Major ecology

The major ecology English (: deep ecology , neologism of Arne Næss, Norwegian philosopher) is a branch of the ecological philosophy appeared recently, which regards humanity as having left integral the ecosystem. She allots more value to the other species and ecosystems that do not do it the traditional ecomovements, which involves the development of a new ethics. While traditional ecology keeps the satisfaction of the human needs like finality (Anthropocentrisme) and concedes with the remainder of living the statute of “resource”, major ecology re-registers the human purposes from the broader point of view, that for alive (Biocentrisme) in order to taking into account the needs for the whole of the biosphere, including those of the species with which we Co-evolve/move since million years.

History

Arne Næss invents the term in an article founder published for the first time in 1973: “The surface ecomovement and the major movement”. Næss rejects the idea that the living beings can be classified according to their respective values. For example, the fact of knowing if an animal has a heart, if it uses the reason or if it is a aware is often used to justify the dominant position of the Homme animal on the other animals. Næss affirms that “the right of any form of life to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No alive species has more this specific right live and extend that another species”. This metaphysical idea is underlined by the sentence of Warwick Fox saying that us and all the other living beings naps of the “aspects of the same emergent reality”.

Basic principles

The partisans of major ecology estimate that the world is not an exploitable resource at will by the Man. The ethics of major ecology explains why a total system (nature) is higher than each one of these parts (the Man being part of nature). This ethics is based on the eight following postulates:

the wellbeing and the blooming of human and not-human forms of life of the Earth have a value in itself (synonymous: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the utility of the not-human world for the human needs.
the richness and the diversity of forms of life contribute to the realization of these values and are also values themselves.
the Man does not have the right to reduce the richness and biological diversity, except satisfying vital human needs.
the blooming of the life and the human cultures is compatible only with one substantial decrease of the human population. The development of not-human forms of life requires such a reduction.
the current human interference with the not-human world is excessive and harmful, and the situation worsens quickly.
Of the policies must thus be changed. These policies affect the structures economic, technological, and ideological fundamental. It will result from it a company deeply different from ours.
the ideological changes pass by the appreciation of a good quality of life rather than adhesion to standards of living increasingly higher. It is necessary to become aware of the difference between " good qualité" and " race with a standard of living extremely élevé" (which would be harmful with nature).
Those which subscribe to the preceding points engage to try to apply directly or indirectly the changes necessary.

Influences

Influential authors in this mobility: Martin Heidegger for all his work, Lynn White JR on the role of Christianity in the appearance in Europe of a mentality of colonist-exploiteur with regard to nature, Aldo Leopold, Robert Hainard for his work of artist, philosopher and naturalist, Arne Naess, Eugen Drewermann on the Judaism in our utility report/ratio in the world, Edward Goldsmith for the whole of its work, Alexis de Tocqueville for his work, Vladimir Vernadsky for his early intuition of the concept of Biosphere, François Small terrace for his work naturalist and teacher, Rudolf Bahro and its concept of “mégamachine”, Theodor Kasczinsky (Unabomber) on its criticism of the “démonie technician”, James Lovelock for his Assumption Gaïa, Claude Lévi-Strauss for his whole work, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen for its bio-economy, Serge Latouche and the MAUSS, Robert Jaulin for his militant action and its work, Louis Dumont for his comparative work on the “hot” companies and the “cold” companies, Karl Polanyi for the " Large Transformation" , and still many others: Jean Giono, Rene Barjavel ( Devastation ), Alfred de Vigny, etc

Concretely, major ecology wishes a decrease of the impact of the human activities on the biosphere and the redeployment of the wild life, a substantial reduction in the human population and a “Cultural revolution biotist” who will transform our vision of the world.

Major ecology currently

In France, the influences of major ecology are more particularly “visible” in the mediums naturalists (LPO, Robin of Wood, etc), the organizations of fights for the defense of the animals (LAV, etc) and more still within the French groups close to the organization Earth First! and of the leading team of the review Recourse to the forests of Laurent Ozon.

Other interpretations out of the subject

According to other authors, like Jean Bastaire, it is necessary to seek elsewhere the responsibility for this rupture between the Homme and the Nature. Besides the Christian tradition can be held responsible for the current ecological crisis only it would be necessary to better define: can crisis of the biodiversity, new massive extinction, destruction of the biotopes making them unsuitable with humanity, major crises total, ethical écosanitaires risks, risks… of what Christianity be guilty? Can that which was created with the image of God even destroy him?

One finds in Paul saint (epistle with the Romans and epistle in Colossiens), Irenee of Lyon, Maxime the Confessor, François d' Assise, or Calvin of the passages which indicate the attachment of God to the Création. In particular, the deep attachment of the Creator for all the creatures subjected to goodwill of preferred sound is explicitly revealed in the Genesis:

Gn 9,1. Then God blesses Noah and his children, and He says to them: And you multiply grow, and fill the ground.

Gn 9,2. That all the animals of the ground and all the birds of the sky are struck of terror and tremble in front of you, with all that is driven on the ground. I put between your hands all fish of the sea.

Gn 9,3. You of all nourish that has life and movement: I gave up you all these things, like vegetables and grasses of the countryside.

Gn 9,4. I exclude only the flesh mixed with the blood, of which I defend you to eat.

Gn 9,5. Because I will avenge your blood for all the animals which will have spread it, and I will avenge the life for the man, of the hand of the man, and the hand of his brother.

It is clear. The man is only one simple commensal in the splendid fitting of Creation…

The origin of the problem would be rather to locate at Descartes, which declared, in the Discourse on Method (1637), which the Man was to be “as Master and owner of nature”:

“Because they general concepts concerning physics showed to me that it is possible to arrive to knowledge which is extremely useful for the life, and which instead of this speculative philosophy that one teaches in the schools, one can about it find a practice, by which knowing the force and the actions of fire, water, the air, the stars, the skies and all the other bodies which surround us, as distinctly as we know the various trades of our craftsmen, we them could employ of the same way with all the uses to which they are clean, and thus return to us as Masters and owners of nature. ”

See the quotation supplements in the article Discourse on Method .

This type of formula, and Cartesian philosophy , would have introduced in Occident a phantasm Prométhéen, which did not preexist obviously.

According to Jean Bastaire, the Judeo-Christianity disillusioned and désacralisé the Nature, but the domination of the Man on nature is a responsibility for intendant and not for owner or owner. From a Christian point of view, the Man must behave like a faithful intendant. All in all, one can say that the produced Christianity of the environment (anthropocentrism) and pretends to speak about Nature. Like our friend Rousseau, who considers that after all the man has rights since it has duties. And well for Poveretto as for Rousseau, that the man makes finally his duties, that it is other thing that an owner. That it is finally really responsible…

See too

Random links: