One of the great thinkers and philosophers of the 20th century, the Norwegian Arne Naess, died a few weeks ago at the age of 96. His passing was noted in some mainstream media, but unfortunately, few people know of the man or, more importantly, his ideas. In 1995 he described himself as a short-range pessimist and a long-range optimist. "I am, to the astonishment of certain journalists, an optimist," he said. "But then I add I am an optimist about the 22nd century. And they say, 'Oh, you mean the 21st?' No, 22nd century! I think that in the 21st century, we have to go through very bad times and it will hurt even rich countries. Now it is all sailing smoothly—but it will hurt the rich."
At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, that seems a prescient observation. It looks like very bad times ahead for rich and poor alike in this century, though, as always, poor countries will suffer more than the rich. It seems to me that Arne Naess' ideas, which were influenced by Buddhism, Spinoza, Gandhi and Rachael Carson's seminal book "Silent Spring," are a sort of template for long-range optimism during short-range hard times.
Naess is best known for coining the phrase "deep ecology," which gives a theoretical foundation for the radical (to some) idea that mankind must drastically change its relationship with nature. He viewed deep ecology as different but not necessarily incompatible or at odds with what he termed "the shallow ecology movement." The principles of deep ecology involve the purpose of human life within nature and the human values at work in environmental conflicts. Shallow ecology stops short of questioning or changing the basic tenets of consumer-driven materialism and modern industrial economics, instead promoting as good environmentalism technological solutions like recycling, energy efficiency, green building standards, solar and wind power and the like, all of which are commendable and useful but do not address what Naess viewed as the root causes of, among other things, the 21st century's bad times.
Naess' ideas, careers as a philosopher, a teacher (the youngest at 27 to ever become a professor at the University of Oslo), and one of Norway's leading mountaineers and environmental/social activists are too deep (sic) for a small column, but just these four of the eight points of the deep ecology platform are worth contemplating:
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) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
3) 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.
4) 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.
There are several good books and plenty of information readily available about deep ecology and Arne Naess for those who are interested in, for instance, the personal, social and environmental ramifications of humans' "appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living."
Most people reading this know many people who do adhere to an increasingly higher standard of living while not dwelling in situations of inherent worth, perhaps, in some cases, the reader included. And most people on earth are aware at some level that "present human interference in the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening." Far too many people do not know, or accept or want to believe that "the well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves ... independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes." But who among us could object to "a profound awareness of the difference between big and great?"
Arne Naess was often misunderstood and attacked by people threatened by his ideas, and sometimes called things like "eco-fascist." But Næss always insisted that widening compassion toward non-humans did not imply diminishing compassion toward humans. He said, "We don't say that every living being has the same value as a human, but that it has an intrinsic value which is not quantifiable. It is not equal or unequal. It has a right to live and blossom. I may kill a mosquito if it is on the face of my baby but I will never say I have a higher right to life than a mosquito."
The world lost one of the great men of the past hundred years when Naess died, but if there is cause for optimism about humanity and planet Earth in the 22nd century, it is in some significant part because he lived and the ideas he left behind.
Check them out.
