What is the place of humans in a world full of other living things? What, if any, moral obligations do we owe other animals or the natural world in general? Do animals have rights? These are a few of the questions that a philosophical view known as deep ecology seeks to answer.

To understand deep ecology, let’s start by distinguishing between a human-centered (anthropocentric) theory of environmental ethics and a life-centered (biocentric) theory. A human-centered theory focuses on what kind of environment we owe other human beings (both current and future), including clean water to drink, wilderness areas in which to recreate and protection of species so future generations can experience them. A life-centered or biocentric theory focuses on the inherent worth and rights other forms of life have simply by virtue of being members of Earth’s community of life, whether they are useful to humans or not.  

First coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1972, deep ecology’s central tenant is the inherent worth of all living things. It is described as “deep” because it looks more deeply into humanity’s relationship with the natural world, arriving at philosophically more-profound conclusions than those of mainstream environmentalism that are more human-centered. Proponents of deep ecology reject the view that man is separate from nature or that nature exists simply as a resource to serve humans.

Næss argued “the right of all forms [of life] 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.” He argued that humans have no more inherent right to live a fulfilling life than any other animal.

Scholars have summarized the eight principles of deep ecology as:

• The well-being of human and nonhuman life on earth is of intrinsic value irrespective of its value to humans.
• The diversity of life forms is part of this value.
• Humans have no right to reduce this diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
• The flourishing of all life forms would benefit from a decrease in the human population by natural means over time.
• Humans have interfered with nature to a critical level already, and interference is worsening.
• Policies must be changed, affecting current economic, technological and ideological structures.
• This ideological change should focus on an appreciation of the quality of life rather than either an ever-increasing human population or insisting on an increasingly high standard of living.
• Those who agree with the above tenets have an obligation to implement them.

Deep ecology asserts that, since the industrial revolution, humans have lost their proper relationship with nature and seek to be its master instead of a part of the overall community of life. It asserts that the current imbalance threatens not only other life forms, but humanity itself.  

Naess contrasted deep ecology with shallow ecology – “what can nature do for me” – as anthropocentric and utilitarian. Deep ecology calls for fundamental changes in societal structures and human attitudes towards nature, and for ecological activism and a spiritual connection with nature.  

At the heart of deep ecology is the belief that all living things have inherent worth and that humans must fundamentally alter their relationship with nature to recognize that all living things have a right to flourish. While some aspects of deep ecology may seem radical, with so many species at risk of disappearing, perhaps there is a kernel of truth in the need to review our relationship to the natural world.

“Get Wild” publishes weekly in the Summit Daily News. Mike Browning is a member of the Eagle County Community Wildlife Roundtable and a member of the Board of Directors for the Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance.