Over the last thirty years,
environmental activists have taken a stand against the deterioration that the
technological revolution has had on the environment. Although some groups such as Greenpeace and Earth First! made significant accomplishments in the
fight, some feel that it is not enough.
Therefore, radical environmentalism has taken shape throughout the
philosophical world as a theoretical based institution. The novel, Radical Environmentalism ,
edited by Peter List closely examines the ideas developed through these
proposals. He claims the reason people
living within the technological world refer to this philosophy as “radical” is
because we live in a society that only concentrates on the everyday business
and economic realities. Issues
involving our ecosystem are no longer considered to be vital to the well being
of the human race if it gets in the way of technological advancement. List claims that the majority of the
population thinks environmental concerns are very important. But, they feel that it would only be
appropriate in a different time or place.
He concludes that something that should be one of our first priorities
has now fallen to the bottom of the list (1).
Radical environmentalism stems form
the notion that they believe humans are not the center of the Earth, but just a
small part in it and equal respect should be given to all species regardless of
their size or impact on humans.
Moreover, they attempt to prove that the many forms of planetary life
that are killed, and overly used resources are not vital to the continued
existence of the human race (3).
Philosophers in this field have
comprised four general proposals they feel should be implemented in order to
repair the damage that has been done to the Earth’s ecosystem. They are Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, Social
Ecology and Bioregionalism. While each
is important in its own respect, these theories do make some general and
overlapping recommendations. All four
delve into the reconfiguration of our society in order to re-establish the
whole environment as the single most important part of our planet.
In an article written in 1973 by
Arne Naess, he presents his famous distinction between shallow and deep
ecology. Shallow ecology is an
environmental tactic that concerns itself with problems that only have their
effect on the human race. On the other
hand, deep ecology recognizes the equality among all species and in turn
bettering our relationship with every aspect of nature. Naess claims that this is reached through
"Identification” of biospherical
equality. Humans are able to create a
better connection with nature through self-realization and a reduction in one’s
narrow-minded ego. Therefore, we should
be able to recognize the interests other species with the same importance as we
do our own (17-18).
The
environmentalists’ version of survival of the fittest is an important factor in
deep ecology because they believe it is the benevolence among all species, not
the hatred and competition. On the
other hand, there has never been evidence to show that other species have this
mutual respect for the human race.
There is a reason why it is not safe to approach a lion in the jungle or
a bear in the middle of the forest.
Survival of the fittest in the real world says that someone is not going
to win the fight so why must humans be the martyrs in this competitive
world? That point refutes the deep
ecologists’ notion that it “should be interpreted in the sense of ability to
coexist and cooperate in complex relationships rather than the ability to kill,
exploit and suppress (20).
Naess’
idea of complexity, not complication makes a good but, obvious point. He claims that the higher number of species
and diversification in an environment, the easier it is to form unity and a
workable system. The more organisms
living in an ecosystem allows a better chance for each to give a little
something, rather than relying on a select few to keep the wheels turning
(21). Of course that is reasonable
because that is how our world has worked since the beginning. No one is arguing his point there. That is why groups such as Green peace and
others have taken an important stand in the fight to save various species such
as whales and seals.
Naess’
final point is local autonomy and decentralization which raises a lot of
contradiction. As far as government
intervention he believes these issues should stay within the local governments
rather than being passed up to global organizations. If they must go that far the amount of proposals initially
presented will be lost somewhere in this long chain of committees to reach the higher organizations. Naess claims that by keeping environmental
issues on a local level they will be implemented more efficiently (21-22). Thus far, countries with strong yet fair
central governments have given us the structure and direction we need in order
to retain stability. If a nation
allowed their local governments to make numerous important decisions, each locality
would form different interests. If this
happened nations could easily face a breakdown in the ability of a country to
work together. Moreover, a local
community would rarely have the funds to repair problems in their own
ecosystem. Overall, deep ecology has
good intentions on a broad-based theoretical level. Ultimately, the tactics a deep ecologist would use are too
extreme and not taking a look at the whole picture. While attempting to resolve ecological issues, one such society
could easily sacrifice the structure that keeps our relatively peaceful world
in tact.
Ecofeminism
makes some good points about environmental tactics in general yet loses sight
of the overall issue when attempting to realize a connection between women and
nature. Ecofeminism is a feminist group
that attempts to use environmental issues to aid in their cause. This stems from the notion that women are
more closely connected with nature than men are. They seem to think that the oppression of nature is directly
linked with the oppression of women.
This is due to the fact that we both live in a purely patriarchal,
male-dominant society according to feminist groups. This statement fits under the views of the liberal and radical
ecofeminist. The Marxist feminist
argues against the male capitalist who is in complete control of the economy,
and all resources and goods that are produced.
Finally, the socialist feminist fights for environmental issues
concerning colored and third world women, and working class women. For instance, they claim that all of our
latest technologies have been designed by males such as nuclear radiation,
pesticides and other hazardous chemicals.
Apparently all of these pollutants adversely affect the female
reproductive system but, have absolutely no effect on the male reproductive
system or any other part of their body for that matter(50). It does not make sense how an ecofeminist
can even begin to make such a false claim as this. If the feminist position is going to aid in defending the ecosystem
around them, then they must lose their selfish attitudes and fight for what
they claim to be fighting for. Once
they learn to do this then maybe ecofeminism will get taken more seriously in
the future.
Aside
from ecofeminisms’ shallow intentions, the book makes a few good points
stemming from theological discussions.
The human race feels that they can control and override nature through
technological revolutions. What they
seemed to have forgotten is that nature did not create itself, God created nature. Even if there are human beings who do not
believe in a God, nature did not form out of thin air and the human race was
surely not behind this creation.
Ultimately it is not our place to destroy it. Elizabeth Gray shows the selfish attitudes the human race has
taken when she writes, “What had been completely overlooked was that God long
ago had made a fundamental, initial and sustaining covenant with all of
creation…God has been continually loyal…with an ongoing renewal of the seasons,
the generations, and of creation itself” (58).
Fortunately, we are the most intelligent race on this planet yet, do not
have enough sensibility to honor our side of the covenant. We were given a responsibility by a higher
power to take care of where we live and we have failed to do so.
Moreover,
theological discussions have taken the miracle of nature and made it a backdrop
for the eternal discussion of God and his relationship with the ever more
important human being (58). Once again
it may be hard for people to view this argument from a theological standpoint,
but ultimately in a perfect world this should have been the prescription for
our planet from the beginning.
The final theory presented in this book is a combination of social
ecology and bioregionalism. This
section is the most radical philosophy presented. They both take a much more liberal view with a complete revamping
of our federal system. Like deep
ecology, social ecology and bioregionalism suggest taking the majority of the
power away from the national government in environmental decision-making. Anarchism is the key to this theory. I think in comparing the history of the U.S
with that of weaker governments proves that the lack of a strong central
government will be extremely detrimental to its survival. They reject free-market capitalism in favor
of small-scale communities. These
communities are formed based upon the local ecosystems and conforming each
society to the needs of their surrounding environment. As far as the government is concerned, they
suggest democratic self-management for each community (91). Our country would be broken down into
millions of small self-ruled communities, each with different laws to abide by. If this happened there would be no need to
worry about the environment because our society would be too concerned with
keeping the peace among all of these societies.
Saving
the environment is a very important issue but we cannot forsake the safety of
the human race. Social ecologists and
bioregionalists must remember that we cannot suddenly make our own well being
the last priority in this world.
Radical environmentalists emphasize the fact that every species shall be
treated with equal respect. It is
obvious that by implementing social ecology and bioregionalism would result in
a completely unbalanced society and we would only be sacrificing our God given
right to equality.
Another
false statement made through this philosophy is the idea that hierarchy is
institutional not biological.
Therefore, there has been no evidence of any other species where they
make use of command and obedience within their environment (101). In fact, every part of the environment
whether it be within a specific species or interactions of many, give rise to
numerous examples of hierarchy. There
is a reason why the lion long ago received the nickname “king of the
jungle”. It is because they command the
respect and submissiveness by the majority of the less strong and intimidating
species within that same environment.
There have been numerous nature documentations that show how other
animals actually form communities based on power and hierarchies within their
environment just as humans do. Those
who study the characteristics of nature emphasize the similarities to human
societies that many animals take on within their species.
Radical
environmentalism presents a strong argument in order to reconstruct the
destruction we have inflicted on our environment. But, there is a certain extent to which they can implement their
theories. It is obvious that these four
theories make some plausible suggestions.
They fail to realize that if these ideas were implemented they would
seriously damage the fairly smooth interactions of our society. It is true that something needs to be done
in order to save our planet for ourselves as well as that of the species we
live with. Radical environmentalism has
not yet come up with the proper solution.
The fact that we have slowly begun to destroy our environment is
undeniable but, we cannot go back and drastically change the world that we now
live in. Small steps must be taken in
the fight, but things so radical as implementing complete anarchism in favor of
self-ruled communities is completely absurd.
Going from one extreme to another does not solve problems that already
exist; it only creates more to deal with.