Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Deep Sustainability: ethics and praxis for

permanent culture

According to Norton, the modern environmental movement

has always been characterised by a tension between those

whose concern for the environment is primarily

underpinned by a kind of ‘biocentric moralism’ and those

whose concern is primarily underpinned by ‘economic

utilitarianism’. What do you see as an appropriate ethical

and ideational basis for the contemporary environmental

movement and why?

1
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Introduction: a dilemma of ethics and praxis

‘I believe it is hard for us to proceed very far with ethical frameworks

without at the same time acting in the real world to develop ourselves as

whole persons.’

- David Holmgren

According to Norton1 the contemporary environmental movement suffers from

an ideological crisis ‘of values, conceptualisations and worldviews’ 2 that has led

to,

…no single, coherent consensus regarding positive values, no widely shared vision

of a future and better world in which human populations live in harmony with the

natural world they inhabit.3

This crisis, Norton claims, is due to the ethical and ideational tension between

biocentric moralism and economic utilitarianism. Other critics of modern

environmentalism, namely Nordhaus and Shellendberg4, would also add a

‘failure to craft inspiring and powerful proposals’ 5 and the artificial separation of
1
B. Norton, ' The Environmentalist's Dilemma' in his Toward Unity Among
Environmentalists. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991.
2
Norton, p. 5.
3
Norton, p. 6.
4
T. Nordhaus and M. Shellendberg, Break Through: From the Death of
Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, Houghton: Boston, 2004.
5
Nordhaus and Shellendberg, p. 15.

2
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

humanity from nature,6 as decisive factors explaining environmentalists failure

to adequately deal with climate change, deforestation and biodiversity collapse.

It is the author’s argument that neither biocentrism nor economic utilitarianism

on their own can provide an adequate ethical framework to advance the

environmental movement. At worst, each has a tendency to ethically denigrate

either humans or nature. At best, neither offers a clear ideational 7 platform to

achieve long-term ecological thriving. Philosophically, the dilemma arises from

placing humans outside or above nature, rather than within and of nature. Using

a holistic, permaculture approach, it’s possible to conceptualise a praxis that

allows individuals and communities to create sustainable systems which provide

for humans needs without compromising the inherent rights of ecosystems to

thrive. This will help to resolve the fruitless and disempowering ‘back and forth

between two apparently exclusive world-views and sets of value assumptions.’ 8

The permaculture concept developed by David Holmgren and Bill Mollison takes

the best of biocentrism and economic utilitarianism to create values and visions

that are ‘ethical and pragmatic, philosophical and technical.’ 9 While not infallible,

permaculture offers the modern environmental movement a concise ethical and

ideational framework from which to take positive action to construct a

sustainable and just society.

6
Nordhaus and Shellendberg, p. 12.
7
For the sake of relevance, I’ve taken a broad definition of ideation when
analysing the concepts under discussion. One definition states: Ideation is the
creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, where
an idea is understood as a basic element of thought that can be either visual,
concrete, or abstract. Ideation comprises all stages of a thought cycle, from
innovation, to development, to actualization. As such, it is an essential part of the
design process, both in education and practice.
8
Nordhaus and Shellendberg, p. 9.
9
D. Holmgren, Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability,
Holmgren Design Services, Victoria, 2002, p. xv.

3
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Biocentric moralism in modern philosophy is represented most

coherently in deep ecology10 and, for the purposes of this essay and a critical

analysis of biocentric moralism, economic utilitarianism is adequately

represented by the philosophy of social ecology11. These two philosophical

traditions will be compared and contrasted with permaculture to provide the

modern environmental movement with a holistic ethical framework and praxis.

Biocentric moralism: long-range sustainability

‘If we love ourselves at all, we should respect all things equally, and not

claim any superiority over what are, in effect, our other parts.’

- Bill Mollison.

Biocentric moralism, as an ethical framework, has been concisely formulated by

Arne Naess and George Sessions in The Basic Principles of Deep Ecology. 12 There

are two fundamental assumptions in this framework. One is that the current

crisis of environmental degradation is a result of anthropocentric views

10
As articulated by deep ecologists such as Arne Naess, George Sessions and Bill
Devall (see Appendix for The Deep Ecology Platform).
11
Murray Bookchin, developer of social ecology, is one of the harshest critics of
biocentric moralism and deep ecology.
12
G. Sessions and A. Naess, Basic Principles of Deep Ecology, The Anarchist
Library, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-
basic-principles-of-deep- ecology, accessed June 20, 2013.

4
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

dominant in western society,13 which take people to be the sole focus of moral

concern to the exclusion of non-humans. The other assumption is that to resolve

this crisis we need a new paradigm where humans are viewed as interconnected

with all species through complex ecosystems of plants, animals and

microorganisms. From this scientific fact 14 of interconnectedness it is proposed

that human beings do not, and should not, have rights above and beyond other

species in the biosphere, regardless of anthropocentric notions of superiority

and ‘needs’.15 We are from and of nature. As such we should value the richness

and diversity of nature, regardless of its utility to humans. By imbedding humans

firmly within the complex web of life, its logical to conclude that we should value

and respect other species and ‘nature’ for their own sake. What is good for

nature is ultimately good for humans.

Economic utilitarianism: playing the short game

Economic utilitarianism views nature, animals and plants as having value only if

they can be used to benefit humans. This anthropocentric ethical framework,

13
M. Jacob, Sustainable development and deep ecology: An analysis of competing
traditions, Environmental Management, July/August 1994, Vol. 18, Issue 4,
p. 479.
14
‘Biospheric interdependence, a core hypothesis of biocentrism, is a well-
established scientific fact postulated in the independently developed theories of
Vernadsky (1945) and Lovelock (1982) and confirmed by a series of empirical
observations from the discipline of ecology.’ Jacob, p. 480.
15
P. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1986, p. 2.

5
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

also known as ‘shallow ecology,’16 is associated with a management-mentality

towards nature that seeks to solve environmental problems through technical

applications of ecological science within the industrial market economy. 17

Humans are granted special moral status in anthropocentric thinking due to a

number of assumptions about human nature and their superiority. These include

consciousness, tool-making ability, reason and moral thought. For the purposes

of this essay, hardnosed economic utilitarianism of sustainable development

theory, ‘green’ capitalism and other forms of shallow ecology will be sidelined as

out of touch with the fundamental ecological truths of our current environmental

predicament. These environmentally informed anthropocentric frameworks hold

the same basic ethical and ideological assumptions that, in the view of this essay,

have caused the environmental destruction humans are now trying to rectify.

Such assumptions include the primacy of human superiority in nature, infinite

resource availability through the application of technology and the desirability of

profit-driven industrial growth.

Social ecology, developed by Murray Bookchin throughout the 1970’s and

80’s is an ecologically inspired form of anarchism. Bookchin’s vision is of a

liberated humanity living in decentralised eco-communities producing for their

needs with the resources found in their bioregions through mutual aid,

appropriate technology and organic agricultural methods. 18 Unlike biocentric

16
A. Drengson, Some Thought on the Deep Ecology Movement, The Foundation for
Deep Ecology (website), http://www.deepecology.org/deepecology.htm,
accessed June 16, 2013.
17
Jacob, p. 484.
18
M. Bookchin, The concept of ecotechnologies and ecocommunities, Habitat
International, Vol. 2, Issues 1–2, 1977, p. 73–85

6
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

moralism, social ecology is a form of anthropocentric humanism that values

humans as unique in nature due to their rationality, free will, ability to moralise,

imagine and create. Humans have a ‘second nature’ of culture and ethics beyond

the ‘first nature’ of evolution and genetics. 19 Through this we can decide to either

create a humanity that’s in harmony with nature or one that is destructive and

parasitic.

Bookchin contrasts the humanism of social ecology with the biocentric

moralism of deep ecology through a harsh critique of biocentrisms assumptions

and implications. This is the main reason the writer has chosen to focus on how

the economic utilitarianism of social ecology contrasts with the biocentric

moralism of deep ecology.

Biocentrism & economic utilitarianism: ethical dilemmas confronted

Biocentrism and economic utilitarianism each contain inherent philosophical

dilemmas and flaws that make them incapable of providing the modern

environmental movement with an adequate ethical framework. Resolving these

inadequacies is not impossible given their shared ideological outlooks and the

role ideology plays in ‘bridging the gap between conceptual thought and political

action’.20 The author will try to show how the traditional dividing line between

19
E. Crist, The Clash Between Social Ecology And Deep Ecology,
http://www.briangwilliams.com/environmental-ethics/the-clash-between-
social-ecology-and-deep-ecology.html, accessed June 15, 2013.
20
M. Humphrey 'Nature' in deep ecology and social ecology: Contesting the core,
Journal of Political Ideologies, June 2000, p. 247-268.

7
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

‘anti-nature anthropocentrism and a misanthropic aversion to the human

species’21 perpetuated by dilemmas between biocentrism and economic

utilitarianism is avoidable by confronting the mutual critiques of deep ecology

and social ecology.

Biocentrism and deep ecology are unique in western ethical philosophy

for rejecting anthropocentrism and the inherent value of reason and human

interests.22 This shift in ethical parameters has caused many to accuse these

philosophies of nurturing a misanthropic, anti-human sentiment that sees no

constructive place for humans to interact with nature. 23 It’s argued that deep

ecology alienates and ‘disenchants’24 humans from nature by prioritizing other

species and ecosystems over the well-being of humanity. If humans are

inherently destructive of nature by their very existence and survival then there’s

no alternative but to resort to a life of complete abstinence and, ultimately,

suicide and extinction. Human alienation from the natural world is completed by

what Bookchin terms ‘holistic fog’.25 Human uniqueness is lost in an

interconnected, undifferentiated system where everything and nothing has value

except for the totality. Bookchin’s critique of deep ecology has come under much

criticism for the divisiveness it’s caused amongst environmental activists who

21
Humphrey, p. 247.
22
Humphrey, p. 248.
23
M. Bookchin, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement,
http://libcom.org/library/social-versus-deep-ecology-bookchin, accessed June
10, 2013.
24
Humphrey, p. 249.
25
Humphrey, p. 250.

8
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

share many of the same values.26 Arne Naess, founder of deep ecology, admits

though that some deep ecologists 'talk as if they look upon humans as intruders

in wonderful nature,'27 but stresses that the aim of deep ecology is to promote a

greater sense of interconnectedness and interdependence between humans and

nature.28 The claim that biocentrism and deep ecology relegates the interests and

well-being of humans to the sideline is a valid point that should be challenged if

the values of biocentric moralism are to be adopted by the modern environment

movement. Arguably though, deep ecology views human interests to include the

interests of nature, where humanity is part of a complex whole that should be

valued in its entirety.

Supporters of the deep ecology movement are not anti-human, as is sometimes

alleged. Naess's platform principle Number 1 begins with recognizing the inherent

worth of all beings, including humans.29

Biocentrisms rejection of anthropocentrism is grounded in dismissing the

uniqueness of humanity, especially the capacity for reason and critical thinking,

as worthy of greater moral consideration. Humans may have unique capabilities

26
Crist, p. 1.
27
M. Bookchin and D. Foreman, Defending the Earth: A debate between, Black
Rose Books, 1991, Quebec, Canada, Chapter 3, Radical Visions & Strategies, p.32.
28
R. Eckersley, ‘Diving evolution: the ecological ethics of Murray Bookchin’,
Environmental Ethics, 1989, p. 111.
29
Drengson, p. 1.

9
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

not present in other species, but they don’t warrant placing humans above other

species. Naess and Devall30 criticise human reasoning for being arrogant in it’s

assumed ability to fully comprehend nature in all its complexity and ignorant

when acting with self-assuredness in spite of obvious limitations in information

and knowledge. Deep ecology, though, is a creation of human minds and an

ethical system developed by humans for the benefit of nature, which humans are

a part of. From a very basic viewpoint, biocentrism is unavoidably

anthropocentric even if it takes its first value from a non-human source. The

deliberate use of ethical reasoning to place ultimate value on nature suggests

that humans are using a free will that is not possessed by other species, reaching

beyond an evolutionary intuitive, instinctual approach. 31 This is the origin of the

ethical approach arrived at through biocentric moralism. To then dismiss this

human quality as irrelevant in human interaction with nature would be to

diminish the potential we have to adequately deal with the problems we’ve

created. While we can empathize and attempt to think like a mountain, it’s

impossible, given our human brains and functions, to act like one. 32

Acknowledging our capacity to reason doesn’t give us the right to infringe on the

freedom of other species to flourish 33, but rather compels us to use that reason

responsibly for the betterment of our relations with non-human nature. As Arne

Naess admits,

30
‘Devall stresses that nature is not only more complex than we know, it is
probably more complex than we can know and Arne Naess also stresses our
ignorance as to the effects of human interference on even the tiniest ecosystem.’
Humphrey, p. 40.
31
Bookchin refers to this as ‘second nature’.
32
Similarly, ‘We are, however, also something that exists in a different way, on a
different basis, to the rest of nature's creations.’ Humphrey, p. 28.
33
Humphrey, p. 30.

10
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Humans have special responsibilities because of their capacities at least to pose the

problem of the long-term consequences of their behaviour. 34

Reason and the unique capacities of humans to act in nature are compatible with

biocentric moralism and deep ecology if we use these capacities with

consideration for their consequences to other species. This doesn’t prevent

humans from providing for their own needs, but does place a responsibility to

act in a way that minimizes harm and takes account of the various ways these

actions contribute to the wider ecological community.

Economic utilitarianism is an inadequate ethical and ideational

framework for the modern environment movement due to the similarities it

shares with the dominant economic and social paradigm that is, arguably,

creating the very environmental crisis this movement is trying to prevent and

transcend:

The short-term, shallow approach stops before the ultimate level of fundamental

change, often promoting technological fixes based on the same consumption-

oriented values and methods of the industrial economy. 35

34
Humphrey, p. 40.
35
Drengson, p. 1.

11
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

By valuing the economic needs of human above the rights of nature to exist,

economic utilitarianism is the anthropocentric ethical basis that justifies the

wholesale abuse of ecosystems and species by humans, without qualification.

This instrumentalist view of nature allows humans to exploit rivers, forests,

animals and ‘the land’ without regard for long-term damage that could impede

humanities ability to survive into the future. Such an attitude reflects the

dominance of selfishness, arrogance and individualism of industrial society

where the rights of animals and nature are barely recognized. Ignoring the rights

of non-humans and the primacy of our interdependence with nature ignores the

advances made by humanity in understanding ecology and universal laws.

The scientific knowledge of ecology has informed the biocentric ethic of

interconnectedness and interdependence between humans and nature.

Reasoning that the fate and health of humans is intimately connected to that of

non-humans combines an essentially anthropocentric perspective with the

ethical conclusions of biocentric moralism. To value nature only for the economic

utility humans can gain is to undervalue our capacity to reason and hence is a

deeply misanthropic view that degrades our connection with nature. Science and

technology, when applied with the value of nature at the forefront and with

prolonged consideration of it’s affects, could further sustainable human

practices. This is most evident in the areas of population growth, resource use

and food production. Through the practical application of permaculture ethics

and principles, the author will show how biocentrism and economic

utilitarianism can both inform a new ethical framework for the modern

environment movement.

12
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Permaculture: ethical synthesis in praxis

The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and

that of our children.

- Bill Mollison.

Permaculture ethics, principles (see Appendix) and praxis synthesise biocentric

moralism and economic utilitarianism by valuing and observing the

interconnectedness between humans and nature without diminishing the need

of human beings to live and thrive by utilising animals and plants for food, fibre

and energy. In the process, permaculture seems to resolve some of the most

protracted conflicts and dilemmas that exist between biocentrism and economic

utilitarianism.

Permaculture has commonly been difficult to define due to its holistic,

integrated and contextual approach to problem solving and interdisciplinary

philosophical and knowledge base (see Figure 1 and 2 in Appendix). David

Holmgren and Bill Mollison have defined permaculture as,

Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found

in nature, while yielding an abundance if food, fibre and energy for provision of

13
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

local needs’.36

This definition raises two major points that show how biocentrism and

interconnectedness can be matched with the economic utilitarianism of social

ecology and a concern for the needs of humans. Firstly, humans are imbued with

the ability to consciously observe and interact with nature to determine

ecological principles. The second is that we use these ecological principles to

provide for human needs, in a localized economic system. The assumptions here

are that human can determine sustainable ways to provide food, fibre and

energy through an ethical encounter with nature. Nature is ‘rendered self-

conscious’ and capable of participating as an ‘active agent in the natural and

social worlds.’37In many ways this smacks of the arrogant Promethean

response38 where humans conquer nature for the benefit of mankind. Such an

association though cannot be made with permaculture ethics explicitly

interlocking care for the planet with care for people.

Bill Mollison describes permaculture as ‘positivistic’ response to

environmental crisis and states: ‘what we want to do and can do rather than

what we oppose and want others to change’. 39 This outlook helps the current

environment movement overcome the Death of Environmentalism critique that

it lacks a clear, positive vision of the future. The emphasis on a positive, holistic

36
B. Mollison and D. Holmgren, Permaculture One: A Perennial Agricultural
System for Human, Settlements, Tagari Publications, Tasmania, 1978, p. 2.
37
M. Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology, Black Rose, Montreal, 1996, p. 5.
38
Humphrey, p. 45.
39
Holmgren, foreword.

14
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

and contextual response to achieve sustainability means that people are

empowered to act by a clearly defined set of ethics and principles that can be

applied to all fields of life with an emphasis on cooperation and diversity.

Unlike the spiritual, intuitive connection with nature encouraged by deep

ecology proponents, permaculture encourages a more scientific approach, by

using the disciplines of ecology, landscape design, botany and systems thinking

to design sustainable practices that fulfills the needs of humans without

diminishing the overall health of ecosystems. In this sense, permaculture

combines the biocentrisms respect for all species with the scientific, rational,

creative, ethical beings imagined by Bookchin’s social ecology,

‘…to become human is to become rational and imaginative, thoughtful and

visionary, in rectifying the ills of our present society .’40

Permaculture ethics: a coherent ethical framework for the modern

environment movement

Permaculture’s ethical platform is clear and basic: care for the planet, care for

people and set limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute

surplus.41 The first value to ‘care for the planet’ reflects the biocentrism of deep

ecology. Unlike the deep ecology platform though, permaculture doesn’t mince
40
Bookchin, p. 4.
41
Holmgren, p. 1.

15
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

philosophical and ethical platitudes. By simply following ‘care for planet’ with

‘care for people’ permaculture acknowledges that the value to ‘care for the

planet’ originates from an anthropocentric realization that our fate is dependent

on the health and well-being of other species. Holmgren states categorically that,

Permaculture (is) an unashamedly human-centered environmental philosophy that

places human needs and aspirations as our central concern because we have power

and intelligence to affect our own situation.42

So while permaculture takes it’s ethical and philosophical cues from observing

and mimicking nature, the fundamental needs of humans take priority.

Permaculture principles: Science and technology merge with the ancient

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in

which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

- Carl Sagan.

The ethical problems raised by the use of scientific knowledge and of

technological applications are of core concern to the environment movement.

Debate between deep and social ecologists represent a crucial divide that could

impede the implementation of future sustainable systems of production. The

42
Holmgren, p. 6.

16
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

author will now discuss these as a practical example of how permaculture can

help resolve the divide between biocentrism and economic utilitarianism.

Philosophically, deep ecology has been ambiguous and, at best,

ambivalent43 about the ethics of science and technology in a future society,

despite ecology being a major foundation informing biocentric moralism. As

deep ecologists have pointed out, science and technology have mainly

encouraged an instrumental, utilitarian view of nature that has resulted in the

current crises.44 While biocentrism hasn’t been exclusively informed by ecology,

the eclectic sources attributed to this perspective, including indigenous and

eastern wisdom,45 have found little resonance when trying to persuade social

ecologists and economic utilitarian’s of the value of nature. This criticism of deep

ecology and biocentrism is turned into a strength within permaculture principles

and ethics by valuing ecological principles, such as diversity, and taking cue from

the duel traditions of indigenous cultures and modern science. Permaculture

values the indigenous knowledge of patterns that have allowed such cultures to

outlive other civilisations, while also crediting modern science for developing

greater detail in our understanding of nature. To quote Holmgren at length,

Permaculture is applied science in that it is essentially concerned with improving

the long-term material well-being of people. In drawing together strategies and

techniques from modern and traditional cultures, permaculture seeks wholisitc

integration of utilitarian values. By using an ecological perspective, permaculture

43
Jacob, p. 2.
44
Jacob, p. 2.
45
B. Devall and G. Sessions, Deep Ecology, G.M. Smith, Utah, 1985, p. 4.

17
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

sees a much broader canvas of utility than the more reductionist perspectives,

especially the econometric ones, that dominate modern society. 46

This quite clearly shows how permaculture can meld what is good about both

biocentrism and economic utilitarianism, while rejecting the more radical,

impractical claims of deep ecology about nature being off bounds to humans, and

the most harmful consequences of modern science that force an artificial divide

between humans and nature, the part and the whole.

Conclusion

‘Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others’.

- Groucho Marx.

Reconciling the two main philosophical streams in the environment movement is

easier on paper than in the minds and organisations that represent this

movement. A fundamental consensus must be reached over the

interconnectedness of humans with nature before a united front can be reached.

To accept this point would naturally follow that the health and longevity of the

human species depends upon our proper care and respect for nature. To damage

nature irreparably is to destroy a part of humanity. The major problem that

seems to be testing environmentalists is how they can develop economic systems

46
Holmgren, p. 2.

18
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

that meet the needs of humans without compromising the health of the planet.

This is no philosophical issue, but a hard-nosed economic one. As holistic ancient

and indigenous knowledge of animals, plants and soils enters the significant

fringes of ecology, economics and other scientific fields, with their focus on

details and data, the significance of ecosystems and a respect for the services

they provide, become increasingly recognised and calculated. Experiments in

organic agricultural techniques, appropriate technology, the localization of

production and distribution through farmers markets and a greater awareness of

how personal choices impact upon wider systems, an increasing convergence of

biocentric thinking and economic utilitarianism will continue to emerge.

Permaculture, either explicitly or intuitively, will play a major role in the future

by combining a cross-discipline approach to all areas of life. Cooperation

between casually separate fields will continue to merge as scientists and policy

makers recognize the significance of developing details from ecological patterns.

If humans are to genuinely live in sustainable harmony with nature, then

permaculture’s ethical framework and biomimicry must become the new

organising and design principal for the twenty-first century.

References

Bookchin, M. The concept of ecotechnologies and ecocommunities, Habitat

International, Volume 2, Issues 1–2, 1977.

19
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Bookchin, M. Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement,,

http://libcom.org/library/social-versus-deep-ecology-bookchin, 1987, accessed

June 10, 2013.

Bookchin, M. and Foreman, D. Defending the Earth: A debate between Murray

Bookchin and Dave Foreman, Black Rose Books, Quebec, 1991.

Bookchin, M. The Philosophy of Social Ecology, Black Rose, Montreal, 1996.

Crist, E. The Clash Between Social Ecology And Deep Ecology,

http://www.briangwilliams.com/environmental-ethics/the-clash-between-

social-ecology-and-deep-ecology.html, accessed June 15, 2013.

Devall, B. & Sessions, G. Deep Ecology- Living as if nature mattered, Gibbs Smith,

Utah, 1985.

Drengson, A. Some Thought on the Deep Ecology Movement, The Foundation for

Deep Ecology (website), http://www.deepecology.org/deepecology.htm,

accessed June 16, 2013.

Eckersley, R. ‘Diving evolution: the ecological ethics of Murray Bookchin’,

20
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Environmental Ethics, 1989.

Holmgren, D. Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability,

Holmgren Design Services, Victoria, 2002.

Humphrey, M. 'Nature' in deep ecology and social ecology: Contesting the core,

Journal of Political Ideologies, Jun 2000, p. 247-268.

Jacob, M. Sustainable development and deep ecology: An analysis of competing

traditions, Environmental Management, July/August 1994, Volume 18, Issue 4, p.

477-488.

Mollison, B. and Holmgren D. Permaculture One: A Perennial Agricultural System

for Human, Settlements, Tagari, Tasmania, 1978.

Nordhaus, T and Shellendberg, M. Break Through: From the Death of

Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, Houghton, Boston, 2004.

Norton, B, ' The Environmentalist's Dilemma' in his Toward Unity Among

Environmentalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 3-13.

Sessions, G and Naess, A, Basic Principles of Deep Ecology, The Anarchist Library,

21
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-

principles-of-deep- ecology, accessed June 20, 2013.

Taylor, P. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton

University Press, Princeton, 1986.

Appendix

The Deep Ecology Platform (Sessions and Naess)

22
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have

value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, 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 needs.

4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the

situation is rapidly worsening.

5. 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.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in 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 worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher

standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between

big and great.

23
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or

indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

Permaculture Design Principles (Holmgren, 2002)

1. Observe and interact

2. Catch and store energy

3. Obtain a yield

4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback

5. Use and value renewable resources and services

6. Produced no waste

7. Design from patterns to details

8. Integrate rather than segregate

9. Use small and slow solutions

10. Use and value diversity

11. Use edges and value the marginal

12. Creatively use and respond to change.

Figure 1: The Permaculture Flower (Holmgren 2002, p. xx)

24
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Figure 2: Permaculture tree (Mollison and Holmgren 1978, p. 38)

25
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

Application of environmental ethics

It’s a common practice for researchers and writers in the area of environmental

ethics to list the various ways they’ve applied these ethics in their everyday lives.

I felt it to be a useful and relevant activity considering the ethical nature of this

essay. Below is a list of the groups, projects and events I’ve been involved with

26
 Environmental Politics POLI 2012

during the research and writing of this paper:

 House of Bales, builder’s labourer.

 PermacultureSA, active participant.

 Adelaide Sustainable Building Network, Place, permanence and

superadobe talk.

 Flinders Community Permaculture Garden, President.

 Flinders Sustainability Leadership Programme, participant and presenter.

 Earthship Ironbank workshops (first approved Earthship building in SA),

participant.

 What’s Up Doco (documentary nights and discussion on environmental

issues) co-originator and organiser.

 Mad Mouse Alley (DIY social centre for artists and activists), organiser.

 Student of Sustainability, Earthship presenter.

 Strawbale building workshop, Food Forest, participant.

27