In The roots of environmental anti-humanism, we traced a fundamental philosophical root of the modern environmental movement back to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." Inspired by the "balance of nature" thesis Carson promoted in her book, an even more radical wing of the environmental movement emerged in the form of Deep Ecology.

Birthed by Arne Naess, Deep Ecology targeted an explicit philosophical shift away from the human-centered approach of its predecessors. In its place, Deep Ecology argued for "biocentric egalitarianism." All of nature should be granted, at a minimum, the same moral consideration as humans. In Naess' new moral ethic, "each natural entity is held as being inherently equal to every other entity," and the biosphere, rather than human well-being, becomes the focus of value. While often glossed over or no longer overtly stated, these ideas still profoundly impact contemporary environmental advocacy.

Arne Naess worked with philosopher and environmentalist George Sessions to develop eight core principles of Deep Ecology.

1. All life—human and non-human—has inherent or intrinsic value.
2. Richness and diversity of life contribute to these values and are inherently valuable.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to meet vital needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a "substantial decrease" in the human population, and the flourishing of non-human life requires this decrease.
5. Human interference with the non-human world is excessive and "rapidly worsening."
6. Society must adopt policies that are "deeply different" from the policies that established our basic economic, technological, and ideological structure.
7. Appreciating the quality of life must supersede the current ethic of an "increasingly higher standard of living."
8. Anyone who subscribes to these principles is obligated to implement these changes.

These principles advocate for nature's intrinsic value and propose that environmental policy be oriented not toward human flourishing but toward what Sessions and Naess believed would ensure the flourishing of all life. They argued that humans have no right to diminish the richness of nature except to satisfy vital needs. Diminishing human impact on the planet requires the human population to be radically reduced, and our basic economic and technological structures must be chucked and replaced.

"Deep ecology goes beyond a limited, piecemeal, shallow approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview," argued Devall and Sessions in their 1985 book, "Deep Ecology: Living as if nature mattered." Devall and Sessions advocated "direct action in political contexts" that includes using "green politics" as a tool to reform legislation, expanding political coalitions, growing the protest movement, working within the women's movement and the Christian tradition, and questioning technology that is not "compatible with the growth of autonomous, self-determining individuals in non-hierarchal communities."

These principles and "direct actions" are derived from the metaphysical foundations of Deep Ecology. In his essay on the metaphysics of Deep Ecology, Brazilian philosopher Alexandre Guilherme highlights the intrinsic interconnectedness of all elements of nature, like the relationship between an organism and its constituent parts. From this foundational belief, Deep Ecology concludes that humans have no unique or special relationship with nature. Its adherents challenge the traditional and enduringly popular view that humans are more important than other elements of the natural world.

Despite its ostensibly egalitarian aims and philosophical foundations, Deep Ecology remains a contrived and incoherent philosophy. Reviewing the eighth principle's mandate to implement change alongside Devall and Sessions' calls for "direct action" demonstrates how the philosophy has a far more activist political tone than a profoundly philosophical or moral one.

Guilherme's synthesis of the metaphysics of Deep Ecology lacks a clear explanation of the mystical relationship that supposedly connects the entire Earth. Even worse, it is unclear how such a relationship would compel humans to consider the interests of trees and rivers at the expense of their well-being.

Furthermore, Naess' third principle accepts human actions that reduce ecological diversity and richness if those actions help meet basic needs. However, those actions would contradict the notion of biocentric egalitarianism. Suppose the biosphere has intrinsic value, and there is a credible rights-based argument for protecting it from human interference. Why would our vital needs trump the needs of jackals, rattlesnakes, tarantulas, trees, or even bacteria or slime molds?

While Deep Ecology has not received the attention given to other, more mainstream environmental theories, it continues to influence many mainstream environmentalists.

On its website, Greenpeace recognizes Deep Ecology as having influenced the ideas of its founders. Deep Ecology is also essential for a proper understanding of the degrowth movement. But degrowth relies on ambiguous calls to abandon gross domestic product measurements, scale down "destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use," and "focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being." Even when stated indirectly, these calls smack more of politics than a deeply moral philosophy.

Many contemporary environmentalists admit that the teachings of Deep Ecologists like Naess, Devall, and Sessions have directly influenced them. If you want to understand the long-term goals of the environmental movement, you must understand Deep Ecology.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.