DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1NC.......................................................................................................................................... 2-3

LINKS: SPACE COLONIZATION ............................................................................................... 4

LINKS: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 5-6

LINKS: AFFIRMATIVE EXTINCTION SCENARIOS................................................................... 7

LINKS: TREATING NATURE AS A RESOURCE....................................................................... 8

LINKS: TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 9

LINKS: REFORMISM ............................................................................................................... 10

IMPACTS.................................................................................................................................. 11

THE ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................ 12-13

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE EXISTS.................................................................................. 14-15

ANSWERS TO FRAMEWORK................................................................................................. 16

ANSWERS TO COUNTER-KRITIKS........................................................................................ 17

ANSWERS TO ECOFEMINISM ............................................................................................... 18

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS.................................................................................................. 19-22

SUMMARY:

Deep ecology is founded on two basic principles: one is a scientific insight into the interrelatedness of all systems of life on Earth, together with the idea that anthropocentrism - human-centeredness - is a misguided way of seeing things. Deep ecologists say that an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life on Earth. Instead of regarding humans as something completely unique or chosen by God, they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. They believe we need to develop a less dominating and aggressive posture towards the Earth if we and the planet are to survive.

The second component of deep ecology is the need for human self-realization. Instead of identifying with our egos or our immediate families, we would learn to identify with trees and animals and plants, indeed the whole ecosphere. This would involve a pretty radical change of consciousness, but it would make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

1NC

The journey to space is just an extension of the human separation from the rest of nature

Mander 1995 (Jerry, senior fellow at Public Media Center. “Leaving the Earth: Space Colonies, Disney, and Epcot,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 311-312)

Over the years, I have wondered about the apparently strong appeal of space travel and development to the public mind. I can understand why corporations, militaries, and governments want to promote departing from the planet, and I have mentioned its appeal to the New Age collective ego. But it hasn’t been easy for me to grasp why the idea is so attractive to others. I finally realized that space travel is not new; it is only the final stage of a departure process that actually began long ago. Our society really “left home” when we placed boundaries between ourselves and the earth, when we moved en masse inside totally artificial, reconstructed, “mediated” worlds—huge concrete cities and suburbs—and we aggressively ripped up and redesigned the natural world. By now, nature has literally receded from our view and diminished in size. We have lost contact with our roots. As a culture, we don’t know where we came from; we’re not aware we are part of something larger than ourselves. Nor can we easily find places that reveal natural processes still at work.

… As a corporate culture, we have begun to feel that one place is as good as the next; that it’s okay to sacrifice this place for that one, even when the new place is not even on Earth. In the end, this leaves us all in a position similar to the millions of homeless people on our streets. In truth, we are all homeless, though we long to return.

My friend Gary Coates, an architecture professor at Kansas State University … has argued provocatively that our quest for space is actually a distorted expression of a desire to return home to Eden, the place we abandoned. He sees our whole culture as caught in a replay of the Adam-and-Eve story.

In a recent conversation, Coates put it to me this way:

“Like all creation myths, the story of the Garden of Eden is not something that never happened or only happened long ago; it is something that is happening in every moment . . . It was the murder of Abel, who represented a state of oneness with the earth, that set Cain off wandering in a never-satisfied quest for the return to, or re-creation of, paradise. Within the confines of our totally artificial environments on Earth, as they will soon also be in heaven, we also seek to re-enter Eden. In particular, the creation of Leisureworlds, Disney Worlds, megamalls, Air Stream mobile home cities, lifestyle-

segregated condominium communities, and especially genetic engineering, space colonization, and terraforming of planets, are all updated forms of Cain’s desire to return home by remaking the original creation. The tragedy is that in attempting to recover paradise we accelerate the murder of nature. It’s yet another repeat of the story of Cain and Abel, another acting out of the founding myth of Western history.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

1NC

We must move beyond anthropocentrism to embrace an ethic that values all forms of life

Capra 1995 (Fritjof, physicist. “Deep Ecology: A New Paradigm,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 20-21)

The reason why most of old-paradigm ethics cannot deal with these problems is that, like shallow

ecology, it is anthropocentric. Thus the most important task for a new school of ethics will be to develop a non-anthropocentric theory of value, a theory that would confer inherent value on non-human forms of life. Ultimately, the recognition of value inherent in all living nature stems from the deep ecological awareness that nature and the self are one. This, however, is also the very core of spiritual awareness. Indeed, when the concept of the human spirit is understood to the cosmos as a whole, it becomes clear that ecological awareness is spiritual in its deepest essence and that the new ecological ethics is grounded in spirituality.

Deep Ecology moves beyond piecemeal solutions and offers a true alternative to the Status Quo

Devall and Sessions 1985 (Bill, professor of sociology at Humboldt State Univ., and George, professor emeritus of philosophy at Sierra College. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, p. 65)

The essence of deep ecology is to keep asking more searching questions about human life, society, and Nature as in the Western philosophical tradition of Socrates. As examples of this deep questioning, Naess points out “that

we ask why and how, where others do not. For instance, ecology as a science does not ask what kind of society would

be the best for maintaining a particular ecosystem—that is considered a question for value theory, for politics, for ethics.” Thus deep ecology goes beyond the so-called factual scientific level to the level of self and Earth wisdom. Deep ecology goes beyond a limited piecemeal shallow approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview. The foundations of deep ecology are the basic intuitions and experiencing of ourselves and Nature which comprise ecological consciousness. Certain outlooks on politics and public policy flow naturally from this consciousness. And in the context of this book, we discuss the minority tradition as the type of community conducive both to cultivating

ecological consciousness and to asking the basic questions of values and ethics addressed in these pages. Many of these questions are perennial philosophical and religious questions faced by humans in all cultures over the ages. What does it mean to be a unique human individual? How can the individual self maintain and increase its uniqueness while also being an inseparable aspect of the whole system wherein there are no sharp breaks between self and the other? An ecological perspective, in this deeper sense, results in what Theodore Roszak calls “an awakening of wholes greater than the sum of their parts. In spirit, the discipline is contemplative and therapeutic.”

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: SPACE COLONIZATION

Mining the Moon or Mars will be an extension of human exploitation into space

Crisp 2009 (John, staff writer. “Right to Go Back to Moon,” Korea Times, November 30, 2009. Accessed via Lexis-Nexis, 4/23/11)

Maybe it's because once you throw resources like water into the picture - and water undoubtedly will become an increasingly valuable commodity - a trip to the moon and on to Mars begins to look like an ill-considered extension of our long history with the natural world.

Oversimplifying only slightly, the story of civilization can be reduced to a chronicle of the consumption of local resources - lumber, land, water, petroleum - and then moving on to fresh abundance elsewhere.

The examples are practically countless, but consider our own petroleum production, which reached a peak in 1970 and has gone downhill ever since.

We've had to move on to fresh abundance, depending more and more on places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. To a great extent modern American foreign policy has been driven by the impending dearth of local petroleum. Why else would we be so interested in Iraq?

Common sense tells us that no non-renewable resource can be infinite, but this is a lesson we've yet to learn in practical terms. We imagine that more resources will always lie over the horizon, and the moon and Mars may represent for us, at some conscious or subconscious level, a fanciful safety valve for our overburdened earth.

Who knows what resources are on Mars? We never thought there was water on the moon. Maybe more resources are out there, and our natural instinct is to go and get them.

But there's something vaguely unseemly about failing to live within our means here, and then hoping at some level to bail ourselves out by moving on to other worlds.

I'm wondering if we have done a good enough job of husbanding the abundance of this planet to have earned the right to begin exploiting resources elsewhere.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The idea of sustainable development locks us into a mindset that exploits nature

Worster 1995 (Donald, professor of environmental history @ Univ. Kansas. “The Shaky Ground of Sustainability,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 384-385)

I find the following deep flaws in the sustainable development ideal:

First, it is based on the view that the natural world exists primarily to serve the material demands of the human species. Nature is nothing more than a pool of “resources” to be exploited; it has no intrinsic meaning or value apart from the goods and services it furnishes people, rich or poor. The Brundtland Report makes this point clear on every page: the “our in its title refers to people exclusively, and the only moral issue it raises is the need to share what natural resources there are more equitably among our kind, among the present world population and among generations to come. That is not by any means an unworthy goal, but it is not adequate to the challenge.

Second, sustainable development, though it acknowledges some kind of limit on those material demands, depends on the assumption that we can easily determine the carrying capacity of local regional ecosystems. Our knowledge is supposedly adequate to reveal the limits of nature and to exploit resources is supposedly adequate to reveal the limits of nature and to exploit resources safely up to that level. In the face of new arguments suggesting how turbulent, complex, and

unpredictable nature really is, that assumption seems highly optimistic. Furthermore, in light of the tendency of some leading ecologists to use such arguments to justify a more accommodating stance toward development, and heavy reliance on their ecological expertise seems

doubly dangerous; they are experts who lack any agreement on what the limits are.

Third, the sustainability ideal rests on an uncritical, unexamined acceptance of the traditional worldview of progressive, secular materialism. It regards that worldview as completely benign so long as it can be made sustainable. The institutions associated with that worldview, including those of capitalism, socialism, and industrialism, also escape all criticism, or close scrutiny. We are led to believe that sustainability can be achieved with all those institutions and values intact.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The development model is anthropocentric

Sachs 1995 (Wolfgang, fellow @ Institute for Cultural Studies. “Global Ecology and the Shadow of ‘Development’,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 385)

Even bearing in mind a very loose definition of development, the anthropocentric bias of the statement springs to mind; it is not the preservation of nature’s dignity which is on the international agenda, but to extend human-centered utilitarianism to posterity. Needless to say, the naturalist and biocentric current of present-day environmentalism has been cut out by this conceptual operation. With “development” back in the saddle, the view on nature changes. The question now becomes: which of nature’s “services” are to what extent indispensable for further development? Or the other way around: which “services” of nature are dispensable or can be substituted by, for example, new materials or genetic engineering? In other words, nature turns into a variable, albeit it a critical one, in sustaining development. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that “nature capital” has already become a fashionable notion among ecological economists.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: AFFIRMATIVE EXTINCTION SCENARIOS

The complete extinction of life on this planet is not inherent – Rather than looking for technological solutions to environmental problems, humans must change the way they think about the planet in order to avoid the destruction of life

Berry 1995 (Thomas, director of Riverdale Center for Religious Research. “The Viable Human,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 11)

The total extinction of life is not imminent, though the elaborate forms of life expression in the earth’s ecosystems may be shattered in an irreversible manner. What is absolutely threatened is the degradation of the planet’s more brilliant and satisfying forms of life expression. This degradation involves extensive distortion and a pervasive weakening of the life system, its comprehensive integrity as well as its particular manifestations.

While there are pathologies that wipe out whole populations of life forms and must be considered pernicious to the life process on an

extensive scale, the human species has, for some thousands of years, shown itself to be a pernicious presence in the world of the living on a unique and universal scale. Nowhere has this been more evident that in the Western phase of development of the human species. There is scarcely any geological or biological reality or function that has not experienced the deleterious effects of the human. The survival of hundreds of thousands of species is presently threatened. But since the human survives only within this larger complex of ecosystems, any damage done to other species, or to the other ecosystems, or to the planet itself, eventually affects the human not only in terms of physical well-being but also in every other phase of human intellectual understanding, aesthetic expression, and spiritual development.

Because such deterioration results from a rejection of the inherent limitation of earthly existence and from an effort to alter the natural

functioning of the planet in favor of a humanly constructed wonderworld for its human occupants, the human resistance to this destructive process has turned its efforts toward an emphasis on living creatively within the functioning of the natural world. The earth as a bio-spiritual planet must become, for the human, the basic reference in identifying what is real and what is worthwhile.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: TREATING NATURE AS A RESOURCE

Environmentalism that focuses on human survival treats nature as a resource and ignores the value of nonhuman nature

Sessions 1995 (George, professor of philosophy at Sierra College. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. xi)

Another version of environmentalism arose in the 1960s in reaction to the increasing industrial/chemical pollution of the environment after World War II. Many leaders of this aspect of environmentalism, such as the biologist Barry Commoner and Ralph Nader, did not have a background either in ecology or in the

Thoreau/Muir/Leopold conservation tradition. Partly as a result, this newer strain of “human survival environmentalism” was anthropocentric, urban pollution-oriented, and narrowly focused on the issue of human survival. Commoner was once quoted as saying that “I happen to think that humans are more important than whooping cranes.” Commoner soon took the position, against Paul Ehrlich and most other ecologists, that there was no human overpopulation problem

in the world. While urban pollution problems have become an increasingly central and crucial part of the environmental crisis since the 1960s, the major flaw in “human survival environmentalism” has been the failure to take a wider “ecological perspective” that involves a concern for the ecological integrity of the Earth and the well-being of other species, along with humans. And sometimes the quality of life (for both humans and nonhumans) is more important than mew survival.

We must value all forms of life, not just human life

Naess 1995 (Arne, professor of philosophy at Univ. Oslo. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 68-69)

The term “life” is used here in a more comprehensive non-technical way also to refer to what biologists classify as “non-living”: rivers (watersheds), landscapes, ecosystems. For supporters of deep ecology, slogans such as “let the river live” illustrate this broader usage so common in many cultures.

Inherent value, as use in (I), is common in deep ecology literature (e.g., “the presence of inherent value in a natural object is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by any conscious being”).

RE (2): The so-called simple, lower, or primitive species of plants and animals contribute essentially to the richness and diversity of life. They have value in themselves and are not merely steps towards so-called higher or rational life forms. The second principle presupposes that life itself, as a process over evolutionary time, implies an increase of diversity and richness.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: TECHNOLOGY

We need to shift our focus away from technological solutions

Naess 1995 (Arne, professor of philosophy at Univ. Oslo. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 75)

When arguing from deep ecological premises, most of the complicated proposed technological fixes need not be discussed at all. The relative merits of alternative technological proposals are pointless if our vital needs have already been met. A focus on vital issues activates mental energy and

strengthens motivation. On the other hand, the shallow environmental approach, by focusing almost exclusively on the technical aspects of environmental problems, tends to make the public more passive and disinterested in the more crucial non-technical, lifestyle-related, environmental issues.

Technology is not synonymous with progress

Naess 1995 (Arne, professor of philosophy at Univ. Oslo. “Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: An Interview with Arne Naess,” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 32)

On the contrary, technology is more helpless than ever before because the technology being produced doesn’t fulfill basic human needs, such as meaningful work in a meaningful environment. Technical progress is sham progress because the term technical progress is a cultural, not a technical term. Our culture is the only one in the history of mankind in which the culture has adjusted itself to the technology, rather than vice versa. In traditional Chinese culture, the bureaucracy opposed the use of inventions that were not in harmony with the general cultural aims of the nation. A vast number of technical inventions

were not used by the populace because it was simply not permitted. Whereas here we have the motto, “You can’t stop progress,” you can’t interfere with technology, and so we allow technology to dictate cultural forms.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

LINKS: REFORMISM

Reform is not enough – We must shift our method of thinking about the planet in order to truly solve the environmental crisis

Devall and Sessions 1985 (Bill, professor of sociology at Humboldt State Univ., and George, professor emeritus of philosophy at Sierra College. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, p. ix)

The environmental problems of technocratic-industrial societies are beginning to be seen as manifestations of what some individuals are calling “the continuing environmental crisis.” This is coming to be understood as a crisis of character and of culture. The environmental/ecology social movements of the twentieth century have been one response to the continuing crisis. These movements have addressed some of the problems and have tried to reform some of the laws and agencies which manage the land and to change some of the attitudes of people in these societies. But more than just reform is needed. Many philosophers and theologians are calling for a new

ecological philosophy for our time. We believe, however, that we may not need something new, but need to reawaken to something very old, to reawaken our understanding of Earth wisdom. In the broadest sense, we need to accept the invitation to the dance—the dance of unity of humans, plants, animals, the Earth. We need to cultivate and ecological consciousness. And we believe that a way out of our present predicament may be simpler than many people realize.

Reforms merely entrenches the Status Quo

Devall 1988 (Bill, professor of sociology at Humboldt State Univ. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology, p. 5)

Since Arne Naess introduced the distinction between shallow (reform) environmentalism and deep ecology in 1972, the distinction has gained general acceptance among philosophers and environmental educators (Miller 1985). I this chapter I discuss the relationship between reform and deep ecology. In practical political debates, arguments based on reform and deep perspective are both appropriate in certain situations. But the weakness of reform arguments should also be noted. In particular I am concerned with the dilemma of environmental activists who feel they must use reform arguments in order to be understood by political decision-makers and who reject using deep arguments because they are seen as too subversive. In using reformist arguments, however, activists help to legitimate and reinforce the human-centered (anthropocentric) worldview of decision-makers.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

IMPACTS

Treating nature as a resource makes environmental decline inevitable

Plumwood 2000 (Val, Australian Research Council Fellow at Univ. Sydney. “Deep Ecology, Deep Pockets, and Deep Problems: A Feminist Ecosocialist Analysis,” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 79)

The outcome of working the land must be seen as the product of at least two (kinds of) agencies and interests, and not of a single one (the human one) who is entitled to appropriate the land in accordance with the capitalist interpretation of Locke’s formula. For if, as Locke’s

formula concedes for the human case, the outcome of “mixing labor” in the land is the product of more than just one of these agents, the human one, any more than a single agent is able to appropriate other joint products in which his or her labor is mixed with those of other human agents. Once the agency of nature has been recognized, this placement can only appear either as unjustified seizure or as a form of coverture, the assumption of unity or fusion of interest that we have identified above and that is subject to the same kinds of objections. If our dominant concept of property formation is one that at bottom treats nature as a nullity, it is small wonder that the outcome of its enormous growth and progress as a force for remaking the Earth is a progressive nullification and decline of nature.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

THE ALTERNATIVE

Anthropocentrism has ruined the Earth – we must shift our value framework to one that values all of nature

Berry 1995 (Thomas, professor of history at Fordham Univ. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions, p. 9-10)

A deep cultural pathology has developed in Western society and has now spread throughout the planet. A savage plundering of the entire earth is taking place through industrial exploitation. Thousands of poisons unknown in former times are saturating the air, the water, and the soil. The habitat of a vast number of species is being irreversibly damaged. In this universal disturbance of the biosphere by human agents, the human being now finds that the harm done to the natural world is returning to threaten the human species itself.

The question of the viability of the human species in intimately connected with the question of the viability of the earth. These questions ultimately arise because at the present time the human community has such an exaggerated, even pathological, fixation on its own comfort and convenience that it is willing to exhaust any and all of the earth’s resources to satisfy its own cravings. The sense of reality and of value is strictly directed toward the indulgences of a consumer economy. This nonsustainable situation can be clearly seen in the damage done to major elements necessary for the

continued well-being of the planet. When the soil, the air, and the water have been extensively poisoned, human needs cannot be fulfilled. Strangely, this situation is the consequence of a human-centered norm of reality and value.

Once we grant that a change from an anthropocentric to a biocentric cense of reality and value is needed, we must ask how this can be achieved and how it would work. We must begin by accepting the fact that the life community, the community of all living species, is the greater reality and the greater value, and that the primary concern of the human must be the preservation and enhancement of this larger community. The human does have its own distinctive reality and its own distinctive value, but this distinctiveness must be articulated within the more comprehensive context. The human ultimately must discover the larger dimensions of its own being within this community context. That the value of the human being is enhanced by diminishing the value of the larger community is an illusion, the great illusion of the present industrial age, which seeks to advance the human by plundering the planet’s geological structure and all its biological species.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

THE ALTERNATIVE

Ecocentrism is the alternative

Katz 2000 (Eric, assoc. professor of philosophy at New Jersey Institute of Technology. “Against the inevitability of Anthropocentrism,” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 21)

Deep ecology values the ecosphere—the ecological systems and the natural entities that comprise the living and developing natural world. Deep ecology values the ecosphere in itself, not merely for human purposes. Its chief practical concern is for the ecosphere to continue to develop and flourish with a minimal amount of human interference, degradation, and destruction. To accomplish this task, human social institutions—economics, technology and science, politics,

education, philosophy, and religion—must be reoriented so that they can exist in harmony with the developing processes and life-forms of the natural world.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE EXISTS

Humans are not the only forms of intelligent life in the universe

Zubrin 1999 (Robert, aerospace engineer. Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, p. 17)

Now the history of life on Earth is one of continual development from simple forms to more complex forms, with the more advanced forms manifesting ever-increasing degrees of activity, intelligence, and capability to evolve to even more advanced forms at an accelerated rate. If life is a general phenomenon in the cosmos, then so is intelligence. If the evidence of bacterial fossils presented in Martian meteorite ALH 84001 holds up—and it’s holding up quite well—the implication is clear: We are not alone.

Humans are not alone in the universe

Zubrin 1999 (Robert, aerospace engineer. Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, p. 113)

Astronomers have recently discovered some twelve extra-solar planetary systems, and as a result we now know that all the processes that lead to planet formation around stars are non-exceptional. All theories of planetary system formation based on such unlikely events as collisions between stars have thus been shown to be false. Instead, some form of nebular hypothesis involving the formation of planetary systems as integral with the process of star formation must be true, which strongly implies that most stars

have planets. There are 400 billion luminous stars in our galaxy alone, and every one of them has an appropriate zone, near or far depending upon the brightness of the star, where the right temperatures for liquid water and thus the development of life obtain. Therefore, if we can show that the processes that lead to life’s appearance are also non-exceptional, it means that life is everywhere. Furthermore, the entire history of life on Earth shows a continuous tendency on life’s part to evolve from simpler forms to ever more complex and energetic forms capable of greater degrees of activity and intelligence. Therefore if life is everywhere, intelligent life is nearly everywhere. If we find fossil bacteria on Mars, it means that we are not alone. Except for finding extant life or the actual direct detection of extraterrestrial intelligence, no discovery may ever mean as much in telling us who we are. We may go to Mars as American, Russians, and Japanese; if we fine life we will come back as Humans.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE EXISTS

The universe is full of life

Zubrin 1999 (Robert, aerospace engineer. Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, p. 247)

We now know that the universe is a fertile field. The possibility that this could be the case was suspected by some, such as the Italian Renaissance humanist Giordano Bruno, who guessed the existence of other solar systems, even before the telescope reveals the stars to be suns like our own. Until the present decade it was still possible for pedants to argue that our planetary system could be a unique

phenomenon, as no others had been observed. However, during the 1990s, over a dozen extra-solar planetary systems have been discovered, thereby proving not merely the existence of these particular planets, but the pact that the processes that lead to the formation of solar systems must be common, and probably intrinsic to the process of star formation itself. Much more could be said on this subject, but suffice it to say that, on the basis of current scientific knowledge, it’s an excellent bet that the majority of stars have planets.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

ANSWERS TO FRAMEWORK

Should prioritize theoretical arguments over baseless policy action

Devall 1988 (Bill, professor of sociology at Humboldt State Univ. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology, p. 5)

Arne Naess consistently emphasizes that “what we modestly try to realize is wisdom rather than science or information. A philosophy, as articulated wisdom, has to be a synthesis of theory and practice. It must not shun concrete policy recommendations but has to base them on fundamental priorities of value and basic views concerning the development of our societies.”

Our speech act is a form of social action that can spill over to create more action

Devall 1988 (Bill, Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State Univ. Simple Means, Rich Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology, p. 1-2)

The primary focus of this book, however, is on practicing. Practicing, to me, includes many activities which are not usually labeled as environmental activism. In terms used by poet Gary Snyder, we are practicing on many levels, simultaneously. Some people focus on practicing through what Snyder calls the “real work”—

personal, inner work which seeks clarification and insight. Others are practicing by developing sophisticated and intellectual arguments justifying the protection of biological diversity and respect for nature. Others practice through their political activism. I highlight some of these practices in this book and provide some tentative guidelines and suggestions to further our practice. Throughout the book I prefer to use the active tense—

practicing. To me this implies we become part of something larger than our narrow, egoistic self. Practicing may not make us perfect, but through practicing we test our theories and perhaps develop further insight from which more sophisticated theories develop.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

ANSWERS TO COUNTER-KRITIKS

Deep Ecology overlaps with other critiques

Clark 2000 (John, professor of philosophy at Layola Univ. “How Wide is Deep Ecology?” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 7-8)

A consideration of Naess’s “rules of nonviolence” might help remind us that our various ecophilosophies have overlapping aspects, that they are in some ways complementary, and that our presumed goal is to improve our ecological thinking and practice rather than to defend successfully the tenets of our preferred ecophilosophy.

Accepting a nonsectarian approach does not, of course, mean that we hesitate to express our philosophical views in the strongest of terms, nor that we refrain from careful critique of other views in the strongest of terms, nor that we refrain from careful critique of other views even as we engage in equally careful self-critique of our own ideas and practice. In fact, we might even begin to question the very concept of our “own” ideas. After all, ideas are not artifacts that we consciously decide to produce, and they are certainly not something we can hold on to, no matter how hard we try. Naess’s reflections on the need to overcome

identification with the narrow ego, and to achieve identification with larger realities, might usefully be applied to this problem. If we do so, we might be more successful in avoiding our natural tendency to fall into what might be called “the arrogance of humans with –isms,” a malady that has gravely afflicted participants in recent ecological disputes.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

ANSWERS TO ECOFEMINISM

Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism are not incompatible – but it is not enough to eliminate the patriarchy

Zimmerman 1989 (Michael, professor of philosophy at Tulane Univ. “Introduction To Deep Ecology: An Interview with Michael E. Zimmerman, by Alan AtKisson,” In Context, Summer 1989, p. 24. Online at http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm. Accessed 4/24/11)

There are many ecofeminists - people like Joanna Macy for example - who would call themselves deep ecologists, but there are some ecofeminists who've made an important claim against it. They say the real problem isn't anthropocentrism but androcentrism - man-centeredness. They say that 10,000 years of patriarchy is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the biosphere and the development of authoritarian practices, both socially and environmentally.

Deep ecologists concede that patriarchy has been responsible for a lot of violence against women and nature. But while they oppose the oppression of women and promote egalitarian social relations, deep ecologists also warn that getting rid of patriarchy would not necessarily cure the problem, because you can imagine a society with fairly egalitarian social relationships where nature is still used instrumentally.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS

Humans are the caretakers of life – it is our job to spread life throughout the universe

Tumlinson 2005 (Rick, co-founder of the Space Frontier Foundation. “The Moon,” in Return to the Moon, ed. Rick Tumlinson & Erin Medlicott, p. 6)

From my perspective, the core concepts of this movement are simple. Earth is a cradle of life in a potentially hostile universe. Humanity is the caretaker of that life. It is our job to not only save this world but to do so using the resources of the space around us, and to take life to worlds now dead. To expand the human species and life forms of Earth beyond the limiting confines of this tiny world and out into the universe.

Deep Ecology allows us to focus on human survival

Katz 2000 (Eric, assoc. professor of philosophy at New Jersey Institute of Technology. “Against the inevitability of Anthropocentrism,” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 38)

Naess continues with the claim that we must conceive of the possibility of the human ego being “enlarged and deepened,” so that there is no

“cleavage” between the self and the world. Nevertheless, the interview demonstrates that within the core ideas of deep ecology there is a systematic ambiguity about the proper place of human interests in the justification of environmental action. As with the Kantian notion of beautiful actions that Naess cites so often, there is a conflation of personal and altruistic interests. The preservation of nature I justified, within deep ecology, because it furthers the process of Self-realization, a process that includes the further realization of the narrow self of the human ego. Nature is preserved not for its own sake but for the sake of everything (the expansive, universal Self), and nature can be harmed for the “good reason” of personal human survival.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS

PERM: ADD SOME SNAZZY PERM TEXT

The perm solves - must critique and act at the same time in order to solve

Humphrey 2000 (Mathew, lecturer in political theory at Univ. Nottingham. “Ontological Determinism and Deep Ecology: Evading the Moral Questions?” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 79)

Contemporary environmental problems present humanity with a range of both difficult and important dilemmas. The claims of currently existing human populations to a materially decent life, with security from poverty and disease, the “claims” of other species for living space and a continued existence, and our consideration of the interests of future generations in having a livable environment, not only in terms of resources but also in terms of having a recognizably “natural” environment in which to

develop are all serious problems. Coping with these problems is doubtless one of the most important challenges facing late twentieth-century humanity. How to act rightly in the face of such great difficulties? The Self-realization thesis appears to offer a relatively easy solution to this question. Understand your Self, and the right actions will come to you.

Although an attractive proposition if true, such an approach risks shutting all doors to reason. We cannot bypass the intense difficulty of these problems via an ontological shortcut that assumes a fixed end state to human development. In seeking to find tentative, reasoned solutions to these problems, individuals can continuously develop their moral and intellectual capacities as they seek to negotiate problematic interaction between conflicting goals. This may prove to be difficult, or even impossible, but it would seem to be the only human game in town.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS

Deep Ecology cannot escape anthropocentrism

Katz 2000 (Eric, assoc. professor of philosophy at New Jersey Institute of Technology. “Against the inevitability of Anthropocentrism,” in Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 33-34)

The process of identification, first of all, is by its very nature anthropocentric in character. We are asked to identify our interests with the interests of the nonhuman natural world and, indeed, with all other living beings. We are to identify, through a process of empathy, with the interests of other beings. Although we are

not supposed to think of ourselves as identical to other beings, we come to see that we share a commonality of interests. The key idea here is that we recognize that other living beings—including those in the nonhuman natural world—share our human interests, so that in thwarting their interests, we thwart our own. In harming them, we harm ourselves.

The anthropocentrism of the process of identification is fundamentally connected to the anthropocentric character of the entire process of Self-realization and—at least in Naess’s formulation—the advocacy of the Kantian notion of “beautiful actions,” which fuse together ethical obligation and the pursuit of personal interests. As noted

above, Naess often claims that once a person has an adequate ecophilosophical worldview, the need for a system of ethical obligation regarding the proper treatment of the natural environment would be irrelevant. By developing our Self—our increased recognition of our connections to the rest of the environment—we will act to preserve the natural environment because of “traits of human nature”—that is, through our expanded notion of our self-interest as connected to the larger Self of the natural world and Its interest.

To put this more simply, Naess is arguing that humans ought to preserve the natural environment because it is in the human interest to do so—indeed, it is in the individual’s interest to preserve the natural world because it will further the interests of the individual. Of course the interests of the individual from within the deep ecological perspective will now be the narrow egoistic interests of ordinary human life. Human interests will be expanded through a process of identification with the nonhuman world, and human interests (according to the platform of deep ecology) should focus more on the quality of life experiences than on

the mere increase in material goods. Nevertheless, the focus and goal of the preservation of natural processes is the maximization of human interests. The identification and expansion of the Self are clearly anthropocentric in character, structure, and goal.

DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK

AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS

Plants and animals are not moral agents – we only need to look at the human point of view

MacNiven 1997 (D, Department of Philosophy at York Univ. “Environmental Ethics and Planetary Engineering,” in From Imagination to Reality: Part II – Base Building, Colonization and Terraformation, ed. Robert Zubrin, p. 304-305)

If we adopt a homocentric theory, rooted in the principle of respect for persons, we would likely

conclude that it would be morally permissible, perhaps morally required, to engage in Martian terraforming or ecopoiesis. Respect for persons implies that man is more valuable than nature. Humans are moral agents. They possess rationality and freedom of choice. They are moral agents who possess dignity and intrinsic value. They cannot be used merely as a means to the ends of others or nature.

But animals, plants, and rocks or nature as a whole, do not possess the capacity o act morally. They are not moral agents and hence are not part of the moral universe. They do not have moral or legal standing. Animals and nature have no moral or legal rights. Nature has no intrinsic value. It has value only when it contributes to the well-being of mankind.

Terraforming is ethical because it is required for human survival

MacNiven 1997 (D, Department of Philosophy at York Univ. “Environmental Ethics and Planetary Engineering,” in From Imagination to Reality: Part II – Base Building, Colonization and Terraformation, ed. Robert Zubrin, p. 304-305)

The only remaining questions for the homocentric would be whether the benefits to mankind would be great enough to warrant the costs of terraforming or ecopoiesing, and whether the resources required to accomplish these astonishing engineering feats could not serve man in better ways, for example, in solving the environmental crisis here on Earth or the poverty crisis or eradicating genetic diseases.

These questions present more problems for ecopoiesis than for terraforming because terraforming would have more direct benefits for mankind than ecopoiesing, which would only have long range benefits if any at all. Since ecopoiesis is only indirectly related to human welfare

it is not likely to be given a high priority by the homocentric. One major benefit either project might have is to help assure the survival of life itself, and this may be sufficient to warrant the projects in the future. But again terraforming would have the upper hand over ecopoiesing because it is more likely to help assure the survival of humankind.