The term ‘deep ecology’ originated with the contributions of Arne Naes, a Norwegian philosopher. There are some fundamental premises that followers of deep ecology adhere by inspite arguing among themselves about the philosophical and political implications of the same.
Ramachandra Guha in his article basically focuses on those four features of what is termed as ‘deep ecology’.
According to him, the four tenets are as follows –
• There is a need to shift from anthropocentric to biocentric perspective in regards to environmental movement. He states, “Preserving nature, as deep ecologists say has an intrinsic worth apart from any benefits preservation may convey to future human generations”. (pp 73)
• There is an urgent need to preserve and …show more content…
The process of wilderness/wildlife preservation results in the process of displacement of the people in the lower rungs or the local people. Setting up a sanctuary or a reserve calls for ‘washing’ away the localites in and around the reserve. This, I believe, is not a new and new phenomenon. There has been a continuous history in the world where development in one sphere leads to underdevelopment in the other. Guha cites a case of the setting up of a tiger reserve which requires extensive displacement of the local people in and around the reserve without remuneration of any kind. This in turn affects the livelihood of the concerned. However, the latter remains out of focus. Guha contends that “deep ecology provides, perhaps unwittingly, a justification for the continuation of such narrow and inequitable conservation practices under a newly acquired radical guise. Increasingly, the international conservation elite is using the philosophical, moral, and scientific arguments used by deep ecologists in advancing their wilderness crusade” (pp 75). Environmental degradation like soil erosion, water shortage, fuel, fodder etc. has an adverse affect on the …show more content…
Deep ecology is often intersected with the Eastern world. The assumption behind it being “Eastern man exhibits a spiritual dependence with respect to nature” (pp 77). The East is considered to be the ‘Other’ symbolizing the backwardness of the self on one hand and ecological wisdom and deep consciousness on the other, thereby denying it of agency and also reasoning. However, it is to be reflected upon that there underlies an active relationship of man with nature in the East. Rather than denying the agency of the Easterns, it is to be acknowledged that the indigenous knowledge possessed by the agriculturalists about the natural environment equals to any scientific knowledge (of the West). “Yet, the elaboration of such traditional ecological knowledge (in both material and spiritual contexts) can hardly be said to rest on a mystical affinity with nature of a deep ecological kind. Nor is such knowledge infallible; as the archaeological record powerfully suggests modem Western man has no monopoly on ecological disasters” (pp
Ramachandra Guha in his article basically focuses on those four features of what is termed as ‘deep ecology’.
According to him, the four tenets are as follows –
• There is a need to shift from anthropocentric to biocentric perspective in regards to environmental movement. He states, “Preserving nature, as deep ecologists say has an intrinsic worth apart from any benefits preservation may convey to future human generations”. (pp 73)
• There is an urgent need to preserve and …show more content…
The process of wilderness/wildlife preservation results in the process of displacement of the people in the lower rungs or the local people. Setting up a sanctuary or a reserve calls for ‘washing’ away the localites in and around the reserve. This, I believe, is not a new and new phenomenon. There has been a continuous history in the world where development in one sphere leads to underdevelopment in the other. Guha cites a case of the setting up of a tiger reserve which requires extensive displacement of the local people in and around the reserve without remuneration of any kind. This in turn affects the livelihood of the concerned. However, the latter remains out of focus. Guha contends that “deep ecology provides, perhaps unwittingly, a justification for the continuation of such narrow and inequitable conservation practices under a newly acquired radical guise. Increasingly, the international conservation elite is using the philosophical, moral, and scientific arguments used by deep ecologists in advancing their wilderness crusade” (pp 75). Environmental degradation like soil erosion, water shortage, fuel, fodder etc. has an adverse affect on the …show more content…
Deep ecology is often intersected with the Eastern world. The assumption behind it being “Eastern man exhibits a spiritual dependence with respect to nature” (pp 77). The East is considered to be the ‘Other’ symbolizing the backwardness of the self on one hand and ecological wisdom and deep consciousness on the other, thereby denying it of agency and also reasoning. However, it is to be reflected upon that there underlies an active relationship of man with nature in the East. Rather than denying the agency of the Easterns, it is to be acknowledged that the indigenous knowledge possessed by the agriculturalists about the natural environment equals to any scientific knowledge (of the West). “Yet, the elaboration of such traditional ecological knowledge (in both material and spiritual contexts) can hardly be said to rest on a mystical affinity with nature of a deep ecological kind. Nor is such knowledge infallible; as the archaeological record powerfully suggests modem Western man has no monopoly on ecological disasters” (pp