1
Response Paper by Susan Romney
(Educating for the Future: Multicultural and Environmental Issues)
DEEP ECOLOGY
Written by Bill Devall & George Sessions
I was surprised at how many times I disagreed with the book, Deep Ecology,
written by Bill Devall and George Sessions. After reflecting upon this, I realize that I
have some very basic and fundamental differences with the authors. These differences
are founded in my deeply Christian viewpoint, although I do not totally agree with the
authors’ simplified views of the Christian perspective either. For this reason, I have
decided to organize this paper in a way which will state the principles of deep ecology
and then I will state my response. I must admit, however, that I am just now beginning to
formulate my feelings about ecology. My position is an emerging and evolving one as I
ponder environmental issues more now than I have at any time in the past.
The basic principles of deep ecology are as follows.
1.
The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have
value in themselves (inherent value.) These values are independent of the
usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
It is difficult for me to respond to this statement. I think I understand and agree with
the ecologist’s statement of inherent value. For me the value of any property on this
earth is inherent because of my strong belief that all is part of a master plan designed
by an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful creator, God. For me, value is not
there because of what an object can do for man, but value is there simply because all
creations are made by a being I worship. I value God’s handiwork - all nature
because I value God. I strive to listen closely to His direction. If His direction
conflicts with the ecologist’s viewpoint, than I will favor God’s direction.
2.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these
values and are also values in themselves.
I don’t have any basic disagreement with this principle within the parameters I stated
in my response above.
3.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital needs.
This principle opens deep-seated differences between my philosophy and the deep
ecologist’s. For me, the only proper course to follow is to be obedient to God’s will.
From the beginning of mankind, there has been instruction on which animals to eat,
which to use for sacrifice, how to build temples, which trees to use for these purposes,
etc. There was very specific instruction given to a prophet named Noah on how to
construct an ark. A statement which I would agree with would go something like this:
2
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except as they are
instructed by God. This would include serving vital needs and any other directive
given by God. I do not subscribe to the belief that the world’s resources are there for
greedy, selfish human consumption or over indulgence.
4.
The flourishing of human life and culture is compatible with a substantial
decrease of human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires
such a decrease.
I have substantial differences with this principle. I believe that God knows exactly
how many of his children he has prepared to live on this planet. I believe that it is not
our right to alter His plan. Perhaps the second portion of this statement is true. In
other words, perhaps nonhuman life will not flourish with the increase of the human
population. It does not change my deep belief in this principle. In making this
statement, I must reaffirm that I believe in an all knowing, all loving, all powerful
God. If it is His plan that the world run out of resources in order to provide for His
set, predetermined number of souls who will inhabit this planet, than I believe that
humans have no right to alter this plan. The problem with the deep ecologist
viewpoint is that there is no faith in a higher being. For the deep ecologist, all of the
world’s ecological problems must be fixed by man. My faith allows me the security
to feel confident that a higher Being is fully aware of the condition of this planet. I
feel confident that God is not always pleased with the abuses of this earth, but I also
feel confident that He is not surprised by our environmental decisions. The God I
believe in has known our destiny from the beginning, even if we don’t. If I did not
believe in a loving Father in heaven, than I would be more inclined to feel as the deep
ecologist does. Please do not mistake my position for one of ignorance. I have spent
considerable time studying scriptures and other writings. I did not come to this
position lightly. Without faith, the deep ecologist must feel sheer terror when he
considers what man has done to this planet. With faith there is great comfort
knowing that though the environmental state of the planet may be deplorable, this was
a foreseen condition.
5.
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
I tend to agree with this principle. Mankind has forgotten his responsibility to be a
steward over his master’s creation. Mankind consumes resources in excess. Mankind
has forgotten that his purpose here is not to create a lavish lifestyle of selfish
comforts. Mankind’s purpose here is to help God finish the handiwork of his hand, in
other words, mankind’s purpose is to bring other souls here to this planet and help
each soul live a life in harmony with God’s direction. I should add that I have a
strong belief in a pre-existence of the human soul (where I believe we were each
instructed on our pending responsibility to the earth and to our brothers and sisters
who would inhabit it) and an equally strong belief in an afterlife (where I believe we
will each be accountable for how we lived on this earth.)
3
6.
Policies must therefore be changed. The resulting state of affairs will be
deeply different from the present.
I cannot agree or disagree with this statement until I examine the intended policy
changes. If they are in harmony with God’s plan for this earth, than I have no
problem with them. However, if they do not comply with God’s will, and in fact are
in conflict with His plan for this earth, than I disagree with them.
7.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than
adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.
I tend to agree with this principle. I believe that quality of life should be a world
wide goal. I believe that there are too few “haves” in comparison with the “have
nots.” I believe that many of the technological advances which man has invented
have purposes which could further God’s plan for our earth and His desire that we
live in peace and harmony with one another. Unfortunately, too often, we tend to use
technology to satisfy our own self-promoting, lucrative desires.
8.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or
indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
My belief is that we have an obligation to follow the plan of a loving, wise Father in
heaven who wishes us no harm and in fact has created this lovely world to help us
learn to become more like him. I believe that I, personally, have an obligation to
value the resources of this world and to share them unselfishly with all of God’s
creations. My belief is that my Father in heaven chose to spend his energy and
resources on us, giving us a wonderful planet to live upon and giving us the freedom
to make choices for which we will ultimately be held accountable. Our fundamental
responsibility is to seek His will and then to be brave enough to do it, even when, on
occasion, it is in conflict with that of the deep ecologists.