Why is this newsworthy?

As India continues to battle unrelenting heat waves, it’s worth delving into two streams of environmental philosophy that reimagine the human-nature relationship: Shallow and Deep Ecologism.

What exactly is ecology?

Ecology is the scientific study of the interactions between living species, such as humans, and their physical surroundings.

It aims to comprehend the fundamental links that exist between plants and animals and the environment.

It also includes information on ecosystem advantages and how we might use Earth’s resources in ways that preserve the environment for future generations.

What is the difference between shallow and deep ecology?

Background:

In the 1970s, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess sought to solve environmental degradation by looking beyond his milieu’s popular pollution and conservation movements.

Nss is more concerned with the function of the individual in nature in his ecological research. He believes that rising anthropocentrism has caused humans to become estranged from nature, considering nature and themselves as conflicting entities and creating a master-slave relationship.

Nss illustrates the contrast between the two forms of ecologism by placing humans at the centre of the environmental catastrophe.

Shallow Ecologism:

 The philosophical or political position that environmental preservation should only be implemented to the extent that it serves human interests is known as shallow ecology.

Rather than a major revolution, it is more like a forceful and trendy campaign against pollution and resource depletion.

Proponents of this ideology argue that we should maintain our current lifestyle while making specific changes to reduce environmental damage.

Also known as weak ecologism, it may entail the usage of less polluting vehicles or air conditioners that do not emit chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

This discipline of ecology is mostly concerned with preserving the lifestyle of people who live in developed countries.

Deep Ecologism:

 Deep Ecologism holds that humans’ connection with nature should be drastically altered.

Its proponents criticise superficial ecologism for favouring people over other forms of life, hence perpetuating modern cultures’ environmentally damaging lifestyles.

Shallow ecologism, it claims, exacerbates inequities between countries by perpetuating this lifestyle.

For example, although accounting for only 5% of global population, the United States consumes 17% of global energy and is the world’s second largest electricity consumer after China.

Similarly, while low- and middle-income countries have produced lower total and per capita carbon dioxide emissions during the last two centuries, wealthier countries are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions.

What are Deep Ecologism’s Objectives?

It strives to preserve nature by implementing large-scale lifestyle changes.

Limiting commercial meat production to protect forest areas and reduce artificial animal fattening, for example, or restructuring transportation systems to eliminate the usage of internal combustion engines.

Deep ecologism transfers the focus from pollution and conservation narratives to rigorous policy creation and implementation, in addition to supporting these lifestyle changes.

Policymaking, according to Naess, must be helped by the reorientation of technical skills and inventions in new ecologically responsible directions.

Ecologists, according to Naess, should reject activities overseen by authorities with limited ecological perspectives. Ecologists should not bow to power that ignores essential ecological concerns as irreplaceable informants.

Deep ecologism also advocates for a re-evaluation of the’survival of the fittest’ philosophy in order to recognise the diverse richness of different lifeforms.

The ability of humans to collaborate and coexist with nature, rather than exploiting or controlling it, should be considered when considering survival of the fittest.

As a result, deep ecologism favours a “live and let live” mentality over a “either you or me” mindset.

Deep ecologism, in particular, is associated with socialism.

Naess contends in his books on deep ecology that a narrow emphasis on pollution and conservation efforts is ineffective. He believes that when programmes are done just to address pollution, they create new types of problems.

Installation of pollution control systems, for example, may raise the cost of living, resulting in a wider class divide.

An ethically responsible ecologism serves the interests of all socioeconomic groups.

Decentralization of Decision Making:

When choices are heavily affected by majority rule without taking local interests into account, the environment may become more fragile.

Decentralizing decision-making and enhancing local autonomy, according to Naess, are solutions to this problem.

A chain made up of a local board, a municipal council, a state-wide institution, a national government institution, a coalition of nations, and a global institution can be reduced to a local board, a national government institution, and a global institution.

A long decision-making process is unfavourable because it can lead to the exclusion of local interests.

Recognizing Regional Differences:

Naess warns mankind against approaching the environmental situation with a “vague, global” mindset.

A holistic approach to the crisis emphasises regional variances as well as the discrepancies between industrialised and developing countries.

Nss emphasises the importance of realising the movement’s political potential and holding people in positions of power accountable. Policymakers, as well as scientists and ecologists, share responsibility for resolving the climate catastrophe.