness of the expression is probably that, when
it comes to the administration of nature, simple, so-called factual condi-
tions reveal our extremely limited ability to plan for its development -
even if evolution, continental drift, and other vast primary processes on
our Earth are not included in the attempt.
The administrator idea is less unreasonable if it is confined merely to
domestic animals and agricultural land. The word 'nature' is then less
comprehensive than an ecosophic perspective demands. Our responsibil-
ity today is not that of the guardian, but that of the thief and manipulator.
We must face this responsibility. The notion of our ignorance about
consequences implies a norm about limitation and careful control of our
intervention. Moderated, and more closely associated with Christian
humility, the administrator idea may contribute to a strengthening of
awareness of ecological responsibility. The religious background for such
an awareness is an irreplaceable plus. But he who stops wreaking havoc
does not thereby become an administrator.
Christian theologians who have studied mankind's critical ecological
situation tend to embrace the ecological movement, and they find full
support in the Bible. Christian theology is by no means homogeneous and
it should not be dealt with as such. To attempt to do so is perhaps
characteristic of an attitude which abhors diversity, when differences are
deeper than they can fully command. The differences in Christian theol-
ogy frustrate those who deplore variety.
As an example of a fragment of a Christian ecosophy, let us consider
some ideas put forth by E. F. Schumacher in a very short article entitled
The Age of Plenty: A Christian View (1974). We shall call his view
'Ecosophy S' for the purpose of comparison of terminology.
Schumacher announces that he will in the article 'take an overall view'

which 'can be obtained only from a considerable height'. In the terminol-
ogy of Ecosophy T, ' a considerable depth'. Facts are not enough: they
need to be evaluated, that is to say fitted into a value system, to be of use.
In my terminology: hypotheses need to be joined with norms in order for
decisions to be derived. I would rather emphasise 'Only from the height
of an overall view can we obtain a meaningful value system.'
Corresponding to the top norm and hypotheses of Ecosophy T,
Schumacher suggests the use of what Ignatius of Loyola called 'The
Foundation':
Man was created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by
this means to save his soul;
And the other things on the face of the earth were created for Man's
sake, and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the end for which he
was created.
Whence it follows
That man ought to make use of them just so far as they help him to attain
his end,
And that he ought to withdraw himself from them just so far as they
hinder him.
From the point of view of a normative system we might start with a norm
'Man ought to do what he was created to do!' using two supporting
hypotheses from the first four lines of the quotation: from these three
ultimate premises we derive the two norms expressed by the last four
lines.
'The logic of this Foundation is unshakable; it is in fact the kind of logic
we invariably try to apply in our everyday affairs, whether it be business,
science, engineering, or politics,' writes Schumacher, using the term
'logic' in a much more everyday manner than that favoured by authors of
symbolic logic textbooks.
'Anybody who is prepared to accept the two premises cannot possibly
refuse to accept the conclusion.' One might make this statement more
credible by rather unconventionally interpreting the term 'God' in the
first sentence as a kind of normative sentence 'God!', that is, making
automatically any sentence about what God has created us to do into a
combination of a norm and a hypothesis.
Schumacher mentions two norms representing a third level of deriva-
tion within his system. The two last sentences of the quotation from
Loyola imply 'that where people do not have enough to attain their ends,
they should have more, and where they have more than enough they
should "withdraw" from that which is excessive'.
Loyola reflects the dominant view of his time when saying that 'other
things on the face of the earth were created for Man's sake . . .'. It is
Historical perspective II: Plotinus to Descartes 189
difficult to harmonise this with the basic views within the deep ecology
movement. For Schumacher it does not seem difficult. He cites the
greatest Catholic thinker of the Middle Ages:
The smallest mosquito, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, is more wonderful
than anything man has produced and will ever produce. So man must
never lose his sense of the marvellousness of the world around and inside
him - a world which he has not made and which, assuredly, has not made
itself. Such an attitude engenders a spirit of nonviolence, which is a form
or aspect of wisdom.
Schumacher scarcely means that mosquitoes are more wonderful for man
to make use of than anything man himself has made. He seems somehow
to refer to the wonderfulness of God's creations as such, and if he does he
acknowledges the intrinsic value of all living beings.
Schumacher makes use of vague and ambiguous key terms in order to
indicate rough guidelines for policy. This is akin to the To formulations
which I make use of. It is too late to interview Schumacher in order to
clarify how he stands in relation to the near-common points of the deep
ecology movement. But we may safely assert that a Christian 'Ecosophy
S' might be elaborated on the basis of his influential writings.
5 A historical perspective II: from Plotinus to Descartes

In later antiquity, trends arose which directed human attention
'upwards' and to the 'pure' spirit. Spirit was contrasted with body: '. . .
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord' (Paul in
II Corinthians 5:6). Inner reflection was encouraged to the detriment of
the so-called external human being, society, and milieu. The body,
things, the material world - all were considered to be hindrances to the
life of the spirit.
The Christian sects made up only a small part of those who led this
transformation throughout the entirety of the Hellenistic-Roman world.
The tendency is described by classics scholar H. P. L'Orange (1953):
Human beings must overcome the perceptual and conceptual chaos into
which our senses have tricked us, and seek a higher reality. This can be
achieved by collecting the soul in an inner life, in a concept- and
idea-oriented contemplation of 'things'. The essence of 'things' lies in
the ideas. Even Plotinus, in the third century AD, sees in the sensible
reality of nature a beautiful reflection of the ideas. But the things of
nature gradually lost this reflection. One withdrew from the external
world, from the 'beautiful body' and collected oneself with the inner life
through renewed probing.
This one-sidedness involved a depreciation of physical reality in its
entirety. Or, ecosophically: one aspect of existence was isolated from the
others and named 'physical reality'.
A search for supernatural being can easily become an endeavour
hostile to man and environment. True enough, it can lead to splendid art.
And a violent striving upwards need not, in theory, imply depreciation of
physical reality in its entirety, but it seems to have done that. L'Orange
contends that this characteristic can be traced in all forms of art, in all
forms of philosophy, and in all forms of social thought in the West:
Classical art is therefore an expression of an equilibrium, a reconciled
relationship between mankind and the world. It is this happy
equilibrium between inner and outer which is lost in later antiquity.
Human beings denied themselves the immediate, sensual loyalty to the
external world, and withdrew to isolated positions in their inner lives.
This is the tower from which the art of later antiquity and the early
Middle Ages looked down upon reality.
Thus Petrarch suffered from a bad conscience when he admired nature:
'I was stunned . . . angry with myself that I still admired earthly things. I
ought to have learned, long ago, even from pagan philosophers, that
nothing is admirable besides the mind: compared to its greatness nothing
is great.' (Seneca Epistle 8.5, Petrarch (1966))
What a poignant example of glorification of mankind to the detriment of
something elsel 'If x is glorious and y is different from x, y cannot be
glorious!' But is not a Both-and solution presumably possible? (See
chapter 2.)
The role of inner reflection is obvious as the quote continues:
. . . I was completely satisfied with what I had seen of the mountain and
turned my inner eye towards myself . . . How often, do you think, did I
turn back and look up toward the summit of the moutain today while I
was walking down? It seemed to rise hardly higher than a cubit
compared to the height of human contemplation, were the latter not
plunged into the squalor of earthly mud and filth.
From the point of view of Ecosophy T Petrarch exemplifies the
regression from a wide self to a narrow. He cuts off his previous
identifications and reifies the distinction inner-outer, alienating himself
from the mountain.
The distinction between 'in the Self and 'out in nature' makes it quite
difficult to describe our relationship to nature. When this distinction is
successfully transcended, another concept of nature and another concep-
tion of 'self will arise - the concept that is the fundamental intuition
behind Ecosophy T.
This glorification of human beings at the expense of nature becomes
Respect and self-respect 191
ecosophically relevant when it is manifest in value priorities. To the

extent that it serves to depreciate, or blind us to, on-human realms, it has
an obviously negative ecological effect.
Towards the end of the Middle Ages, the power wielded over individual
minds by the established religion declined. This is widely acknowledged
to have been partially due to the de-mystification of reality brought about
by science, technique, and the rise of capitalist economies. We relaxed
our striving upwards, but without a return to a relatively harmonious
attitude to nature. Our depreciation of the 'physical' reality continued,
now in the form of exploitation. Nature came to be interpreted as both
slave and raw material. Like the slaves, nature could revolt, and the
expression 'struggle against nature' has been in continuous use since then.
Hostility to 'physical' reality had been transferred to nature in general.
Europeans have retained the idea that our association with nature is
external and narrowly utilitarian. Therefore, it seems hypocritical to
pretend that we could be considerate to animals or plants if this did not
directly or indirectly reward the Master of Creation, after the demise of
the God of the Middle Ages. The undercurrent of identification persisted
throughout the Renaissance and more recent times, while the mechanical,
alienating image of nature was simultaneously founded in league with
'practical' exploitation. All the ingredients were on hand for the ideolog-
ical about-face made by Rene Descartes. He claimed, in his Discourse on
Method,
. . .the speculative philosophy taught in the Schools can be replaced by
a practical philosophy . . . knowing the power and the effects of fire,
water, air, the stars, the heavens. . .we might thereby make ourselves,
as it were, masters and possessors of nature.
6 Our self-respect is not solely due to our own significance: the

Milky Way also stimulates respect
Is the individual deprived of anything if it is accepted that (1) he
or she does not represent a preferred position in the universe, and (2)
there are other perspectives which are just as valuable as human perspec-
tives?
Aristotle was willing to acknowledge the existence of total perspectives
other than those of human beings:
For it would be strange to regard politics or practical wisdom as the
highest kind of knowledge, when man is not the best thing in the
universe. Surely, if 'healthy' and 'good' mean one thing for men and
another forfishes,whereas 'white' and 'straight' always mean the same,
'wise' must mean the same for everyone, but 'practically wise' will be
different. For each particular being ascribes practical wisdom in matters

relating to itself to that thing which observes its interests well, and it will
entrust itself to that thing. That is the reason why people attribute
practical wisdom even to some animals - to all those which display a
capacity for forethought in matters relating to their own life.
Nicomachean Ethics 1141, 20-6
Is the principle of the infinite value' of each individual and his or her
unique and irreplaceable nature more plausible within the tiny cosmos of
the New Testament, in which mankind forms the centre and the time
perspective is short, than within the immense ecosphere of ecology? My
negative reply rests upon the idea that life is fundamentally one'.
An important and essential matter for all individuals is one's personal
conduct. Each individual has responsibility, each has something to pre-
serve, something to develop. To counter apathy and low self-esteem,
moral philosophers have occasionally made the mistake of placing
humankind in a unique position in respects incompatible with an open
attitude to the rest of nature. In relation to other living beings on our
planet, Homo sapiens is unique: it is valid to call ourselves unique on
Earth. But what is our situation in the Milky Way?
If we estimate the number of stars in the Milky Way system to be one
hundred thousand million (there are probably more), and we assume that
one one-millionth of them have planets with good, enduring conditions
for life, this would mean one hundred thousand planets with life. If beings
with cognitive organs of greater capacity than our brain have evolved on
half of these planets, we are faced with 50,000 species of life who occupy
an analogous position to our relation with the other animals on our
planet. A long evolutionary line can be drawn, with Homo sapiens in the
middle, a mediocrity (if we retain our ordinary competitive thought). . .
Ladybird . . . Rattus norvegicus . . . Homo sapiens . . . x. . . y . . .
Some may object that good preconditions for life may be even more
infrequent. OK. Let us make the assumption that they occur on the
average in only one solar system in even a hundred thousand million. We
are perhaps alone in the Milky Way. But at a conservative estimate, there
are a hundred thousand million star universes of the Milky Way type
within the range of our largest telescopes. If half of these have life below
our brain capacity, and half with greater capacity, fifty thousand million
species of life have come farther in the development of the brain than we
have. But why be so preoccupied with competition?
We do not become less when seen in a Milky Way perspective as long
as we have a certain sense for participation in something great. Our
participation does not seem to be less important than that of anything else.
Non violence and the philosophy of oneness 193
For all we know, life may have a great future in which we are
participating and changing. As far as the cosmic possibilities are con-
cerned, we can, without contradicting any 'hard facts', embrace theories
such as those about the evolution of a consciousness which encompasses
the entire universe. Personally, I can make do with less, but it would be
arbitrary to set a theoretical limit to the development and power of
conscious entities in the cosmos.
Notes on life in the universe are ecopolitically relevant, for they have
expanded and presumably still can expand the perspectives of many
people. Without a certain expansion in perspective, an ecologically
responsible politics is impossible.
7 Nonviolence and the philosophy of oneness

The following does not pretend to represent more than one line
of thought, one which combines a fundamental metaphysical or religious
viewpoint with a pattern for dealing with the many conflicts which
energetic support for ecologically responsible policy necessarily entails.
The strong tone of nonviolence found in Ecosophy T may be disliked
by some. There is nonetheless one aspect of nonviolence which I believe
to be required of all those who are ecologically engaged. Experience from
recent years indicates that ecological viewpoints gain headway through
nonviolent political communication which mobilises the grass roots. But
this implies great emphasis upon the norm 'deal with issues, not with
persons' and a certain openness towards the ecopolitical viewpoints of the
opposition. Briefly, their statements must not be submitted to distorted
interpretations, nor should the formulations issued by one's own faction
be uncritically assimilated.
The importance of the acceptance of nonviolent conflict theory as a
central part of an ecosophy must be seen in the light of our global
situation. Within the next 20-30 years, a multitude of collective resolu-
tions ought to be made, yet there seems to be little evidence that this will
be done. Assuming that they are made, they will have to be backed by
power and authority. To sabotage them must be considered a serious
break in interhuman loyalty. Faced with these contests, I believe that all
established decision-making institutions, as well as direct action, have to
be used in the protection of nature. The more seriously these latter
approaches diverge from the established decision-making processes, the
more important it is that they maintain a high standard not only with
respect to ecological knowledge, but also with respect to conflict
behaviour. The more radical the direct action, the more people will be
hurt unintentionally. A certain humility naturally develops. The princi-

ples of vigorous nonviolence must be stressed even more.
The ways of nonviolence and the philosophies of wholeness and
oneness have been closely associated historically. Gandhi gathered
strength and inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita. It contains several
central statements which can be considered to be the common
denominator for large sections of Indian philosophy. Most notable is
chapter 6 verse 29: 'He whose self is harmonised by yoga seeth the Self
abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self.' Rabindranath Tagore
adds: 'he is nevermore hidden'. The philosopher Shankara comments on
this: 'When humanity understands that all creatures feel the same joy and
pain as ourselves, we will harm no creature.' The association with
nonviolence is immediate.
But pain rather than joy furnishes the most urgent experience of
oneness. This is expressed clearly in the opening words of Peter Wessel
Zapffe's 'The Last Messiah' (see Reed and Rothenberg (1987)):
One night, irretrievable ages ago, Man awoke and sa w himself. . .when
the animals came to their waterholes, where he awaited them as was his
custom, he no longer felt the urge to pounce, but a great psalm on the
brotherhood of suffering amidst all which lives.
According to philosophies of oneness, the path goes first inwards only
to lead out again to everything. The path of action {karmamdrga) leads an
action-yogi (karmayogi) into contact with all creatures, whether or not
they can feel pain. This is the path followed by Gandhi.
The great Western emphasis upon the subjugation of nature goes
against this insight of unity. This tendency is manifest even among the
able leaders of global health programs of this century. Karl Evang said:
We Homo sapiens live in a hostile nature which consists of bacteria and
viruses. . . . Nature is still our principal enemy. Nature would, if we
unleashed her, destroy us in no time at all. Culture stands between man
and nature, and it provides organisation to protect us.
One could perhaps say that the culture which encircles us like a buffer
between man and nature will 'destroy us in no time at all' if it is allowed to
ride freely in the industrialised countries. The world's health organisa-
tions are perhaps in need of an ideology influenced to a greater extent by
the health evidenced in nature.
Community with the animals in the extremer forms of the philosophy
of oneness rests upon deep identification manifesting itself through the
experience of equal worth, equal rights. It is not authoritarian like the
cryptic Brother Wolf who humbly obeyed Francis of Assisi, repented,
and thereafter led a better life. Gandhi did not imagine wolves or lions
Nonviolence and the philosophy of oneness 195
who became 'kind' and did no wrong. The ecological viewpoint presup-
poses acceptance of the fact that big fish eat small, but not necessarily that
large men throttle small.
The philosophy of oneness' is a name which can be misleading: it can
give the impression that one who honestly and fairly accepts such a
philosophy has thereby succeeded and behaved consistently and unprob-
lematically in a certain way and maintained a certain frame of mind
towards our fellow creatures. In that case, the 'philosophy of oneness'
would be the name of a total system with obvious consequences in every
kind of situation - otherwise one would be abdicating one's freedom as a
person. But history is full of examples in which abstract fundamentals and
an impressive number of admirable derived norms have been accepted,
while they have not been reflected in practice; the path of derivation
through norms and hypotheses is too long to be mastered and our ability
to act spontaneously is too great!
The theoretical starting points of the philosophy of the one and the
many cannot replace the concrete time- and situation-determined deliber-
ations which must be made in a choice of appropriate political action. An
egalitarian norm is not misleading, but only a guideline, if one wishes to
consider political decisions in the widest possible perspective. This can
and must be done without a review of philosophy before each choice and
action. The ecopolitical situation is such that one must elicit support from
experts of many professions, while on the other hand efforts must be
made to assimilate their insights into a whole which not only is interdiscip-
linary, but also comprises the articulation of profound basic attitudes.
In the terminology of Ecosophy T the capital S in 'Self-realisation'
carries a heavy burden. It insinuates a philosophy of oneness as does
chapter 6, verse 29 of the Gita. But of course the difference in content is
vast, Ecosophy T as a total view belonging to a vastly different cultural
tradition. The S insinuates that if the widening and deepening of the self
goes on ad infinitum the selves will realise themselves by realising the
same, whatever this is. Because the infinite level of Self-realisation only
makes sense metaphysically, the capital S should be used sparingly. At
any level of realisation of potentials, the individual egos remain separate.
They do not dissolve like individual drops in the ocean. Our care
continues ultimately to concern the individuals, not any collectivity. But
the individual is not, and will not be isolatable, whatever exists has a
gestalt character.
Speaking about human individuals, it is in our competitive society
unavoidable to ask: Who have in historical times been pre-eminent in
approaching Self-realisation? There can be no good answer, because in
written history such pre-eminence does not count: there must be regis-
tered influence on a great scale. And the extraordinary level must be
manifest, which is perhaps never the case. What about Gandhi? After all,
he was under close, in part very critical, scrutiny for half a century. Yes,
a genius of nonviolence, but also a fierce fighter, a cunning politician.
Talking about pre-eminence in approaching Self-realisation I suspect
more anonymous persons have reached higher. The manner of posing the
question may however reveal a rather provincial western way of thinking.
8 The systematisation of the logically ultimate norms

and hypotheses of Ecosophy T
(a) The idea of models of logical relations
The complete formulation of an ecosophy is out of the question:
the complexity andflexibilityof such a living structure make that impossi-
ble, perhaps even meaningless. There may also be logical reasons for the
impossibility of the formulating of a total view: it would be like a gestalt
without a background, an absurdity. One may, however, simulate such a
system. One may make a model of parts of it, isolating certain patterns
and aspects of it for close scrutiny, implicitly pretending that the rest
somehow exists in the realm of pure thought.
In what follows I shall work out such a model as a conclusion to this
book. It expresses the vision of an ecosophy in the form of a pyramid or
tree.
The direction from top to bottom, from theory to praxis, is one of
logical, not genetic or historical, derivation. It is not a ranking order. It
does not indicate value priorities. At the top levels there are a small
number of general and abstract formulations, at the bottom singular and
concrete ones, adapted to special situations, communities, time intervals,
and actions.
The direction from the bottom up offers the genetic and historical
derivation - including all the motivations and impulses resulting in
formulations of norms and hypotheses.
What is modelled is a moving, ever-changing phenomenon: norms and
hypotheses being derived more or less logically, applied in praxis, and the
outcome motivating changes. The tree can be arranged to form a triangle
or parallelogram with a wide horizontal base line and a narrow top line.
The difference in breadth expresses the fact that from the abstract and
general norms and hypotheses indefinitely many more specialised norms
and hypotheses follow giving rise to indefinitely many decisions in
concrete situations.
If we decide to reject a low-level norm, this implies that we will have to
Systematisation ofEcosophy T 197
modify some hypotheses or norms at higher levels. The whole upper

pyramid gets to be shaky. However, a rejection tends, in practice, to
cause only slight modification, or simply the adoption of-a somewhat
different precisation of a higher norm or hypothesis formulation.
A sentence like 'Seek Self-realisation!' will within social science tend to
be interpreted as a sentence in the imperative mood, and from a social
point of view it is pertinent to ask: who are the 'senders' and who are the
'receivers'? Not necessarily so in T0-expositions of models of normative
systems. The question of how to understand the function of a one-word
sentence like 'Self-realisation!' is a large and deep one which I am not
going to attack. Let it suffice to say that there are examples of the use of
the exclamation mark with a sender, but no definite receiver. When
terrible things happen, like the collapsing of a bridge, or the loss of one's
keys down a drain, we may meaningfully say 'No!', but at least some of us
have in such cases no definite receiver group in mind. The function of the
sentence is clear enough without. An archetype of this function appears
in the Bible when God says 'Let there be light!' To ask who are the
intended receivers of the exclamation is in this case rather intriguing if we
suppose there is not yet anything created. But to ask the question is itself
questionable.
In short I find it to be my duty to point out that there are questions
concerning the function of norm-sentences in the exposition at hand
which one should acknowledge but not necessarily engage in 'solving'.
What follows is only one particular exposition of Ecosophy T. Other
versions may be cognitively equivalent, expressing the same concrete
content in a different abstract structure.
(b) Formulation of the most basic norms and hypotheses

Nl: Self-realisation!
HI: The higher the Self-realisation attained by anyone, the broader
and deeper the identification with others.
H2: The higher the level of Self-realisation attained by anyone, the
more its further increase depends upon the Self-realisation of
others.
H3: Complete Self-realisation of anyone depends on that of all.
N2: Self-realisation for all living beings!
Comments:
The four formulations Nl, HI, H2, and H3 make up thefirstlevel of the
survey. Nl and HI are ultimates in the sense of not being derivable from
the others within the chosen version of the logical systematisation of
Ecosophy T. H2, H3 and N2 are supposed to be logically derivable from
the ultimates. Formal rigour would of course require us to add some

premises which would be of greater interest to the logician than to the
ecosopher. (For instance: if A identifies with B, and both are beings such
that it is a meaningful to talk about their higher Self-realisation levels,
complete Self-realisation of A requires complete Self-realisation of B.
Our consolation: the formal logical derivation of the theorems of the first
part of Spinoza's Ethics seems to require about 160 additional premises -
but with them at hand consistency is achieved.)
All norm- and hypothesis-formulations are T0-formulations, that is, at
the most primitive level from the point of view of preciseness.
The decrease of egocentricity is inevitably linked to an increase of
identification and care for others. Which 'others'? One good answer is to
draw circles of interest and care, corresponding to stages of develop-
ment: family, clan, tribe, humanity. But obviously animals, especially the
tamed or domestic, often enjoy interest, care, and respect (at times status
of divinity) before humanity at large. The series of circles will differ in
different cultures. In any case higher levels of realisation of potentials of
the self favour the Self-realisation of others.
Considering the widening scope of identification as internally related to
increased Self-realisation, this increase depends on the Self-realisation of
others. This gives us HI. It implies that 'the others' do not lose their
individuality. Here we stumble upon the old metaphysical set of problems
of 'unity in diversity'. When the human being A identifies with B, and the
wider self of A comes to comprise B, B is not supposed to reject the
individuality of B. Thus, if B and A are persons, the self of A comprises
that of B and vice versa.
The importance of HI for the whole conceptual development of
Ecosophy T stems from the way those who think it is a tenable hypothesis
- those who feel at home with it - are apt to view nature and what is going
on in nature. They see a lonely, desperately hungry wolf attacking an elk,
wounding it mortally but being incapable of killing it. The elk dies after
protracted, severe pains, while the wolf dies slowly of hunger. Impossible
not to identify with and somehow feel the pains of both! But the nature of
the conditions of life at least in our time are such that nothing can be done
about the 'cruel' fate of both. The general situation elicits sorrow and the
search for means to interfere with natural processes on behalf of any being
in a state of panic and desperation, protracted pain, severe suppression or
abject slavery. But this attitude implies that we deplore much that
actually goes on in nature, that we deplore much that seems essential to
life on Earth. In short, the assertion of HI reflects an attitude opposed to
Systematisation ofEcosophy T 199
any unconditional Verherrlichung of life, and therefore of nature in

general.
For H3, a somewhat more precise formulation would be 'Complete
Self-realisation of anyone depends on that of all beings which in principle
are capable of Self-realisation.' For the sake of brevity in the survey these
beings are in what follows called 'living beings'. We define 'living beings'
in this way.
The fact that N2 is derivable from Nl through the aforementioned
hypotheses does not automatically make it into a purely instrumental
norm in Ecosophy T. It is only instrumental in relation to Nl. A norm is
purely instrumental only if its definition excludes it from being non-instru-
mental in any single relation. Example: it may pay in the long run to be
honest, but this does not exclude the possibility that honesty can be a valid
non-instrumental norm, independent of profits.
Saying unconditionally yes to Nl implies a yes to the question whether
Self-realisation is something and something of value. Since there is
nothing which could make Self-realisation a purely instrumental norm,
the yes is announcing its intrinsic value. Saying yes to N2 implies the
intrinsic valuation of all living beings. From these two norms, and norms
derived from them (plus hypotheses) the proposed formulations of the
platform of the deep ecological movement are derivable (see chapter 1,
§5). In a common philosophical terminology, the platform is expressing
an axiology whereas Ecosophy T expresses a deontology. The latter
classification is suspicious, however, because the exclamation mark of Nl
does not imply that what is expressed is a communication to somebody.
Nl rather expresses an ontology than deontology. It is, however, not the
aim of this chapter to go far into professional philosophy.
(c) Norms and hypotheses originating in ecology

H4: Diversity of life increases Self-realisation potentials.
N3: Diversity of life!
H5: Complexity of life increases Self-realisation potentials.
N4: Complexity!
H6: Life resources of the Earth are limited.
H7: Symbiosis maximises Self-realisation potentials under conditions
of limited resources.
N5: Symbiosis!
Comments:
These seven formulations make up the second part of the survey.
Whereas the first level is squarely metaphysical, the second level is
biologically coloured, but still metaphysical because of the use of capital

S in 'Self-realisation'. More precise formulations would refer to general
ecology and conservation biology rather than human ecology.
H4 introduces the central term of 'Self-realisationpotential. In psycho-
logy and sociology there is much discussion of the potentials, poten-
tialities, or possibilities which an individual, group, or institution has in
life, including the life of nations. There is within ethics talk about talents
and capacities and how to develop them. The term 'Self-realisation' is a
kind of generalisation of this, except that, in using the capital letter S,
certain norms are proclaimed which narrow down the range of what
constitutes an increase of Self-realisation.
H4 has a metaphysical background. Life is viewed as a kind of vast
whole. The variety of forms of life, with their different capacities, realise,
that is, bring into actuality, something which adds to that whole. They
realise the Self-realisation potentials. Each individual contains inde-
finitely many of these, not only one. An increase in qualitative diversity
of life forms increases the possibility of potentials. From H4 and Nl
therefore follows N3.
(d) The meaning of diversity, complexity, and symbiosis

in the context of Self-realisation
'Self-realisation!' with a capital S is a norm formulation inspired
by the part of philosophy traditionally called metaphysics. The terms
diversity, complexity, and symbiosis are all borrowed from ecology.
There is a resulting kind of terminological tension between the first two
levels of the survey, as well as a general tension between 'the one and the
many'.
The conceptual bridge from Self-realisation to a positive evaluation of
diversity, complexity, and symbiosis is furnished by a concept of Self-
realisation potentials, and the idea that the overall Self-realisation in our
world is increased by the realisation of such potentials. (The realisation is
analogous to negative entropy.) No single being can completely realise
the goal. The plural of potentials is crucial: it introduces plurality into
unity. The intuition pushing us towards the 'Self does not immediately
acknowledge this.
A closely related idea is that of microcosm mirroring macrocosm, an
idea especially potent during the Renaissance and now partly revived in
hologram thinking. Each flower, each natural entity with the character of
a whole (a gestalt) somehow mirrors or expresses the supreme whole. I
say 'somehow' because I do not know of any good analysis of what is
called mirroring here. The microcosm is not apart from the whole; the
Systematisation of Ecosophy T 201
relation is not like that between a big elephant and a small mouse.
Microcosm is essential for the existence of macrocosm. Spinoza was
influenced by the idea when demanding an immanent God, not a God
apart. The door is open for positive evaluation of an increase of the
realisation of potentialities, that is, of the possibility that more poten-
tialities will be realised. This is meant to imply continued evolution at all
levels, including protozoans, landscapes, and human cultures.
The realisations should be qualitatively different. Numerical abundance
as such does not count. One way of emphasising this distinction is to
distinguish diversity from (mere) plurality. The term 'diversity' is well
established in biology, mostly used in talking about diversity of species or
of other qualitatively different living beings.
Further elaboration of the conception of diversity and the introduction
of the concepts of complexity and symbiosis clearly require the support of
hypotheses about the kind of universe we live in. Such support was,
strictly speaking, necessary even when starting to talk about Self-realisa-
tion, but only now is explicit mention of such support clearly needed. The
universe which we shall limit ourselves to mentioning is our planet, the
Earth, which we may also call 'Gaia' to emphasise its status as a living
being in the widest sense.
I make a lot of implicit assumptions about the life conditions of Earth,
especially its limitations. Any total view requires that.
Diversity may be defined so as to be only a necessary condition of the
growth of realising of Self-realisation potentialities. Then 'maximum
diversity!' does not make sense, because many differences may not
involve Self-realisation and may be inconsistent with symbiosis. Better to
imply qualitative difference as mentioned above to introduce concepts of
difference which distinguish it from mere plurality. The ambivalence of
plurality stems from finiteness - not only of our planet as a whole.
However, the adjective 'maximum' is added to some expressions of
Ecosophy T when diversity is introduced. The intention is to proclaim
that there is no inherent limit to the positive character of growth of
diversity. It is not intended that an increase is good even if it reduces the
conditions for realising other norms. If the adjective 'maximum' is to be
retained, it must, at a more precise (Tj) level, be taken as an abbreviation
for 'maximum, without hindering the realisation of other norms in the
system'. The presence of a norm of 'symbiosis!' in the system should
re-emphasise this - it knits the bond between complexity and diversity.
Now let us turn to complexity.
If we are permitted to vary three factors a,b,c in spatial horizontal
arrangements, we can only realise six different patterns: abc, acb, bac,
bca, cab, cba. If we add one more basic factor, d, the number of
arrangements increases to 'four factorial', 24. This illustrates the intimate
relation between complexity and diversity. When the number of elements
increases linearly, the number of possible relationships increases facto-
rially.
Let us then think that abc is a pattern of life, conceived as a kind of
organismic or personal life. The pattern is characterised by three main
functions or dimensions, a, b, c working together as a highly integrated
system abc. Let the other five arrangements of a, b, and c symbolise five
other systems with the same number of dimensions.
The principle of self-preservation now may be said to consist minimally
in an internal mechanism such that the system defends itself against
reduction to 2-, 1-, or zero-dimensional ones, and also against transitions
to systems symbolised through the other five patterns, and tends posi-
tively to develop into systems with more dimensions, thus more diversity
and more complexity.
Complexity as opposed to complication is in Ecosophy T a quality of
organisms and their relation to their environment. It is characterised by
intimate interrelations, deep interdependence of a manifold of factors or
elements. After death a rhinoceros as a breathing entity is no more, but it
remains a tremendously complicated part of nature inhabited and invaded
by millions of other, less complex organisms. A human victim of African
sleeping sickness manifests the intimate interrelations between a human
individual and colonies of the flagellate Trypanosoma gambiensis. Each
of the flagellates has an unfathomable complexity of structure, but we
recognise the human being as a still higher order of complexity.
If complexity is defined in the biological direction of the opposite of
simplicity, 'maximum complexity!' cannot support Self-realisation. Only
if, as in the case of 'diversity!', some restraining clause is inserted, could
maximising make sense.
Since the great time of the reptiles limbs much more complex than the
human hand have developed. The simplicity of the human hand is from
this point of view a combined victory of simplicity and effectiveness over
complexity. There should be no cult of complexity.
In biological texts coloured by the conception of lower and higher
animals, the term complexity nearly always is used in descriptions of
advantageous cases of increases in complexity. 'Higher' functions are
made possible through certain more complex differentiations of tissues.
Eyes are developed from an earlier homogenous surface of skin. Less is
said about unsuccessful increase of complexity, presumably because only
species of great stability through millions of years have left fossils for us to
study. I think it is most fruitful to use the term complexity as a rather

general term covering also cases of no obvious advantage of any kind.
A simple biological example of increasing complexity of 'advanced'
forms: the least complex type of sponge is similar to a sac. At one end
there is an opening through which water and waste are thrown out.
Through small openings in the walls water is drawn in. More complex
forms have folded walls so that their surface is greater compared to the
volume of the sac. This is thought to be an advance because it is a plus to
have more surface cells compared to the number of other cells. A higher
level of complexity is reached when special structures secure that waste is
thrown out further away so that the sponge does not risk inhaling some of
the waste again and again. On the whole zoologists are sure that increases
of complexity have functions that could not be realised without those
increases. There is no positive value to be attached to complexity as such,
for instance walls of unequal thickness satisfying a certain rhythm, but of
neither positive nor negative value for any discernible function of the
organism.
In a diabolic world, evolution might have proceeded in many ways as in
ours, except that parasitism might have made every being capable of
conscious pain, suffering from birth to death. The increase of the amount
and the intimacy of interrelations and interdependencies might, in the
hypothetical world of diabolic parasitism, have resulted in a hellish level
of intensity of suffering. Therefore complexity of organisms as such and
complexity of interdependencies cannot in Ecosophy T be good in
themselves.
From the point of view of biology, complexity comprises behaviour and
gestalt processes whereby increasing complexity of consciously experi-
enced wholes can be realised. But also here mere complexity as such
cannot yield an increase of Self-realisation. The concept of symbiosis -
life together - enters the framework. The existence of interdependencies
in which all partners in a relationship are enriched furnishes a crucial idea
in addition to diversity and complexity.
Proceeding from non-human to human ecology, the symbiosis idea
may be illustrated in relation to various ways of realising a caste sytem.
When Gandhi sometimes spoke positively about a caste system, he had an
ideal system in mind. Parents were to instruct children and work together
with them as they grew up. No schools. The useful occupation of each
family would be interrelated with and interdependent with families
specialising in other kinds of services in the total community. Interaction
between castes of this kind was to be encouraged, not prohibited. The
status of each in the sense of dignity, respect, material standard of living,
should be the same - an egalitarianism among castes, an illustration of

symbiosis between groups in a community. Gandhi detested the actual
state of affairs in the existing caste system in India. It certainly violated
the norm of symbiosis.
In any kind of community we know of, there have been conflict and
strife, in varying degrees. The norms of Ecosophy T are guidelines, and if
elaborated into a comprehensive system would have to include norms for
conflict solution. (See chapter 6 on Gandhian norms.) It is unrealistic to
foresee full termination of deep group conflicts or even to wish such
termination. The conditions of life on Earth are such that increase of
Self-realisation is dependent upon conflicts. What counts is the gradual
increase of the status and application of nonviolence in group conflicts.
The codification of Ecosophy T is an action within the context of a
conflict; it is my belief that many of the regrettable decisions in environ-
mental conflicts in Norway and other places are made in a state of
philosophical stupor. In that state people in power confuse narrow,
superficial goals with fundamental broad goals derived from fundamental
norms.
(e) Derivation of the norms of the local community

The next ecosophical principles to be incorporated are those of
self-sufficiency, decentralisation, and autonomy. These social principles
are first to be linked to their biological counterparts.
The maximum success of Self-realisation is realised through a certain
balance of interactions between organisms and environment. The stimuli
are not to be too erratic and not too monotonous. The organs of control
must not completely dominate influences from the outside nor get
overwhelmed. The limited possibilities of control make it, on the whole,
important to have a fairly high degree of control of the spatially (personal)
near environment, or the environment in which the basic needs are
satisfied. If a basic need is only met through a many-stage interaction with
remote areas, there are likely to be more forms of erratic obstacles, more
dangers of being cut out through processes of chance character.
Let this be illustrated with the life-space models of the kind gestalt
psychologist Kurt Lewin made use of (figure 7.1).
Let A represent a living being in a two-dimensional space having four
vital needs to satisfy. If the immediate environment furnishes, at least
normally, satisfaction of the four needs, A can limit itself to try to control
remote areas only if something unusual happens to the nearest. The
quadruple a} to a{ symbolises the four sources of need satisfaction.
If the sources are a?, a 3, a 5, a 7 and separated from A by interposed,

qualitatively different parts a} to a} of the environment, the organism is
vitally and normally dependent upon control of these parts and also of a^,
a4, a^, a|, the parts adjacent to the sources with another set of qualitatively
different properties.
The illustration shows how the requirement of control increases with
the remoteness of sources of satisfaction of needs - remoteness being
measured in terms of distances in life space, not in kilometres. Making the
supposition of limited means of control, the increase of remoteness
correlates with increase of dangers, of inadequacy of powers of self-pre-
servation and therefore with decrease of Self-realisation potentials. By
the degree of local self-sufficiency and autonomy we shall understand the
degree to which the living being has its sources of basic need satisfactions,
or more generally sources of Self-realisation, nearby in the life space and,
secondly, to what degree the organism has adequate control of this area
to satisfy its needs.
The above model has been introduced with single living beings, espe-
cially persons, as units of life. This is didactically sound as long as it has no
scientific pretensions. The same model is useful if taking collectives -
communities, neighbourhoods, societies, tribes - as units of life. But in
that case we clearly need a model illustrating the relations within the
collectives as well. Here we will not go into this.
By definition, single persons have less than maximum control over
decisions of centralised authority, possibilities of control approach zero.
The greater the manifold of persons and situations to be controlled, the
greater the number of levels needed. Further, the greater the number of
qualitatively different functions which are controlled, the more rapidly
Figure 7.1
A/K\ /'y'*\*\
<Nd A b> f > < a? < ai A aj > a£ )
\\cX/ \ \ /'
a
/
\ a6 \ aj f 4 /
v
\ ' /
will the control by single persons tend towards zero. Centralisation is here
intended to be defined through the above factors.
Using the reasoning suggested above, a set of hypotheses and norms
are proposed for Ecosophy T:
H8: Local self-sufficiency and cooperation favours increase of Self-
realisation.
H9: Local autonomy increases the chances of maintaining local self-
sufficiency.
H10: Centralisation decreases local self-sufficiency and autonomy.
N6: Local self-sufficiency and cooperation!
N7: Local autonomy!
N8: No centralisation!
Comments:
Doubt no. 1: Does not the realisation beyond a certain point of the
three norms N6, N7, and N8 interpreted individualistically lead to strange
conditions of life, in some ways similar to the famous terrifying 'state of
nature' in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes? Doubt no. 2: Do
the lessons of ecology really support the norms? Rejecting the indi-
vidualistic interpretation, we are therefore confronted with the difficult
task of making them more precise with the help of other justifications,
taking into account a serious concern of both individuals and collectives.
(f) Minimum conditions and justice:

classes; exploitation
Human beings have needs. Any global policy of ecological
harmony must distinguish the needs from mere wishes, that is to say from
wishes that do not directly relate to a need.
Biological are those needs which must be unconditionally satisfied in
order for an individual or species to survive. A minimum formula runs
'food, water, territory'. Then there are needs which are not necessary for
all species. Clothing and some kind of shelter are necessary for most
human groups, but not other species.
Further: we have needs necessary according to basic social organisa-
tions. We now approach needs which can only be separated from mere
wishes on the basis of a system of values. Most societies are class societies
in which the upper classes are said to need to live on a much higher
material standard than the lowest, in order to avoid degradation (a major
social calamity!). But are these wishes or needs?
The so-called basic needs, those necessary for survival are only made
fixed magnitudes through verbal magic. And 'survival' is a term of little
use if restricted to mere 'not dying'. Remember the final words of Chief
Seattle on the great change the White Man would bring to the land: 'the
end of living and the beginning of survival'.
The transition from the discussion of such ethically basic norms to more
political norms may be formulated in many ways. Here is one.
(1) The requirement of minimum conditions of Self-realisation should
have priority before others.
(2) This requirement implies that of minimum satisfaction of biologi-
cal, environmental, and social needs.
(3) Under present conditions many individuals and collectivities have
unsatisfied biological, environmental and social needs, whereas others
live in abundance.
(4) To the extent that it is objectively possible, resources now used for
keeping some at a considerably higher level than the minimum should be
relocated so as to maximally and permanently reduce the number of those
living at or below the minimum level.
One can say that the derivation of basic norms in Ecosophy T splits in
two different directions. The last level we have outlined presents the
norms and hypotheses of the local community, a characteristic ideal of
many Utopian systems. Now we are ready to follow an argument towards
politics to justify the norms and hypotheses against exploitation, as
developed through debates with the Marxists in Norway in the early
1970s.
Hll: Self-realisation requires realisation of all potentials.
H12: Exploitation reduces or eliminates potentials.
N9: No exploitation!
H13: Subjection reduces potentials.
N10: No subjection!
Nil: All have equal rights to Self-realisation!
H14: Class societies deny equal rights to Self-realisation!
N12: No class societies!
H15: Self-determination favours Self-realisation.
N13: Self-determination!
Comments:
The above formulations are put forth mainly to show that the funda-
mental norms of Self-realisation do not collide with norms of increasing
the reign of justice on Earth. On the contrary, the class differences inside
societies and between nations are clearly differences in conditions of
Self-realisation. Exploitation may be defined in terms of semi-permanent
or permanent reducing of the possibilities of some groups in favour of
others. Furthermore, calculations showing differences in the use of
energy and other resources support an ecological approach in the fight
against exploitation in class societies. The value of the model consists

partly in the derivation of a general political attitude or posture without
the use of certain terms such as 'communism', 'socialism', 'private
enterprise', and 'democracy' which elicit more or less automatic positive
or negative reactions.
(g) The overview of Ecosophy T in diagram form

All these formulations (Nl to N13, HI to H15) contain key terms
from social, political, and life philosophy. They do no more than suggest
how the systematisation of more precise norms and hypotheses could be
related. Nothing more is pretended. Figure 7.2 illustrates in schematic
form the logical derivations of these first four levels of Ecosophy T.
The slogan-like character of these formulations still deserves to be used
in environmental debate, but there is today clear awareness of their
limitations. In many cases local communities have fought sane ecological
policies and invited disastrous development. And rather strong central
authorities are required to implement the national and international
policies recommended by the World Conservation Strategy (1980).
The above way of depicting logical derivations within an ecosophy has
been greeted with an interest that is in part misplaced: what can be
obtained by the normative systematisation of the illustrated kind is very
modest, only a better survey of a few interconnections within a gigantic
unsurveyable whole. After all, a total view, a philosophy centred around
man-nature relations touches upon so many complex questions that the
explicit formulations can only comprise a small part, especially when the
formulations attain a decent level of preciseness and vague slogans are
shunned.
A person using partial systematisations of Ecosophy T will normally
find reasons (through increasing experience of life) to modify the formula-
tions. The T0-formulations can only act as guidelines, and modifications
will normally consist of changing accepted precisations of these formula-
tions. To find a formulation on the To level false, mistaken, or invalid is a
rather strange thing. It implies that one finds every plausible interpreta-
tion false, mistaken, or invalid.
Rejections in terms of falsehood or invalidity will occur on the levels of
more precise formulations - formulations of which the set of plausible
interpretations makes up a proper subset of the original formulation at
the To level.
The logical derivation diagram of a fragment of Ecosophy T cannot
easily be broadened to accommodate a whole ontology. Field or gestalt
Ecosophy T 209
Figure 7.2
N10 N12 N13

thinking goes against the status of the distinction man-environment as it

is met in most environmental thinking. Here Ecosophy T joins contem-
porary non-cartesian philosophical trends. Looking towards the next
century, the shock-waves of ecology will reach so far and penetrate so
much that the flora of eco-terminology may seem redundant. The
ecosophies will, I suppose, be absorbed in the general traditions of
philosophy of nature (Naturphilosophie). In all this I may be wrong, but
the signs of change through internalisation are already present.
9 The future of the deep ecological movement

The international, long-range ecological movement began
roughly with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, over twenty years ago. By
1975, many books had come out and been read by a large audience. The
Norwegian edition of Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle had come out
infiveeditions. There was great public concern for our environment. But
let us examine what has happened over the past twelve years.
In 1975 there was a firm belief in many industrialised countries that a
change in personal lifestyle might be necessary. It was on the whole quite
clear what an ecologically responsible lifestyle would entail: anti-con-
sumerism in general, with stress on low energy consumption, active
support of 'self-made is well made', bicycling, collective transport,
friluftsliv, family planning, participation in biodynamic agriculture, etc.
But along a whole range of issues, defeats were many and depressing:
more and more people were pressed into using private cars, the simplest
and ecologically most irresponsible form of transportation. And argu-
ments such as that stressing the small effect of low private use of energy
compared to the effect of continued political support of energy-demand-
ing industry undermined motivation. By 1980 it was not 'in' anymore to
be 'ecologically minded'. Reading of ecology as a part of general educa-
tion stopped practically completely. Worse: many people had the feeling
that they nevertheless knew what it was all about, and did not want to hear
any more distressing stories.
What will happen in the next twelve years in the realm of 'ecological'
lifestyle? One positive factor is the increasing public awareness of the
difference between standard of living and quality of life. A second factor:
it is increasingly accepted that a large percentage of costly illnesses are
caused by a harmful lifestyle. Many would disappear if we lived in an
ecologically responsible manner.
Concluding that our individual lifestyle is important requires premises
of a general ethical and social kind. Therefore speaking of an 'ecological
The future of the deep ecological movement 211
lifestyle' is a tenet of the deep rather than the shallow ecological move-
ment. Between 1975 and 1987 the deep ecological movement has gained
formidably in strength, and the outlook is optimistic for further
strengthening. But forces opposing the implementation of deep ecology
policies have gained even more in strength, and the outlook here is also
one of continuation.
One per cent increase in Gross National Product today inflicts far
greater destruction of nature than one per cent 10 or 20 years ago because
it is one per cent of a far larger product. And the old rough equivalency of
GNP with 'Gross National Pollution' still holds. And the efforts to
increase GNP create more formidable pressures against ecological
policies every year.
So significant deterioration of ecological conditions may well colour the
next years in spite of the deepening of ecological consciousness. The
situation has to get worse before it gets better.
The general attitude among politicians has been that if a major type of
interference in the ecosystem cannot be proven to be bad then it is justifi-
able to continue with business as usual. But the concern on acid rain has
increased slowly and steadily over the past decade. The warnings of one
government to another not to 'export' acid rain have been until recently
rather polite. It is to be expected that the tone will be harsher and that the
suffering involuntary 'importers', such as the Scandinavian countries,
will do more to stop their own serious sources of pollution in order to give
their complaints greater weight. The outlook is dark, however, especially
in regard to the export of acid rain from Eastern Europe. From the point
of view of the deep ecology movement, acid rain has had the positive
effect of helping people understand more clearly that to conserve forests
and fisheries one has to conserve worlds of micro-organisms, soils, and
systems of life which most people never noticed or cared for before.
Much broader ranges of identification and wonder have been opened!
Continued deterioration of life conditions may strengthen and deepen
the urge to stop acid rain production to the extent that radical political
measures will be taken against the offenders. Major changes in economic,
political, and ideological structures may then at last begin to unfold.
Supporters of the deep ecological movement constitute a small minor-
ity, quite badly organised compared to established pressure groups. They
are (sometimes for good reasons) reluctant to organise in large units. But
there are lessons to be learned. Big demonstrations and other forms of
large-scale, nonviolent direct action seem to work when what we try to
communicate, and the way the action is done, come as a kind of surprise
to the general public and cause people to stop and reflect for a moment -
an increasingly difficult job, because of an increasing sense of repetition.
The years to come may see a greater emphasis on direct action directed
to crucially important groups, such as politicians and heads of anti-ecolog-
ical institutions. Other important groups to reach: teachers, experts,
scientists, specialists in mass communication. Study of mass communica-
tion and cooperation with masters of that trade has been used to advan-
tage by environmental groups such as Greenpeace.
The late 1970s saw cooperation between the peace movement and deep
ecology. No calamity could be worse from the latter point of view than
nuclear war. The arms race today supports the detrimental 'big is
beautiful' trend and involves the misuse of millions of mammals in
experiments with weapons, radioactivity and poisons.
Moving from the rich industrial portions of the world to the poorer
majority, we find that the same type of destruction of natural systems
which occurred hundreds of years ago in Europe and North America is
now under way in the rest of the world, particularly Africa. But there is a
major difference: in the former regions the process of destruction has
been concomitant with a vast increase of wealth and standard of living,
whereas in the latter this is far from the case. Thus, even the potential
forces of wide- and long-range, responsible ecological policy are absent.
Aid from the rich is essential, but it can so easily be misused that
extreme care and dedicated cooperation between institutions in both
regions of the world must be at its foundation. It is important to note that
the traditional cultural beliefs and practices of much of the world are
favourable to the norms of the deep ecological movement.
The deep ecology demand for the establishment of large territories free
from human development has recently gained in acceptance. It is now
clear that the hundreds of millions of years of evolution of mammals and
especially of large, territory-demanding animals will come to a halt if large
areas of wilderness are not established and protected. Wild areas previ-
ously classified as 'voids' are now realised to be of vital importance and
intrinsic value. This is an example of the kind of consciousness change
that strengthens deep ecology. It must continue.
These guesses about the future of the deep ecological movement are
inevitably influenced by hopes and fears. It is my hope that beings
endowed with a brain like ours, developed through hundreds of millions
of years in close interaction with all kinds of life will inevitably support a
way of life not only narrowly favourable to this species, but favourable to
the whole ecosphere in all its diversity and complexity. A uniquely
endowed part of this ecosphere will not turn into its eternal enemy.
Bibliography
Alnaes, Finn (1969) Gemini Oslo: Gyldendal

Bahro, Rudolf (1986) Building the Green Movement London: Heretic Books
Barney, Gerald, ed. (1980) Global 2000 Report to the President Oxford:
Pergamon Press
Bergson, Henri (1907) Uevolution creatrice, Paris: F. Alcan
Bohm, David (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul
Breivik, Gunnar, ed. (1978) Friluftsliv: Fra Fritjof Nansen til vdre dager
[Friluftsliv: from Fritjof Nansen to our time] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Bubolz, Margaret M. (1980) 'A human ecological approach to quality of life'
Social Indicators Research 7 103-36
Callicott, J. Baird (1982) 'Hume's is - ought dichotomy and the relationship of
ecology to Leopold's land ethic' Environmental Ethics 4 163-73
Capra, Fritjof (1982) The Turning Point New York: Simon & Schuster
Capra, Fritjof and Charlene Spretnak (1984) Green Politics New York: Simon &
Schuster
Chamberlain, Kerry (1985) 'Value dimensions, cultural differences, and the
prediction of perceived quality of life' Social Indicators Research 17 345-401
Dammann, Erik (1979) The Future in Our Hands Oxford: Pergamon Press
Darling, Frank Fraser (1965) The Future Environment of America Garden City,
NY: Natural History Press
Devall, Bill and George Sessions (1985) Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books
Duncan, Otis Dudley (1975) 'Does money buy satisfaction?' Social Indicators
Research 2 261-1A
Dunlop, R. E. and K. D. van Liere (1984) 'Commitment to the dominant social
paradigm and concern for environmental quality' Social Science Quarterly
1013-27
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. (1970) Population, Resources, and Environment
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
Elgin, Duane (1981) Voluntary Simplicity New York: Morrow
Evernden, Neil (1985) The Natural Alien University of Toronto Press
Faarlund, Nils (1983) 'Om verdigrunnlaget, friluftsliv og idrett' [On the setting of
values in outdoor life and sport] manuscript
Farvar, M. Tagi and John Milton, eds. (1972) The Careless Technology Garden
City, NY: Natural History Press
214 Bibliography
Fedorenko, Nikolai (1972) 'Optimal functioning of the Soviet economy' Social

Sciences Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences
Fox, Warwick (1986) Approaching Deep Ecology: a Response to Richard Sylvan's
Critique Hobart: University of Tasmania, Centre for Environmental Studies
Galbraith, John Kenneth (1973) Economics and the Public Purpose Boston,
Mass.: Hough ton Mifflin
Galtung, Johan (1973)' "The limits to growth" and class politics' Journal of Peace
Research X/l-2
Galtung, Johan (1978) 'Alpha and beta structures in development alternatives'
Collected Papers ofJohan Galtung Oslo: International Peace Research Institute
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1971) The Entropy Law and the Economic Process
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Gilpin, Michael E. and Michael E. Soule (1986) 'Minimum viable populations:
processes of species extinction' Conservation Biology Sunderland, Mass.:
Sinauer Associates
Glacken, Clarence (1967) Traces on the Rhodian Shore Berkeley: University of
California Press
Goldsmith, Edward, ed. (1972) Blueprint for SwrviWHarmondsworth, Middx:
Penguin Books
Gullvag, Ingemund (1983) 'Depth of Intention' Inquiry 26 31-83
Gullvag, Ingemund and Jon Wetlesen, eds. (1982) In Sceptical Wonder: Inquiries
into the Philosophy of Arne Naess on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget
Hallen, Patsy (1986) Making Peace with the Environment: Why Ecology Needs
Feminism School of Social Inquiry, Murdoch University, Western Australia
Henderson, Hazel (1981) The Politics of the Solar Age: Alternatives to Economics
New York: Anchor Press
Hervik, Arildetal. (1986) 'Betalingsvillighet for vern av vassdrag' [Willingness to
pay for conservation of watersheds] Sosial0konomen 40 No. I
Holte, Fritz (1975) Sosial0konomi [Economics] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Jansson, Ann-Mari (1984) Integration of Economy and Ecology, Proceedings
from Wallenberg Symposia
Klee, Paul (1961) The Thinking Eye London: Lund-Humphrey
Kohak, Erazim (1984) The Embers and the Stars University of Chicago Press
Komarov, Boris (1980) The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union White
Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe
Kropotkin, P. (1902) Mutual Aid London: Heinemann
Kval0y, Sigmund (1974) 'Ecophilosophy and ecopolitics: thinking and acting in
response to the threats of ecocatastrophe' North American Review
LaChapelle, Dolores (1978) Earth Wisdom Los Angeles: Guild of Tutors Press
L'Orange, H. P. (1953) 'Fra legeme til symbol' [From body to symbol] Spektrum
No. 5, Oslo
Lorenz, Konrad (1959) 'Gestaltwahrehmung als Quelle wissenschaftlicher
Erkenntnis' Zeitschriftfiir experimented und angewandte Psychologie 6118-65
Lovelock, James (1979) Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth Oxford University
Press
Marsh, George P. (1864) Man and Nature New York: Scribner & Sons
Meadows, Donella H. and Dennis L., J0rgen Randers and W. W. Behrens
(1972) The Limits to Growth Boston, Mass.: MIT Press
Meadows, Donella H. (1982) Groping in the Dark: the First Decade of Global
Modelling New York: Scribner & Sons
Meeker, Joseph W. (1972) The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology
New York: Scribner & Sons
Bibliography 215
Milbrath, Lester (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society Albany:

State University of New York Press
Miller, G. Tyler (1972) Replenish the Earth: a Primer in Human Ecology
Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth
Miller, G. Tyler (1975) Living in the Environment Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth
Mishan, E. J. (1967) The Cost of Economic Growth New York: Praeger
Modell, Walther (1973) 'Drugs for the future' Clinical Pharmacology and
Therapeutics 14, No. 2
Miiller-Markus, S. (1966) 'Niels Bohr in the darkness and light of Soviet
philosophy' Inquiry 9
Naess, Arne (1939) Truth as Conceived by Those who are not Professional
Philosophers Oslo: Jacob Dybwad
Naess, Arne (1964) 'Reflections about total views' Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 25 16-29
Naess, Arne (1966) Communication and Argument Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Naess, Arne (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movements'
Inquiry 16 95-100
Naess, Arne (1974) Gandhi and Group Conflict Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Naess, Arne (1975) Freedom, Emotion and Self-subsistence: the Structure of a
Central Part of Spinoza s Ethics Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Naess, Arne (1984a) 'A defense of the deep ecology movement' Environmental
Ethics 6 265-70
Naess, Arne (1984b) 'Deep ecology and lifestyle' The Paradox of
Environmentalism, ed. Neil Evernden, Toronto: York University, Faculty of
Environmental Studies
Naess, Arne (1985a) The world of concrete contents' Inquiry 28 417-28
Naess, Arne and George Sessions (1985b) 'Platform of deep ecology' Devall and
Sessions (1985) 69-73
Naess, Arne (1985c) 'Identification as a source of deep ecological attitudes Deep
Ecology ed. Michael Tobias, San Diego: Avant Books
Naess, Arne (1985d) 'Holdninger til mennesker, dyr, og planter' [Attitudes to
people, animals, and plants] Samtiden 94 68-76
Naess, Arne (1986a) 'Intrinsic value: will the defenders of nature please rise'
Conservation Biology ed. Michael Soule, Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer
Associates
Naess, Arne (1986b) 'Self-realization: an ecological approach to being in the
world' Keith Memorial Lecture, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Naess, Arne (1986c) 'Consequences of an absolute no to nuclear war' Nuclear
Weapons and the Future of Mankind ed. Cohen, Avner and Lee, Totowa, NJ:
Rowman and Allanheld
Naess, Arne (1987) The deep ecological movement: some philosophical aspects'
Philosophical Inquiry
NIBR (1974) 'Forventninger til rekreasjonsmilj0et i Oslomarka' [Changes in the
recreational environment of the Oslo Forest] Arbeidsrapport 10
O'Riordan, T. (1981) Environmentalism London: Pion
Passmore, John (1974) Man's Responsibility for Nature New York: Scribner &
Sons
Pepper, David (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism London: Croom
Helm
Perminov, A. D. (1970) Tempel eller verksted' [Temple or workplace] Ergo 54
Petrarch (1966) The ascent of Mount Ventoux' in Letters, tr. Morris Bishop,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press
216 Bibliography
Porritt, Jonathan (1984) Seeing Green: the Politics of Ecology Explained Oxford:
Blackwell
Pratt, Dallas (1980) Alternatives to Pain in Experiments on Animals, Argus
Archives
Reed, Peter and David Rothenberg, eds. (1987) Wisdom and the Open Air:
Selections from Norwegian Ecophilosophy Oslo: Council for Environmental
Studies
Rensch, Bernard (1971) Biophilosophy New York: Columbia University Press
Rolston, Holmes III (1985) 'Valuing wildlands' Environmental Ethics 7 23-48
Rothenberg, David (1987) 'A platform of deep ecology' The Environmentalist 1
No. 3,185-90
Schrader-Frechette, K. S. (1985) Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic
Methodology Dordrecht: Reidel Publishers
Schultz, Robert C. and J. D. Hughes, eds. (1981) Ecological Consciousness
Lanham, Md: University Press of America
Schumacher, E. F. (1973) Small is Beautiful - Economics as if People Mattered
New York: Harper Torchbooks
Schumacher, E. F. (1974) The Age of Plenty: A Christian View Edinburgh: Saint
Andrew Press
Sessions, George (1981) 'Shallow and deep ecology. A review of the
philosophical literature' Schultz and Hughes (1981)
Sessions, George (1987) 'Aldo Leopold and the deep ecology movement' A
Companion to a Sand County Almanac ed. B. Callicott, Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press
Simon, Julian, ed. (1984) The Resourceful Earth New York: Blackwell
Soule, Michael E. (1985) 'What is conservation biology?' BioScience 35 No. 11
727-34.
Soule, Michael E. (1986) 'Conservation biology and the real world' Conservation
Biology, ed. Michael Soule, Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates
Soule, Michael E. (1987) Viable Populations Cambridge University Press
Spinoza, Baruch (1949) Ethics New York: Hafner
van Liere, Kent D. and Riley E. Dunlap (1980) 'The social bases of
environmental concern' Public Opinion Quarterly 44 181-97.
Watson, Richard A. and Philip M. Smith (1970) Focus/MidwestMagazines40-2
Watson, Richard (1985) 'Challenging the underlying dogmas of
environmentalism' Whole Earth Review 5-13
Weiss, Paul (1971) 'The basic concept of hierarchical systems' Hierarchically
Organized Systems in Theory and Practice New York: Hafner
Wenstrup, Fred (1985) Arbeidsm0tet Norwegian School of Management, No. 4
Whitehead, A. N. (1972) Science and the Modern World Cambridge University
Press
Wilcox, Allen R. (1981) 'Basic needs, ethics, and quality of life' Applied Systems
and Cybernetics, ed. G. E. Lasker, Oxford: Pergamon Press
Winner, Langdon (1977) Autonomous Technology Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
World Conservation Strategy (1980) Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Zapffe, Peter Wessel (1941) Om det tragiske [On the tragic], Oslo
Index
absolutisms 69-70, 143 Bhagavad Gita, influence 194-5

abstractions 54 Bible, the, and attitudes to nature 183-9,
access, to nature 124-5, 177 192
acid rain 96, 211, see forests biology, conservation 26, 45-7, 200
action biophilosophy 51-2
beautiful 85-6 biorights, concept of 15
direct 1-2,17, 29, 34, 63-4, 89-90, biosophy 37
157, 161, 212 Blueprint for Survival (Edward
global 31,45 Goldsmith) 157
local 31 Bohm, David 79
moral 85-6 Bohr, Niels 55
4
nonviolent 146-50, 156, 212 both-and' theory 54-7, 190
priorities 31-2 Boulding, Kenneth 128
affirmations 67 boundary strategy 128
affluence, see standard of living Bryn, Steinar 90
agriculture 95, 141 Buber, Martin 174
alienation 171-3,183, 190 bureaucracy 133, 158-60
Alnaes, Finn 53-4
alternative movements 92
ambiguity 42-3 Caldwell, K. 41
Ammons, A. R. 4 Callenbach, Ernest 157
anarchism 156 Callicott, J. Baird, 2 In., 67
animism 172, 174-5 campaigns 147, 148-9, 160
anthropocentrism 28, 141, 177 capitalism 156, 157, 158, 160
anti-nuclear campaigns 160 Capra, Fritjof 74
Aquinas, St Thomas 189 Carson, Rache 1, Silent Spring 64, 165,
Aristotle 191-2 210
attitude, changes in 38, 68, 80, 128, 132, Chamberlain, Kerry 122
176 change
axioms 68-9 consequences of 92, 98
economic 24-6, 31, 88-91
see also politics, change in; social
Baker, Sir Samuel White 83 structures, change in
Barney, Gerald, Global 2000 Report to the Christianity, and attitudes to nature 183-
President 30 9
Beethoven, L. van, Sonate Path^tique Christie, Nils 159
57-8, 59-60 class systems 136, 137-8, 152, 173, 206-8
Bentham, Jeremy 73, 117 Club of Rome, Limits to Growth 151-3
Bergson, Henri 85, 166 comedy/tragedy 182-3
218 Index
communication diversity
importance 18, 136-7 cultural 31, 50, 98, 100-2, 123, 140,
inter-cultural 61 143, 155
see also precisations; relationalism of nature 4, 23-4, 29-30, 31, 34, 46-7,
Communication and Argument 21n. 85, 162, 169, 177, 199
communism 156 and plurality 201-2
communities of technologies 155
green 144-5 domination of nature, by man 171
local 115, 144-6, 183, 204-6 Dostoyevsky, F. M. 9, 11
competition, in sports 178-80 Duncan, Otis Dudley 122
complexity, ecological 46, 199, 200-3
conflict resolution 71, see also
environment, conflicts; norms, ecocatastrophe, threatened, see
conflict environment, crisis
conformity, pressures for 159 ecocentrism 15-16
consciousness, change in 89-91, 212 ecologism 39-40
effects 91-2 ecology
conservation, politicisation 132-3 definition 35-6
consumption limited knowledge of 26-7
as a basic norm 109 neglect of economics 105-6
changes in 91-2, 129, 162 scientific 3,24, 26, 27-8, 32, 39-40,41,
current patterns 23, 24-6, 31, 87, 44
89-91, 104 ecology movement, deep 4, 12, 27-9
andGNP 114 central themes 32-^1
contents, concrete 20, 35, 56-7, 60, 66-7 compared with environmental
control, see nature philosophies 14-20
costs, social 106-7, 115-16, 143, 157-8, critique of 17, 19, 132
see also shadow prices critique of technical reports 152-3
crisis, ecological, see environment, crisis future 210-13
cruelty in nature 181-2 and peace movement 160
platform 4, 28, 29-32, 38, 102, 199
specific cases 12-13
Dammann, Erik 88-90, 92, 157 system pyramid 13, 72-8
Darling, Frank Fraser 41 and value priorities 71-2
Debreu 119 ecology movement, shallow 14-20, 27-8,
decentralisation 115,204 33,39-40,96,151,211
need for 97, 98, 101-2, 142-3 and politics 136, 139, 162
decision-making 38, 79, 131-2, 193 Ecology Party, Britain 135
economic 106, 124-8 economics
political 135 and centralisation 145
defence, nonviolent 160 classical 33
demand, and needs 107, 116, 122, 171, definition 104-5
see also quality of life; standards of global/local 115
living neglect of 105-6, 110-11, 128
democracy 173, 175 pure 106-7
direct 144, 158 see also Gross National Product;
depth 12-14, see also ecology growth, economic; system,
movement, deep normative; welfare theory
derivation, logical 10, 37,42-4,74-5,77, ecophilosophy 3-4, 12, 14, 32
196, 197-8, 20&-10 definition 36-8
Descartes, Rene 39, 52, 191 ecopolitics, issues 135-8, see also
descriptions 41 politics, green; pollution;
phenomenological 50-1 population; resources
relational 48, 49-50, 54-6 ecosophy
subjective/objective 47-50, 69-70 definition 4, 32, 36-8, 45
Devall, Bill & Sessions, George 18, 135 as personal philosophy 5, 6, 33, 36-7,
differentiation, need for 97 41,80,88
distribution 112, 113, 116 see also lifestyle, ecosophical
Index 219
Ecosophy T 4-6, 34, 37-8, 39, 46, 55, exploitation 151, 152, 191, 207-8
163, 166, 174, 183 extinction 31, 46-7, 173, 185
key terms 7-14, see also depth;
derivation; environment; Faarlund, Nils 17&-9
identification; Self-realisation; facts, and values 24, 41, 60, 67, 6&-72,
value, intrinsic 73, 77, 188
norms and hypotheses 196-210 Falkenmark, Malin 21n.
see also gestalt Fechner 39,53
ecosystems fields, relational, see relationalism
balance 27 forests, devastation 87, 96, 100, 162, 211
interests of 4 formulations
needs 11 To 5-6,8,9,12,14,18-19,189,197-8,
Ecotopia (Ernest Callenbach) 157 20&-10
Eddington, Arthur Stanley 53 Tx 201
education 144, 159-60, 176, 179 Fox, Warwick 19
ego 173-5,195, 198 Fravar, M. Tagi & Milton, John 101
ego-realisation 84-5 Frege, Gottlob 39
Einstein, Albert 49 friluftsliv 126,178-81, 210
Elders, Fons 14 Frisch, Ragnar 105
elites, and control of technology 24, 93, Future in Our Hands, The, Norway 88-
94-5, 10O-1 90, 91, 137, 157
emotion 32, 63-5
in Ecosophy T 65-7 Gaia-hypothesis 138
empathy, need for 65, 172 Galbraith, John Kenneth 131
employment 116 Galileo Galilei 48, 52, 56-7
ends, richness of 33 Galtung, Johan 40, 98,152-3, 157
energy Gandhi, Mahatma 18, 71, 101-2, 146,
consciousness 92-3 148, 157, 194-6, 203-4
conservation 18,210 generalism
waste 93, 161 and local communities 145-6
environment in values 44-5
attitudes to 17 Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas 128, 139
conflicts 64, 125-6, 128-9, 131, 204; gestalt
direct action 146-50, see also apperceptive 60
nonviolence in Ecosophy T 6-7, 10, 11, 20, 52,
crisis, extent 23-4, 25-6, 27, 104 66-7, 79-80, 82-3, 163, 195
see also milieu; technology, and solution lower and higher order 57-63, 109
to crisis switch 8
environmentalism Glacken, C. J. 186
philosophies of 2, 14-20, 32, 45-6, 67, goals 12,33,44-5,71,8<M, 112,148-50,
87,92 204
values 4 economic 108-10
equality 174, 176, 183 political 153, 162
ethics 2, 8, 20, 23-4, 66-7, 181-2 see also Self-realisation, as ultimate goal
and economics 105, 107, 125-6 Goldsmith, Edward 157
ethology 170 good life, see quality of life
evaluation, normative 40-7, 64-5, see Greenpeace, methods 212
also values Gross National Product
evolution 46, 173, 182, 201 and consumption 114
creative 85, 166 critique of use 110-11, 129, 211
see also speciation growth as irrelevant 114-15
existentialism 83-4 ignoring 111-16
experience, spontaneous 7, 20, 32, 35, and needs/wants 113
172 reform 115-16
gestalts in 57-63 as welfare measure 112,112-13
and joy 1-2 growth, economic 17,26,31,91,96,108,
and reality 63-5, 65-6 133, 145, 179-80
see also intuition; relationalism critique of 110-11, 153
220 Index
growth, economic (continued) joy

and employment 116 intuition of 1,51,60-1, 86,93,170,183
zero level 114-15 as ultimate goal 82-3
see also Gross National Product
Kant, Immanuel 48, 75, 85, 174
habitats Kierkegaard, S0ren 1, 2
destruction 168 Klee, Paul, The Thinking Eye 60
maintenance 30 knowledge, as cognitive acts 63
happiness, as ultimate goal 82-4, 116 Komarov, Boris 158
hedonism 82,118 Kval0y, Sigmund 157
Heidegger, Martin 51
Henderson, Hazel 112 land use, policy 21 n.
Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf 75 legislation, environmental 26
Hobbes, Thomas 52-3,206 Le"vy-Bruhl, Lucien 61
Hofseth, Paul 124-5, 128 Lewin, Kurt 204-5
holism 79, see also gestalt life
HolterFritz 107-8, 110-11 as historical process 165-6
home, undervaluing of work in 114 as norm 7-8
Hume, David 67 right to 166-9, 170, 194
Husserl, Edmund 51 life quality research 122-3
hypotheses 41-4,46,74-80,86,109,122, life-space models 204-5
167, 188 lifestyle
ecological 199-200,201 ecosophical 88-92, 121, 131, 179, 183,
economic 121 210-11
see also Ecosophy T, norms and and technology 92-103
hypotheses limitations strategy 128
Limits to Growth (Club of Rome)
identification 10-11, 19, 61, 164, 179 151-3
and alienation 171-3 L'Orange, H. P. 189^-90
deep 85-6,194 Lovelock, James 138
see also Self-realisation, and loyalty 172, 193
identification
identity, and nature 2, 7, 11, 17, 170, man
181-2, 191 biblical view 183-7
identity principle 55-6 as inseparable from nature 2, 3, 17,
Ignatius of Loyola, St 188 20, 35-6, 56, 79, 163, 182
ignorance, consequences 26-7 as separate from nature 53
illegality, and direct action 146 as unique 169-71
immediate, the, importance 7, 20 market, as source of norms 87, 96, 103
India, technologies in 101-2 Marx, Karl 105
individual, role 89-91, 131, 173 Marxism
individualism 85,157,165, 206 on direct action 161
information, value of 88, 91 and lifestyle change 90,91,94
initiative 158-9 maturation 2, 85-£, 174
integration 14, 78, 120, 163 Meadows, Donella 152
interdisciplinary approach 195 meaning, and interpretation 5, 6
interpretation, and meaning 5, 6, 42-3 means, simplicity of 33
Interpretation and Preciseness 5 media, centralising effect 145
interrelatedness 74, 161-2, 164-5, 168, Meeker, Joseph W. 182-3
173, 176, 202-3 microcosm/macrocosm 200-1
intervention, in ecosystems 27, 29-30, Milbrath, Lester 17-18
174-5,198,211 milieu 7-8, 11, 36, 62-3, 80-1, 164, 174
interview, deep 122-3 interaction with organisms 56, 204
intuition 8, 10, 12, 14, 28, 32, 78 see also environment
of crisis 1 Mill, John Stuart 105, 117
and nature 2-5, 9, 20 Miller, G. Tyler 140
minorities, normative systems 123
James, William 65 Mitchell, Robert Cameron 17
Index 221
Modell, Walther 96-7 economic 107-10, 121; basic 116,

modesty 3 119-20
movements, and campaigns 147 generalisation 69, 76
Muir, John 33 genuine 75
multinationals, influence 131, 151 instrumental 75-6, 199
internalisation 159, 160
non-derived 74
Naess, Arne see also Ecosophy T; evaluation;
'How my philosophy seemed to Self-realisation!; system, normative
develop' 2
'Is it painful to think?' 5-6, 8, 9, 15
objectivity, scientific 40-1, 47-50, 51-3,
'Modesty and the conquest of
125-6
mountains' 2-3
ontology 2, 6, 19, 35, 57, 59, 61, 65, 199,
'Reflections about total views' 21n.
210
response to ecological crisis 1-2
and experience 66-7
'Shallow and the deep, long-range
organisations, environmental 88-9
ecology movement, The' 27-8
O'Riordan, T. 15-17
system 2-20
Nansen, Fritjof 178
national parks 46 pain, and well-being 81-4, 194
NATO, and defence policies 160 palaeontology 165-6, 169, 202-3
naturalism 159-60, 181 parks, nature 141, 180
nature peace movement 160, 212
attitudes to 47-51, 53, 63 Peckinpaugh, T. M. 18
control of 204-6 perception
free 117, 123-8, 129, 140-1, 177 differences in 54-5
and humanity 2, 3, 17, 20, 35-6, 53, and gestalts 58
56, 79, 163, 182 perfection, as ultimate goal 83-4, 116
interconnectedness 8, 56 perfectionism 118
neglected in economics 105-6 Perminov, A. D. 48
possibility of qualities in 51-4, 54-7, 63 perspectives
right of access to 124-5 non-human 191-3
rights of 165 value of different 4-5
subjugation 191, 194 Petrarch 190
see also cruelty in nature; shadow price, phenomenology 20, 32, 50-1, see also
of nature; value of nature experience, spontaneous
nature mysticism 176 philosophy
needs 11, 25, 29-30, 33, 85, 89,102,141, and action 1-2
174 and environment 87-8, see also
and control 204-6 ecophilosophy
economic 104-5, 107, 122 influence 189-91
energy 93, 161 pleasure as goal 81—4, 118
human/non-human 170-1 policies, ecological 135
for nature 177, 180 politics
and wants 113,206-7 change in 4, 24, 27, 29, 33-4, 45, 89-91
see also welfare theory of conservation 132-3
Nehru, Jawaharlal 101-2 green 18,33-4,91, 113-15, 132,
Newton, Isaac 48, 52 207-8; compared 133,137^ 1;
Nietsche,F.W. 3 and ideologies 156-8; party
nonviolence 146-50, 156, 160, 183, 204, formation 153-6, 162;
212 programmes 160-2
and philosophy of oneness 193-6 green, red, blue triangle 133-5, 156-7
norms 33, 42-4, 64-5, 188 involvement in 17-18, 130-3
basic 69, 75, 77, 80, 82-3, 107, 108-9, pollution
141, 197-9,206-8 awareness of problem 127, 138, 211
conflict 70-1,74-6,86 social cost 115-16
derived 43,69, 74-5,108-9, 167, 204-6 and technology 96
ecological 199-200 in Third World 139, 150-1
222 Index
population local 98
non-human 136 revisability principle 69
policies needed 23, 29, 30-1, 100, 136, richness of nature 29-30, 31, 34, 46-7,
140-1, 142, 156 85, 93, 162, 169, 177
Porritt, Jonathan 135 rights
power structures 131-2, 147 human 29-30
precisations 5-4, 19, 42-3, 84, 165, 197, see also life, right to
208 rules, and systems 68-9
pressure groups 131-2
prices, see shadow pricing satisfaction 116-18, 123, 173^, 205
priorities, see action; values Schopenhauer, Arthur 82
production Schumacher, E. F. 97, 128, 132, 143,
changes in 92, 97, 129, 132, 162 187-9
control 157-8 Seattle, Chief 207
current patterns 23, 24-6, 87-8, 90-1, self
94, 97, 104 and nature 3, 11,85, 164
definition 110-11 and Self 9, 11, 56, 85-6, 174-5
direct 144, 157 Self, quest for 6, 168-9
and welfare 118 self-determination 141-3, 157, 159, 207
projection, theory of 52-4, 57, 61 Self-realisation 8-9, 10, 19, 62, 84-5,
Protagoras 54-5 141,166,195-6,204
protection, 'Master Plan' 128 and identification 11, 163, 164, 172,
Pythagoras 39 173-6, 178, 197-9
potential 199-200, 201, 205, 207
qualities in nature 51 as ultimate goal 84-6, 116, 118, 144,
primary 52, 54, 56 169-70, 207
secondary 52-3, 55-6, 57 and welfare theory 120-1
tertiary 52-3, 56, 57, 63, 65 Self-realisation! (as norm) 6, 33, 120,
quality of life 24-5, 29,31, 33, 80, 84,155 197, 200
and economics 111-12, 113, 121-3 self-reliance/self-sufficiency 3,76, 101,
and ecosophical lifestyle 88-91,93, 103, 143-4, 179, 204-6
100,210-11 semantics 5
see also life quality research; standard of Sessions, George 28, see also Devall, Bill
living & Sessions, George
Quesnay, Francois 105 shadow pricing 116
of nature 123-8
Shankara, Indian philosopher 194
Rader 119 Simon, Julian 26
rationality simplicity 202
in economics 107 and economics 109
as relational 33, 63 slogans 75-6
reality Smith, Adam 105
depreciation of 189-91 social structures, change in 4, 17, 26,
descriptions 48-54, 54-6, 57, 60, 79; in 91-2, 131-3, 153, 161
natural sciences 61, 65-6 socialism 119, 156, 157-60
differences in experiences of 66-7 soils, degradation 100
as totality 84 solidarity 172
recreation, outdoor 177-8 Sosial0konomen (The Economist',
regulation 159, 162 Norway) 112, 115
relationalism 6,10,28, 33, 36,48,49-50, Soule, Michael 45-6,47
54-6,65 Soviet Union, economics in 119-20,
in system thought 78-9 157-8
religion, and attitudes to nature 163, speciation, evolutionary 30, 46-7
165, 175, 191, see also Bible, the Spencer, Herbert 39
Rensch, Bernhard 51-2 Spinoza, Baruch 10,14, 39, 63,82-3,85,
reserve, nature 46-7, 199 166, 198, 201
resources spontaneity, see experience, spontaneous
depletion 139-40; and technology 96, sports, competitive 178-80
113, 114, 136; and Third standard of living 24-5, 29, 33, 40-1, 71,
World 150-1 80,84
Index 223
and ecological crisis 88, 98, 143, utility 116-17, 124-6, 177
210-11 marginal 117-18
see also quality of life
structures, abstract 57, 60, 66-7 Valery, Paul 96
subjectivity 32, 65-6, 125-6 values
of attitudes to nature 47-50, 51-3, 63 future 127
of values 68-9 instrumental 65, 75
sustainability 113, 116 intrinsic/means 74-6, 97, 112, 143-4,
symbiosis 168, 171, 175, 199, 200-1, 167-8, 184, 189
203-4 of nature 3, 11-12, 19, 29, 34
symbols, importance 62-3 neutrality of 112, 129
system, normative 33, 36, 38, 41-4, 47, priorities in economics 116, 119-20,
72-8, 84 122-3
ecological 78-80 to humanity 176-7
economics 107-10, 119-20, 122-3 values, experiential 23-5, 28, 32, 74
of Ecosophy T 196-210 priorities 24, 32-3, 36, 44-5, 64,
and evaluation of technique 95-6 68-72, 73, 87, 96, 123
and reality 63-5, 191
Tagore, Rabindranath 194 as subjective 68-9
technocentrism 15-16 see also evaluation; facts, and values
technocracy, see technology, culture of voluntarism 118, 161
technology
alternative 15-17,31 waste
as autonomous 93-6 nuclear 127
culture of 23-4, 33, 71-2, 82, 92, 97, reduction 90, 92
100, 102-3, 113, 175 see also energy, waste
intermediate 31,97 Watson, Richard 63
soft 31, 96, 97-100, 101, 113, 144-5 Watson, Richard A. & Smith, Philip
and solution to crisis 4, 96-7, 114 M. 140-1
in Third World 100-2, 151, 212 welfare
theorems 68-9 GNP as measure of 112-13
Third World non-human 117
aid 137,150-1 welfare theory
technology 100-2, 151, 212 economic 109, 116-18, 129
thought, mythic 61, 165 and normative systems 119-20
time scale, importance of 127, 136, 137, and Self-realisation 120-1
192 Wells, H. G. 178
Tiutchev, F 48 Wenstrup, Fred 126
transition, to soft technology 98-9 Whitehead, A. N. 51,54
translation, problems 7-14 wilderness
need for 138,212
UCIN, World Conservation Strategy 30, preservation 30
45 Winner, Langdon 96
unemployment, as consequence of Wittgenstein, Ludwig 12
change 92,98-9 World Conservation Strategy (UCIN) 30,
unity 45,151,157,208
concept of 4, 166, 168, 173, 193-6
and plurality 20O-1 Xenophon 104
universalisation, of systems 39-40, 76-7,
100 Zapffe, Peter Wessel 37, 194
utilitarianism 33, 44, 51, 85, 118, 176,
187, 191

Arne Naess - Ecology, Community and Lifestyle - Outline of An Ecosophy (1989) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arne Naess - Ecology, Community and Lifestyle - Outline of An Ecosophy (1989) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arne Naess - Ecology, Community and Lifestyle - Outline of An Ecosophy (1989) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What philosophical concepts are discussed?

What philosophical concepts are discussed?

Ecology, community and lifestyle

Translated and revised by

© Cambridge University Press 1989

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

First published 1989

This work contains translations of some parts of the fifth edition

Typeset in Monotype Times 10/13pt

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

ISBN 0 521 34406 9 hardback

Transferred to digital printing 2003

Translator's preface xii

(c) The dangers of 'ecologism': seeing ecology as the

3 Fact and value; basic norms 68

4 Ecosophy, technology, and lifestyle 87

5 Economics within ecosophy 104

5 Strengthening the local and the global 141

The systematisation of the logically ultimate norms and

The book before you is entitled Ecology, community, and lifestyle. It is

The Ecophilosophy Group, composed of Esben Leifsen, Peter Reed,

Ecosophy T: from intuition to

We feel our world in crisis. We walk around and sense an

and Lifestyle because I was pessimistic', he reflects. 'And I wanted to

1 Beginning with intuitions

Ecophilosophy leads in two directions. It can be used to develop a deep

develop for ourselves. Though we are meant to nod in agreement more or

2 Interpretation and precisation in

in 1912' is not a precisation. It is an elaboration: more information is

of the book is not strictly logical in a syllogistic sense (from A and B

3 Clarification of terms in translation

(a) Milieu I en vironment

But, in fact, Naess's use of Self-realisation is a bold attempt to connect the

try, our Self-realising is blocked. Thus we cannot destroy them if we are

(e) Intrinsic value

The wonder should be directed, then, at the problems themselves,

4 Where do we place deep ecology?

Ecocentrism and Technocentrism

Ecocentrism *- -> Technocentrism

Deep ecologists Self-reliance

Source: O'Riordan 1981.

Only such a modification of the classification could make possible O'Rior-

We cannot say that any of these interpretations is a false one, but

1 The gravity of the situation

Chemistry, physics, and the science of ecology acknowledge only change,

2 Production and consumption: ideology and practice

* A Norwegian expression translating roughly as 'maybe yes, maybe no'.

populace, and who actively endorse a further doubling of economic

3 Our ecological knowledge is severely limited;

The so-called ecological doomsday prophecies are statements about

4 The deep ecology movement

1. The Shallow Ecology movement:

2. The Deep Ecology movement:

5 A platform of the deep ecology movement

The eight formulations are of course in need of clarification and

itself, as a process over evolutionary time, implies an increase of diversity

But this in no way excuses the present complacency. The extreme