Deep Ecology, Paganism and Environmental Activism: An Overview
Collected from Wicapedia.com informational sites by B. B. Blank
Introduction:
I have been a participant since the mid-60's as a political protester first with the Anti Vietnam War movements, always seeing the next turn. This included the second feminist
wave of the late 60's-70's, the gay liberation movement, anti-nuke protests in Nevada and
Washington state, the Earth First! defense of Old-Growth Redwoods in the late 80's, and
literally dozens of related movements all up to the recent 'Occupy' protests.
They have all had one thing in common: Wiccan and Pagan participation. This is a
natural occurrence, really, as Witches and Pagans have always carried an affinity for the
Earth and All Her Creatures. This also extends to womhen's rights, minority rights,
Native-American rights and so on.
From Starhawk to Otter G'Zell Ravenheart, from Judy Bloom of Earth First! to
members of the Animal Liberation Front, the names of these pagan and Wiccan activists
reads across the decades of social change.
The following are some notes on some more of the important milestones in the
development of Green Ecology and the Deep Ecology Movements.
May you learn from those who have come before and realize YOU - by your actions or
lack thereof - determine the reality of Life on this Planet.
Blessed Be!
Deep ecology is a contemporary ecological and environmental philosophy characterized by its
advocacy of the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human
needs, and advocacy for a radical restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with
such ideas. Deep ecology argues that the natural world is a subtle balance of complex interrelationships in which the existence of organisms is dependent on the existence of others within
ecosystems. Human interference with or destruction of the natural world poses a threat therefore
not only to humans but to all organisms constituting the natural order.
Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be
respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent
of their utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use. It describes itself as "deep" because it
regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the
natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than that of the prevailing
view of ecology as a branch of biology. The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric
environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for
exploitation by and for human purposes) since Deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set
of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a more holistic view of the world human
beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem
(including humans) function as a whole. This philosophy provides a foundation for the
environmental, ecology and green movements and has fostered a new system of environmental
ethics advocating wilderness preservation, human population control and simple living.
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in
themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are
independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman 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
human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease
of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a
decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman 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 is 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 big
and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly
to try to implement the necessary changes.
9. The phrase "deep ecology" was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973.[4] Næss
rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For example,
judgments on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has
consciousness (or indeed higher consciousness) have all been used to justify the ranking of the
human animal as superior to other animals. Næss states that from an ecological point of view "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."
10. This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that humanity and all other beings
are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".[5] As such Deep Ecology would support the view of
Aldo Leopold in his book A Sand County Almanac that humans are "plain members of the biotic
community". They also would support Leopold's "Land Ethic": "a thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise." Daniel Quinn in Ishmael showed that an anthropocentric myth underlies our current
view of the world.[6]
11. Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide
human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that
the science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other
dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global
ecological well-being. Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems in
various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature".[7] Regardless of
which model is most accurate, environmentalists[citation needed] contend that massive human
economic activity has pushed the biosphere far from its "natural" state through reduction of
biodiversity, climate change, and other influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass
extinction, at a rate of between 100 species a day, or possibly 140,000 species per year, a rate that
is 10,000 times the background rate of extinction. Deep ecologists hope to influence social and
political change through their philosophy. Næss has proposed, as Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
writes, "that the earth’s human population should be reduced to about 100 million."[8]
12. In practice, deep ecologists support decentralization, and identifying politically with ecoregions
(see bioregionalism); the breakdown of industrialism in its current form; and an end to
authoritarianism.
13. Deep ecology is not normally considered a distinct movement, but as part of the green movement.
The deep ecological movement could be defined as those within the green movement who hold
deep ecological views. Deep ecologists welcome the labels "Gaian" and "Green" (including the
broader political implications of this term, e.g. commitment to peace). Deep ecology has had a
broad general influence on the green movement by providing an independent ethical platform for
Green parties, political ecologists and environmentalists.
14. The philosophy of deep ecology helped differentiate the modern ecology movement by pointing
out the anthropocentric bias of the term "environment", and rejecting the idea of humans as
authoritarian guardians of the environment
Both ecofeminism and deep ecology put forward a new conceptualization of the self. Some ecofeminists, such
as Marti Kheel,[27] argue that self-realization and identification with all nature places too much emphasis on
the whole, at the expense of the independent being. Similarly, some ecofeminists place more emphasis on the
problem of androcentrism rather than anthropocentrism. To others, like Karen J. Warren, the domination of
women is tethered conceptually and historically to the domination of nature. Ecofeminism denies abstract
individualism and embraces the interconnectedness of the living world; relationships, including our
relationship with non-human nature, are not extrinsic to our identity and are essential in defining what it
means to be human. Warren argues that hierarchical classifications in general, such as racism or speciesism,
are all forms of discrimination and are no different from sexism. Thus, anthropocentrism is simply another
form of discrimination as a result of our flawed value structure and should be abolished.
Early influences:

Mary Hunter Austin

John Muir

Rachel Carson

Henry David Thoreau

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Friedrich Nietzsche

Aldo Leopold

Spinoza

Tolstoy
Notable advocates of deep ecology:

David Abram

Pentti Linkola

Michael Asher

John Livingston

Judi Bari

Joanna Macy

Thomas Berry

Jerry Mander

Wendell Berry

Freya Mathews

Leonardo Boff

Terence McKenna

Fritjof Capra

W. S. Merwin


Savitri Devi[8]

Arne Næss

Michael Dowd

Peter Newman

Vivienne Elanta

David Orton

David Foreman

Val Plumwood

Warwick Fox

Theodore Roszak

Chellis Glendinning

John Seed

Edward Goldsmith

Paul Shepard

Félix Guattari

Vandana Shiva

Martin Heidegger

Gary Snyder

Julia Butterfly Hill

Richard Sylvan

Satish Kumar

Douglas Tompkins

Dolores LaChapelle

Oberon Zell-Ravenheart
The Gaia hypothesis,
also known as Gaia
theory or Gaia
principle, proposes that
organisms interact with
their inorganic
surroundings on Earth
to form a selfregulating, complex
system that contributes
to maintaining the
conditions for life on
the planet. Topics of
interest include how the
biosphere and the
evolution of life forms
affect the stability of
global temperature,
ocean salinity, oxygen
in the atmosphere and
other environmental
variables that affect the
habitability of Earth.
The hypothesis, which
is named after the
Greek goddess Gaia,
was formulated by the
scientist James
Lovelock[1] and codeveloped by the
microbiologist Lynn
Margulis in the
1970s.[2] While early
versions of the
hypothesis were
criticized for being
teleological and
contradicting principles
of natural selection,
later refinements have
resulted in ideas
highlighted by the Gaia
Hypothesis being used
in subjects such as
geophysiology, Earth
system science,
biogeochemistry,
systems ecology, and
climate science

Gaia philosophy:
Gaia philosophy (named after Gaia, Greek goddess of
the Earth) is a broadly inclusive term for related concepts
that living organisms on a planet will affect the nature of
their environment in order to make the environment more
suitable for life. This set of theories holds that all
organisms on a life-giving planet regulate the biosphere to
the benefit of the whole. Gaia concept draws a connection
between the survivability of a species (hence its
evolutionary course) and its usefulness to the survival of
other species.
While there were a number of precursors to Gaia theory,
the first scientific form of this idea was proposed as the
Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock, a UK chemist, in
1970. The Gaia hypothesis deals with the concept of
homeostasis, and claims the resident life forms of a host
planet coupled with their environment have acted and act
as a single, self-regulating system. This system includes
the near-surface rocks, the soil, and the atmosphere.
While controversial at first, various forms of this idea
have become accepted to some degree by many within the
scientific community.[1] These theories are also significant
in green politics.

According to James Kirchner there is a spectrum of Gaia hypotheses, ranging from the
undeniable to radical. At one end is the undeniable statement that the organisms on the Earth
have radically altered its composition. A stronger position is that the Earth's biosphere
effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system which works in such a way as to keep its
systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life. Biologists usually view this
activity as an undirected emergent property of the ecosystem; as each individual species pursues
its own self-interest, their combined actions tend to have counterbalancing effects on
environmental change. Proponents of this view sometimes point to examples of life's actions in
the past that have resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the
conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one.
An even stronger claim is that all lifeforms are part of a single planetary being, called Gaia. In
this view, the atmosphere, the seas, the terrestrial crust would be the result of interventions
carried out by Gaia, through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. Many scientists deny
the possibility of this view[citation needed]; however, such a view is considered within scientific
possibility.
The most extreme form of Gaia theory is that the entire Earth is a single unified organism; in this
view the Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions
more conducive to life. Scientists contend that there is no evidence at all to support this last point
of view, and it has come about because many people do not understand the concept of
homeostasis. Many non-scientists instinctively and incorrectly see homeostasis as a process that
requires conscious control.
The more speculative versions of Gaia, including versions in which it is believed that the Earth is
actually conscious, sentient, and highly intelligent, are usually considered outside the bounds of
what is usually considered science.
Gaia in politics:
Some radical political environmentalists who accept some form of the Gaia theory call
themselves Gaians. They actively seek to restore the Earth's homeostasis — whenever they see it
out of balance, e.g. to prevent manmade climate change, primate extinction, or rainforest loss. In
effect, they seek to cooperate to become the "system consciously manipulating to make
conditions more conducive to life". Such activity defines the homeostasis, but for leverage it
relies on deep investigation of the homeorhetic balances, if only to find places to intervene in a
system which is changing in undesirable ways.
Tony Bondhus brings up the point in his book, Society of Conceivia, that if Gaia is alive, then
societies are living things as well. This suggests that our understanding of Gaia can be used to
create a better society and to design a better political system.
Other intellectuals in the environmental movement, like Edward Goldsmith, have used Gaia in
the completely opposite way; to stake a claim about how Gaia's focus on natural balance and
resistance and resilience, should be emulated to design a conservative political system (as
explored in Alan Marshall's 2002 book The Unity of Nature, (Imperial College Press: London).
Gaians do not passively ask "what is going on", but rather, "what to do next", e.g. in terraforming
or climate engineering or even on a small scale, such as gardening. Changes can be planned,
agreed upon by many people, being very deliberate, as in urban ecology and especially industrial
ecology. See arcology for more on this 'active' view.
Gaians argue that it is a human duty to act as such - committing themselves in particular to the
Precautionary Principle. Such views began to influence the Green Parties, Greenpeace, and a few
more radical wings of the environmental movement such as the Gaia Liberation Front and the
Earth Liberation Front. These views dominate some such groups, e.g. the Bioneers. Some refer
to this political activity as a separate and radical branch of the ecology movement, one that takes
the axioms of the science of ecology in general, and Gaia theory in particular, and raises them to
a kind of theory of personal conduct or moral code.
Gaia in religion:
Anne Primavesi is an ecologist and theologian she is the author of two books dealing with the
Gaia hypothesis and theology.[3]
Rosemary Radford Ruether the American feminist scholar and theologian wrote a book called
"Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing".
A book edited by Allan Hunt Badiner called Dharma Gaia explores the ground where Buddhism
and ecology meet through writings by the Dalai Lama, Gary Snyder, Thich Nhat Hanh, Allen
Ginsberg, Joanna Macy, Robert Aitken, and 25 other Buddhists and ecologists.[4]
Many new age authors have written books which mix New Age teachings with Gaia philosophy
this is known as New Age Gaian. Often referred to as Gaianism, or the Gaian Religion, this
spiritual aspect of the philosophy is very broad and inclusive, making it adaptable to other
religions: Taoism, Neo-Paganism, Pantheism and many other Shamanic faiths.
Earth First! is a radical environmental advocacy group[1] that emerged in the Southwestern United States in
1979. It was co-founded on April 4th, 1980[2] by Dave Foreman, Mike Roselle, Howie Wolke, Bart Koehler, and
Ron Kezar.[3]
There are Earth First! groups in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium,
Philippines, Czech Republic, India, Mexico, France, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, Nigeria, Slovakia, Ireland,
Italy, and Spain.[4]
Inspired by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Aldo Leopold's land ethic, and Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench
Gang, a group of activists composed of environmental activist Dave Foreman, ex-Yippie (Youth International Party)
Mike Roselle, Wyoming Wilderness Society representatives Bart Koehler and Howie Wolke and Bureau of Land
Management employee Ron Kezar pledged, "No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth!" while traveling in
Foreman's VW bus from the El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve in northern Mexico to
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Forest Service's Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) planning process, the activists envisioned a revolutionary
movement to set aside multi-million acre ecological preserves all across the United States. Their ideas drew on the
main concepts of the new science of conservation biology, which scientists like E.O. Wilson had developed over the
past twenty years, but which mainstream environmental groups had been slow to embrace. In various parts of the
country, individual citizens Provoked by what they considered a sell-out by mainstream environmental advocates
during the "RARE II" (the and small groups form the nuclei for grassroots political actions, which may take the
form of legal actions—i.e. protests, timber sale appeals, and educational campaigns—or civil disobedience—tree
sitting, road blockades, and sabotage—called "ecotage" by some Earth First! members, claiming it is done as a form
of ecodefense. Often, disruptive direct action is used primarily as a stalling tactic in an attempt to prevent possible
environmental destruction while Earth First! lawsuits try to secure long-term victories. Reported tactics include road
blockades, activists locking themselves to heavy equipment, tree-sitting, and sabotage of machinery.
Starhawk is a veteran of progressive movements, from anti-war to anti-nukes,
and is deeply committed to bringing the techniques and creative power of
spirituality to political activism.
She is a founder of Earth Activist Trainings (EAT): intensive seminars that combine
permaculture design, political organizing, and earth-based spirituality
(www.earthactivisttraining.org). Together with Penny Livingston-Stark, Erik Ohlsen,
and others, she co-teaches EAT courses in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. With over
ten years of experience in permaculture design and teaching, she has pioneered the
application of permaculture principles to social organizations, policy and strategy.
Since its first course in May of 2001, Earth Activist Trainings has graduated over
600 students who now shepherd projects that range from community power-down
strategies in Iowa City to water catchment programs in Bolivia, from inner city
gardens in San Francisco to women’s programs in the West Bank of Palestine.
Starhawk’s own expertise is in the communication of ecological systems thinking
through images, writing, and innovative teaching techniques.
Up until the end of last November, I was a reasonable person. Granted, I have been a Witch for my entire adult
life, and some people might consider that unreasonable. I've also been a political activist all my life, but I'm no
longer a young, wild-eyed radical. I'm forty-eight years old, beyond mature and into over-ripe, a responsible adult
who contributes to society, pays taxes and does the dishes after every meal. Many might consider me
conservative: I comb my hair, my body piercings are limited to one in each earlobe, and I cannot boast of even a
single tattoo. I hadn't been arrested since the Gulf War. (Well, there was that time at Headwaters, but that was
one of those symbolic cross the line, wait a few hours to get arrested and then get released kind of things that
hardly counts.) Nevertheless my political plate was full with work organzing our community here around
development issues and countering the conversion of forest land to vineyards, doing support for a group in El
Salvador that teaches sustainability, teaching and writing about the Craft and building our community on a
nonhierarchical model of power.
I was reluctant to go to Seattle to protest the meeeting of the World Trade Organization. Many people in the broad
communities linked to the Reclaiming tradition had been organizing for months, but in my secret heart I felt my
time would be better spent reading Timber Harvest Plans and writing letters to the local authorities. Nevertheless, I
couldn't stay away. I went, in the end, because of an old woman I met a couple of years ago in the mountains of El
Salvador. Three of us had gone with Marta Benevides, who directs the sustainability project Reclaiming helps
support, to visit one of the co-operatives in a remote area of the countryside. We'd spent the day walking their
land, seeing the fields where they dreamed of planting fruit trees and coconut palms, the eroded hillsides they
hoped to reclaim, and the black cliffs where victims of the Death Squads were executed during the war. That night
we celebrated a simple ritual together. The women of the co-operative had laid out altars in the four directions,
marked by beautiful flowers and candles. Miguel, a young man who had traveled to Guatemala to learn the Mayan
traditions which had been stamped out in his own country, spoke for his community. Hermano Daniel, a Nahuat
man who worked with Marta, blew the conch shell. I, my fellow Reclaiming teacher Aurora, and my stepdaughter
Amie invoked the elements out of our North American Pagan traditions.
We passed a shell around, and let each person speak from the heart. I said something about listening to the land,
and offering something back. Then the old woman spoke. She was tiny, bent from a lifetime of hard work, dressed
in a simple, handwoven skirt and cotton blouse, and her voice was soft and shy. Marta translated her heavily
accented Spanish. "But Senora," she said, "Our traditions have been lost. We no longer know what offerings to
make. And if we did, we don't have the right plants and fruits any more. They no longer grow here."
I looked around that circle and felt a powerful sense of identification. These people were who I would be had I been
born in their place. They were struggling with some of the same issues we struggle with. We too, have lost our
heritage. We too no longer know what offerings are required, or where to find the right plants and fruits our
ancestors knew. Yet the lives of the people in that circle were immeasureably harder than mine. Their resources
were fewer; their dreams were dreamed against overwhelming odds.
The WTO is the culmination of a centuries-long process of colonization and exploitation which has robbed that old
woman of her heritage and her fruits. The indigenous people of El Salvador were massacred in the nineteen thirties
to consolidate the power of the ruling families, who amassed great wealth from plantations where workers were
virtual slaves. Today, their descendents who have been driven from their land work in the prison-like conditions of
the foreign owned factories called maquiladoras for four dollars a day. The maquiladoras are set up in "Free Trade
Zones," where safety, labor and environmental laws are suspended.
"Free" is a lovely word, but applied to Free Trade, it is totally misleading. The only freedom involved is the freedom
of corporations to move capital around the globe, the freedom of speculators to manipulate money markets, and
the freedom of the rich to extract more money from the poor. We are living in a world in which 358 billionaires own
as much wealth as the poorest 2.5 billion people, in which one man, Bill Gates, has an annual income equal to the
entire nation of Pakistan!
In fact, the Uruguay round of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which set up the WTO severely limits
human freedom. Under its rulings, scientists can patent life forms merely by describing their DNA, and then make
it illegal for farmers to save seeds or for societies to use traditional plants without paying a royalty to a foreign
corporation. WTO rulings override elected laws of nations. Under their rule, the state of California is being sued for
banning poisonous additives in gasoline. The U.S. cannot ban products made by child labor, or tuna caught in nets
that destroy dolphins, or shrimp harvested by methods that kill endangered sea turtles. The European Union
cannot ban hormones in beef. Every enviornmental, labor and safety law can be challenged as "restraint of trade."
Rulings are made by unelected bureacrats in closed-door proceedings in Geneva. Its proceedings are secret and
there are no public records of their deliberations. The WTO tribunal is not accountable to any body of citizens and
there is no process of appeal. In effect, it establishes global corporate rule that supercedes national sovereignty.
For me, activism has always sprung directly out of my Witchcraft. Believing that the earth is a living being, that
nature is sacred, and that everything is interconnected just seems to lead logically to certain conclusions: that
environmental destruction is a Bad Thing, that injustice and oppression and poverty are not so good either, and
that blowing up the world with nuclear weapons would make the practice of my religion rather difficult. Holding
these opinions, I've always felt obligated to do something about them.
See also : 'Dreaming the Dark: Magick, Sex & Politics'