Deep Ecology Wording Paper

[asnider@moose.uvm.edu (Alfred C. Snider)]

Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont

June, 1996

        Don't just read this topic, explore it and relate to it. Don't
treat it like a clause in a legal contract between affirmative and
negative, but as a platform on which a rich and personally rewarding
discourse can take place. Think about yourself and the decisions you are
going to have to make about your place on planet Earth.

        Resolved: that we should embrace the principles of deep ecology.

        Ecological issues are almost impossible to avoid in any sensible
discussion of the human future. The question has intruded over and over
again into various debate topics. The topic area of "environmental
regulation" gives us a chance to confront these issues directly and in a
new way. Just as the topic of "deep ecology" calls on us to consider
different ways of thinking, it may also call on us to consider different
ways of debating. A new paradigm for thinking about the environment may
best be discussed through a more varied format than is offered by strictly
formulaic topic constructions.

        Thus, there are two concepts at work in this topic. You might
regret that the presence of one may "doom" the other, but please consider
them together as a provocative invitation to an exciting year of debating.

        The first concept is obvious -- DEEP ECOLOGY. Our perspective on
environmental regulations has everything to do with how we go about that
process, as values and means interact more meaningfully in environmental
decision making than in most fields. A new conception of the human
relationship to the ecosystem in general has arisen, a conception which
challenges us at the governmental as well as the personal level to
reevaluate our state and our lives.

        The second concept is -- NEW PERSPECTIVES. Traditionally, debate
policy resolutions have utilized the "United States Federal Government
should...." format. This topic utilizes the fairly radical and open "we."
This means that unconventional actors will be utilized, and also a variety
of actors. It also provides the opportunity for a debate consisting of
personal advocacy ... where students can use themselves as agents. It will
be new, different, challenging, and call for new standards and forms of
proof. If debaters cannot do this, then I would question why we think we
are doing anything. I firmly believe debaters and judges and coaches can
engage with and learn from this often tumultuous experience.

DEEP ECOLOGY

        In 1972 Arne Naess, Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Oslo, contrasted various approaches towards dealing with environmental
problems as being either "shallow" or "deep." Since everyone agrees that we
must concern ourselves with environmental problems, this contrast was
widely recognized as meaningful and the concept of "deep ecology" was
popularized.

        In 1986 Naess published an essay entitled "The Deep Ecological
Movement: some philosophical aspects" (Philosophical Inquiry 8, nos. 1-2).
In that essay he discussed the central term in the resolution, the
"principles of deep ecology." The reason I have chosen this term is because
it is well defined and interpretational tools are supplied in this seminal
document. While the confluence of a large literature, this term is neither
too rigid to imprison debaters in advocacy they would rather avoid, nor is
it a vague and formless concept which would detract from the discussion of
substantive issues and claims. Some will say it is too restrictive, some
will say it is too vague. One thing is certain -- it is very important, and
deciding what we mean in stipulating the human role in the natural world is
a vital part of creating socially active citizens for the 21st century.

        Please read the following passage from Naess carefully. I think it
stipulates the dimensions of this topic and how it should be interpreted in
the debate. Especially note the interpretive standards offered just before
the eight principles are discussed. Naess writes:

"WHAT IS DEEP ECOLOGY?
The phrase "deep ecology movement" has been used up to this point without
trying to define it. One should not expect too much from definitions of
movements; think, for example, of terms like "conservatism," "liberalism,"
or the "feminist movement." And there is no reason why supporters of
movements should adhere exactly to the same definition, or to any
definition, for that matter. It is the same with characterizations,
criteria, or a set of proposed necessary conditions for application of the
term or phrase. In what follows, a platform or key terms and phrases,
agreed upon by George Sessions and myself, are tentatively proposed as
basic to deep ecology? More accurately, the sentences have a double
function. They are meant to express important points which the great
majority of supporters accept, implicitly or explicitly, at a high level of
generality. Furthermore, they express a proposal to the effect that those
who solidly reject one or more of these points should not be viewed as
supporters of deep ecology. This might result because they are supporters
of a shallow (or reform) environmental movement or rather they may simply
dislike one or more of the eight points for semantical or other reasons.
But they may well accept a different set of points which, to me, has
roughly the same meaning, in which case I shall call them supporters of the
deep ecology movement, but add that they think they disagree (maybe Henry
Skolimowski is an example of the latter). The eight points are:
 1.  The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth
have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These
values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human
purposes.
2.  Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of
these values and are also values in themselves.
3.  Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to
satisfy vital needs.
4.  The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life
requires a smaller human population.
5.  Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and
the situation is rapidly worsening.
6.  Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic
economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of
affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7.  The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life
quality(dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to
an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound
awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.
8.  Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly
or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes."

        A substantial and lively literature has grown up around these
terms. There are opposing schools of thought, as well as a traditional
defense of the status quo offered by natural resource economists. Authors
are critical of deep ecology for being utopian as well as being a "sell
out." Social ecology and ecofeminism have arisen as legitimate
alternatives. These and other approaches are listed in the bibliography.

NEW PERSPECTIVES

        Who are we? I am interested in exploring this term for a variety of
reasons. It can be interpreted in different ways in a strictly "debate"
sense, or it can be utilized as personal advocacy.
*       We can refer to collective action through government or
organizational initiatives. Debaters are well trained at arguing about
federal, state, local government action, as well as world government and
non-governmental organizations and citizen groups. These argumentative
approaches are common.
*       We can refer to the people in the room at the time. The affirmative
can invite the judge to become a part of the "we" by accepting their
argumentation in the debate. Obviously, "we" would not be affirmed if only
the affirmative agrees, they must also convince the judge to join in.
Worries about "Fred and I like deep ecology" as a decision rule seem
misplaced, since just because Fred and Flo like deep ecology doesn't mean
that even they "should embrace it" not to mention why the judge would join
with them and say "we." Besides, the point of deep ecology is that we share
the fate of the Earth, thus what "we" should do and what would be best for
the "Earth" are the same to the affirmative. Cases like "we should embrace
deep ecology because when we win our coach will give us extra food money"
and their ilk are hardly worth fearing.

        Why use a term like embrace? I think it is both new as well as
different. It is just a bit poetic. It is not defined in either Black's Law
or Corpus Juris Secundum. Nevertheless, I am not worried that the negative
will win any debates because the affirmative fails to "clasp in its arms"
the principles of deep ecology. Embrace, although personal, involves the
acceptance of concepts as well. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary (1993) defines embrace as: "
"to receive or take up; to come to believe in and seek to further defend,
support, or join willingly." I like the way the concept includes personal
advocacy as well as defending and supporting (sounds like a debate). I
think the term interacts with the interpretation Naess offers of deep
ecology, where if you reject two of the eight you do not embrace it.

        The principles are based in the literature, as indicated above. The
way in which Naess uses the concept of principles seems to work well with
conventional definitions of the word. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary defines it as "...a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine,
or assumption on which others are based or from which others are derived."
Black's Law (1979) calls it "...a comprehensive rule or doctrine which

furnishes a basis or origin for others; a settled rule of action,
procedure, or legal determination." I like the way this term, while also
used by Naess, indicates that a principle is the basis for policy action.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THESE DEBATES?

        Here is where the new perspectives begin to play out. No debater is
forced to advocate an unusual agent they don't want to, so traditionalists
will utilize USFG agents, while debaters seeking competitive advantage and
intellectual enlightenment through creativity will explore personal
advocacy, non-traditional agents, or possibilities I haven't yet thought
of. Of course, no matter what one team attempts to do, the topic seems to
preserve options for the other side.

        The affirmative might decide to:
*       Defend deep ecology as a mindset which should be embraced by all.
*       Embrace deep ecology through specific programs and actions, such as
called for in principle eight. A plan consistent with deep ecology can be
offered as the affirmative parametricizes. This is literally unlimited. It
is a very broad topic.
*       Defend deep ecology as an act of personal commitment by the
affirmative and the judge, make appeals specific to that judge, and
approach it as a practice of philosophical persuasion.

        The negative might decide to:
*       Attack deep ecology in general, or just target a few of the
principles. This provides rich generic ground for new debaters.
*       Attack the affirmative plan as being disadvantageous from with a
deep ecological perspective.
*       Negative's might argue that the plan offered by the affirmative is
an insufficient example to justify deep ecology in general.
*       Propose an alternative perspective such as market capitalism,
social ecology, ecofeminism, etc. as being superior to deep ecology -- what
we should do instead of embracing deep ecology.
*       Offer an alternative perspective and then attack the affirmative
plan utilizing that perspective.
*       Offer an alternative perspective embodied in a counterplan.
*       Attack the affirmative as not embracing the principles of deep
ecology as a topicality argument.
*       Some combination of the above.

        A word about topicality. The eight principles are fairly clear, and
the standards offered by Naess are very helpful. Reject two of the eight,
and you don't embrace deep ecology any more. However, a "rhetorical ploy"
by the negative to embrace deep ecology but not call it that fails to work,
as Naess discusses the fact that people who say they don't support deep
ecology who actually do embrace the concepts are still "supporters" of deep
ecology. It will be quite a different approach to topicality.

CONCLUSION

        I have spent the last 30 years of my life dealing with more
"standard" debate resolutions than this one. I fully expect the debate
community to, in voting, "embrace" a more comfortable and familiar topic
form than this one. However, ideas have consequences, and I enjoy academic
debate as a place to explore new ideas and opportunities. I invite the
debate community to consider this topic, if not for this coming year, for
some future year. It is never too late for the "we" to "embrace" something
new.

        Kenneth Burke, in Permanence and Change, wrote about the concept of
trained incapacity. He used two simple animal stories to illustrate this
concept -- the chicken and the trout and what they found out. The chicken
comes every day as the bell rings, because the farmer offers it corn and
other grains as a tasty treat. Getting there first means more food.
However, one day the farmer waits for the first arriving chicken, not with
corn, but with a hatchet to kill the bird and have it for dinner. Trouts,
for example, prosper and survive because they are good at seeing and
smelling available food sources and seeking them out, especially tasty
worms and larvae in the water. However, a well trained but unwise trout may
find that it has managed to bite into not a worm alone, but a worm with a
sharp hook through it. The well trained and non-adaptive trout ends up
being pulled to the shore where the frying pan awaits. We become so well
trained and well versed in specific things that it is our undoing when the
situation changes and we do not.

        A new century and a new paradigm calls for an awareness of training
incapacity and a willingness to change our training when the context
changes as well. If we do not, the frying pan may well await us.

PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

        There is a constant stream of new publications on this and directly
related issues. I also advise inspecting the journal Environmental Ethics.
A simple Lexis-Nexis search reveals hundreds of articles about deep ecology
as a concept.

Deep Ecology-General
++++++++++

Bradford, George (Watson, David). How Deep Is Deep Ecology?. Novato,
California, Times Change Press, 1989

Chase, Steve, ed. Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between Murray Bookchin &
Dave Foreman. Boston, South End Press, 1991

Devall, Bill. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Salt
Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1988

Devall, Bill & Sessions, George. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered. Salt Lake City: Gibbs & Smith, 1985

Lovelock, James. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1988

Naess, Arne. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline for an Ecosophy.
Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press, 1989

Rothenberg, David. Conversations with Arne Naess: Is It Painful to Think?
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993

Sessions, George, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston, Shambhala, 1995.

Tobias, Michael. Deep Ecology. San Diego: Avant Books, 1985

Ecology- Introductory Readings
++++++++++

Bookchin, Murray. Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future. Boston:
South End Press, 1989

Callenbach, Ernest. Ecotopia. New York: Bantam Books, Inc. 1990

Capra, Fritjof & Spretnak, Charlene. Green Politics: The Global Promise.
New York: E. P.Dutton, 1984

Dobson, Andrew, ed. The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society.
San Francisco: Mercury House 1992

Douthwaite, Richard. The Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched
The Few, Impoverished The Many, and Endangered The Planet. Dublin:
Lilliput, 1993
Ekins, Paul. Gaia Atlas of Green Economics. New York: Doubleday, 1992

Porritt, Jonathan. .Seeing Green: The Politics of Ecology Explained. New
York: Basil Blackwell, 1984

Tokar, Brian. The Green Alternative: Creating an Ecological Future. Revised
Edition, San Pedro, California: R & E Miles, 1992

Social Ecology
++++++++++

Bookchin, Murray. Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose, 1981

Bookchin, Murray. The Modern Crisis. Philadelphia, New Society Publishers, 1986.

Bookchin, Murray. The Philosophy of Social Ecology. Montreal: Black Rose, 1990

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Freedom. Revised Edition. Montreal: Black
Rose, 1991

Chase, Steve, ed. Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between Murray Bookchin &
Dave Foreman. Boston, South End Press, 1991

Clark, John ed. Renewing the Earth: The Promise of Social Ecology. London:
Green Print, 1990

Ecological Economics
++++++++++

Adams, W.M. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third
World. London: Routledge, 1992

Barde, Jean-Phillipe & Pearce, David. Valuing the Environment: Six Case
Studies. London: Earthscan, 1991

Costanza, Robert, ed. Ecological Economics: The Science & Management of
Sustainability. New York: Columbia, 1991

Daly, Herman & Cobb, John. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
Toward Community, the Environment, & a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1989

Dauncey, Guy. After the Crash: The Emergence of the Rainbow Economy.
London: Green Print, 1988

Die Gruenen im Parliament. Ecological Economics in One World: Concept for a
Green Foreign Economic Policy. London: Zed Books, 1992

Ekins, Paul, ed. TOES Anthology. The Living Economy, A New Economics in the
Making. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1986

Ekins, Paul; Hillman, Mayer & Hutchison, Robert . Wealth Beyond Measure: An
Atlas of New Economics. London: Gaia, 1992

Ekins Paul and Max-Neef, Manfred, ed. Real-Life Economics: Understanding
Wealth Creation. London: Routledge, 1992

Green Group in the European Parliament. Ecotax: an Introduction to the
Ecotax. Brussels: Green Group, 97 Rue Belliard, 1047 Brussels, Belgium,
1991

Green Group in the European Parliament. Struggling against the Greenhouse
Effect by means of a Tax on Non-Renewable Energies: A Basic Step Towards
Sustainable Developement. Brussels: Green Group, 97 Rue Belliard, 1047
Brussels, Belgium, 1991

George, Susan. A Fate Worse Than Debt: The World Financial Crisis and the
Poor. San Francisco: Grove Press, Food First Books, 1987

George, Susan. The Debt Boomerang: How the Third World Debt Harms Us All.
London: Pluto Press, 1992

Henderson, Hazel. Paradigms in Progress: Life Beyond Economics.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Knowledge Systems, Inc., 1991

Irvine, Sandy. Beyond Green Consumerism. London: Friends of the Earth, 1989

Jacobs, Michael. The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development
and the Politics of the Future. London: Pluto Press, 1992

Meeker-Lowry, Susan. Economics as if the Earth Really Mattered: A Catalyst
Guide to Socially Conscious Investing. Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers, 1988

Meeker-Lowry, Susan. Breaking the Corporate Grip. Philadelphia: New Society
Publishers, 1992

Pearce, David. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan
Publications, 1989

Pearce, David, ed. Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy. London:
Earthscan Publications, 1991

Robertson, James. Future Wealth: a New Economics for the 21st Century.
London:Mansell Publishing, Cassell Publishers Ltd., 1990

Seabrook, Jeremy. The Myth of the Market: Promises and Illusions. London:
Green Books, 1990

Eco-Feminism/Post-Patriarchy
++++++++++

Biehl, Janet. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politcs, Boston: South End, 1991

Diamond, Irene, & Orenstein, Gloria Feman, eds. Reweaving the World: The
Emergence of Eco-feminism. edited & with essays. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books, 1990

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice & The Blade: Our History, Our Future. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987

Gaard, Greta, ed.. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Philadelphia:
Temple. University 1993

Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in
New England. Chapell Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981

Mies, Maria & Shiva, Vandana . Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1993.

Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993

Plant, Judith. Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1989

Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, & Development. London: Zed
Books, 1988

Warren, Karen J., ed. Ecological Feminism. London: Routledge, 1994


Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
+++++
14th NATIONAL DEBATE INSTITUTE 7/27-8/10/96
Application & Scholarship forms at  http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ndi.html
+++++
DEBATE CENTRAL:  http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html;
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
+++++
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION: http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html
+++++
VERMONT REGGAE FEST: http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/vrf.html

---

• Prev by Date: Leah Castella--please contact me
• Next by Date: and Russell
• Prev by thread: Leah Castella--please contact me
• Next by thread: and Russell
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page