Pantheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity,^[1] or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.^[2] Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal anthropomorphic god^[3] and instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.^[4]

Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,^[5]:p.7 particularly his book Ethics, published in 1677.^[6] The term "pantheism" was coined by mathematician Joseph Raphson in 1697^[7][8] and has since been used to describe the beliefs of a variety of people and organizations.

Pantheistic concepts date back thousands of years, and pantheistic elements have been identified in various religious traditions.

Etymology

Pantheism derives from the Greek πᾶν pan (meaning "all, of everything") and θεός theos (meaning "god, divine"). The first known combination of these roots appears in Latin, in Joseph Raphson's 1697 book De Spatio Reali seu Ente Infinito,^[8] where he refers to the "pantheismus" of Spinoza and others.^[7] It was subsequently translated into English as "pantheism" in 1702.

Definitions

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.^[5]:p.8

Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God.^[9] All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.^[10] Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).^[11]

History

Pre-modern times

Pantheistic tendencies existed in a number of early Gnostic groups, with pantheistic thought appearing throughout the Middle Ages.^[12] These included a section of Johannes Scotus Eriugena's 9th-century work De divisione naturae and the beliefs of mystics such as Amalric of Bena (11th–12th centuries) and Eckhart (12th–13th).^{[12]:pp. 620–621}

The Roman Catholic Church has long regarded pantheistic ideas as heresy.^[13][14] Giordano Bruno, an Italian monk who evangelized about an immanent and infinite God, was burned at the stake in 1600 by the Roman Inquisition. He has since become known as a celebrated pantheist and martyr of science,^[15] and an influence on many later thinkers.

Baruch Spinoza

The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is often regarded as pantheism.^[5][16]

In the West, pantheism was formalized as a separate theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.^[5]:p.7 Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese descent raised in the Sephardi Jewish community in Amsterdam.^[17] He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine, and was effectively excluded from Jewish society at age 23, when the local synagogue issued a herem against him.^[18] A number of his books were published posthumously, and shortly thereafter included in the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books. The breadth and importance of Spinoza's work would not be realized for many years - as the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment^[19] and modern biblical criticism,^[20] including modern conceptions of the self and the universe.^[21]

In the posthumous Ethics, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely.".^[22] In particular, he opposed René Descartes' famous mind–body dualism, the theory that the body and spirit are separate.^[23] Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.^[23] This view influenced philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who said, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."^[24] Spinoza earned praise as one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy^[25] and one of Western philosophy's most important thinkers.^[26] Although the term "pantheism" was not coined until after his death, he is regarded as the most celebrated advocate of the concept.^[27] Ethics was the major source from which Western pantheism spread.^[6]

18th century

The first known use of the term "pantheism" was in Latin ("pantheismus" ^[7]) by the English mathematician Joseph Raphson in his work De Spatio Reali seu Ente Infinito, published in 1697.^[8] Raphson begins with a distinction between atheistic "panhylists" (from the Greek roots pan, "all", and hyle, "matter"), who believe everything is matter, and Spinozan "pantheists" who believe in "a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligence, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence."^[28][29] Raphson thought that the universe was immeasurable in respect to a human's capacity of understanding, and believed that humans would never be able to comprehend it.^[30] He referred to the pantheism of the Ancient Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, Assyrians, Greek, Indians, and Jewish Kabbalists, specifically referring to Spinoza.^[31]

The term was first used in English by a translation of Raphson's work in 1702. It was later used and popularized by Irish writer John Toland in his work of 1705 Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist.^{[32][12]:pp. 617–618} Toland was influenced by both Spinoza and Bruno, and had read Joseph Raphson's De Spatio Reali, referring to it as "the ingenious Mr. Ralphson's (sic) Book of Real Space".^[33] Like Raphson, he used the terms "pantheist" and "Spinozist" interchangeably.^[34] In 1720 he wrote the Pantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin, envisioning a pantheist society that believed, "All things in the world are one, and one is all in all things ... what is all in all things is God, eternal and immense, neither born nor ever to perish."^[35][36] He clarified his idea of pantheism in a letter to Gottfried Leibniz in 1710 when he referred to "the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe".^{[12][37][38][39]}

In the mid-eighteenth century, the English theologian Daniel Waterland defined pantheism this way: "It supposes God and nature, or God and the whole universe, to be one and the same substance—one universal being; insomuch that men's souls are only modifications of the divine substance."^[12][40] In the early nineteenth century, the German theologian Julius Wegscheider defined pantheism as the belief that God and the world established by God are one and the same.^[12][41]

Pantheism controversy

Between 1785–89, a major controversy about Spinoza's philosophy arose between the German philosophers Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (a critic) and Moses Mendelssohn (a defender). Known in German as the Pantheismusstreit (pantheism controversy), it helped spread pantheism to many German thinkers.^[42] A 1780 conversation with the German dramatist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing led Jacobi to a protracted study of Spinoza's works. Lessing stated that he knew no other philosophy than Spinozism. Jacobi's Über die Lehre des Spinozas (1st ed. 1785, 2nd ed. 1789) expressed his strenuous objection to a dogmatic system in philosophy, and drew upon him the enmity of the Berlin group, led by Mendelssohn. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that pantheism shares more characteristics of theism than of atheism. The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time.^[43]

Willi Goetschel argues that Jacobi's publication significantly shaped Spinoza's wide reception for centuries following its publication, obscuring the nuance of Spinoza's philosophic work.^[44]

19th century

Growing influence

During the beginning of the 19th century, pantheism was the viewpoint of many leading writers and philosophers, attracting figures such as William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge in Britain; Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in Germany; Knut Hamsun in Norway; and Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau in the United States. Seen as a growing threat by the Vatican, in 1864 it was formally condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.^[45]

A letter written by William Herndon, Abraham Lincoln's law partner in 1886, was sold at auction for US$30,000 in 2011.^[46] In it, Herndon writes of the U.S. President's evolving religious views, which included pantheism.

"Mr. Lincoln's religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist and a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary – supernatural inspiration or revelation. At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent."^[46][47]

The subject is understandably controversial, but the content of the letter is consistent with Lincoln's fairly lukewarm approach to organized religion.^[47]

Comparison with non-Christian religions

Some 19th-century theologians thought that various pre-Christian religions and philosophies were pantheistic. They thought Pantheism was similar to the ancient Hindu^{[12]:pp. 618} philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) to the extent that the 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker remarked that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus."^[48]

19th-century European theologians also considered Ancient Egyptian religion to contain pantheistic elements and pointed to Egyptian philosophy as a source of Greek Pantheism.^{[12]:pp. 618–620} The latter included some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander.^[49] The Stoics were pantheists, beginning with Zeno of Citium and culminating in the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius. During the pre-Christian Roman Empire, Stoicism was one of the three dominant schools of philosophy, along with Epicureanism and Neoplatonism.^[50][51] The early Taoism of Laozi and Zhuangzi is also sometimes considered pantheistic.^[37]

Cheondoism and Won Buddhism which arose in the Joseon Dynasty of Korea is also considered pantheistic.

20th century

Albert Einstein is considered a pantheist by some commentators.

In 2007, Dorion Sagan, the son of famous scientist and science communicator, Carl Sagan, published a book entitled Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature co-written with his mother, Lynn Margulis. In a chapter entitled, "Truth of My Father", he declares: "My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature, but as nature, equivalent to it."^[52]

In a letter written to Eduard Büsching (25 October 1929), after Büsching sent Albert Einstein a copy of his book Es gibt keinen Gott ("There is no God"), Einstein wrote, "We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul [Beseeltheit] as it reveals itself in man and animal."^[53] According to Einstein, the book only dealt with the concept of a personal god and not the impersonal God of pantheism.^[53] In a letter written in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses."^[54][55] In another letter written in 1954 he wrote "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.".^[54]

In the late 20th century, some declared that pantheism was an underlying theology of Neopaganism,^[56] and pantheists began forming organizations devoted specifically to pantheism and treating it as a separate religion.^[37]

Levi Ponce's Luminaries of Pantheism in Venice, California for The Paradise Project.

21st century

Pantheism is mentioned in a Papal encyclical in 2009^[57] and a statement on New Year's Day in 2010,^[58] criticizing pantheism for denying the superiority of humans over nature and seeing the source of man's salvation in nature.^[57] In a review of the 2009 film Avatar, Ross Douthat, an author, described pantheism as "Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now".^[59]

In 2015, Los Angeles muralist Levi Ponce was commissioned to paint Luminaries of Pantheism for an area in Venice, California that receives over a million onlookers per year.^[60] The organization that commissioned the work, The Paradise Project, is "dedicated to celebrating and spreading awareness about pantheism."^[61] The mural painting depicts Albert Einstein, Alan Watts, Baruch Spinoza, Terence McKenna, Carl Jung, Carl Sagan, Emily Dickinson, Nikola Tesla, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ralph Waldo Emerson, W.E.B. Du Bois, Henry David Thoreau, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rumi, Adi Shankara, and Laozi.^[62]

Categorizations

There are multiple varieties of pantheism^[12][63]:3 and various systems of classifying them relying upon one or more spectra or in discrete categories.

Degree of determinism

The philosopher Charles Hartshorne used the term Classical Pantheism to describe the deterministic philosophies of Baruch Spinoza, the Stoics, and other like-minded figures.^[64] Pantheism (All-is-God) is often associated with monism (All-is-One) and some have suggested that it logically implies determinism (All-is-Now).^{[23][65][66][67][68]} Albert Einstein explained theological determinism by stating,^[69] "the past, present, and future are an 'illusion'". This form of pantheism has been referred to as "extreme monism", in which – in the words of one commentator – "God decides or determines everything, including our supposed decisions."^[70] Other examples of determinism-inclined pantheisms include those of Ralph Waldo Emerson,^[71] and Hegel.^[72]

However, some have argued against treating every meaning of "unity" as an aspect of pantheism,^[73] and there exist versions of pantheism that regard determinism as an inaccurate or incomplete view of nature. Examples include the beliefs of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and William James.^[74]

Degree of belief

It may also be possible to distinguish two types of pantheism, one being more religious and the other being more philosophical. The Columbia Encyclopedia writes of the distinction:

"If the pantheist starts with the belief that the one great reality, eternal and infinite, is God, he sees everything finite and temporal as but some part of God. There is nothing separate or distinct from God, for God is the universe. If, on the other hand, the conception taken as the foundation of the system is that the great inclusive unity is the world itself, or the universe, God is swallowed up in that unity, which may be designated nature."^[75]

Form of monism

A diagram with neutral monism compared to Cartesian dualism, physicalism and idealism.

Philosophers and theologians have often suggested that pantheism implies monism.^[76] Different types of monism include:^[77][78]

1. Substance monism, "the view that the apparent plurality of substances is due to different states or appearances of a single substance"^[77]
2. Attributive monism, "the view that whatever the number of substances, they are of a single ultimate kind"^[77]
3. Partial monism, "within a given realm of being (however many there may be) there is only one substance"^[77]
4. Existence monism, the view that there is only one concrete object token (The One, "Τὸ Ἕν" or the Monad).^[79]
5. Priority monism, "the whole is prior to its parts" or "the world has parts, but the parts are dependent fragments of an integrated whole."^[78]
6. Property monism: the view that all properties are of a single type (e.g. only physical properties exist)
7. Genus monism: "the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being" ^[78]

Views contrasting with monism are:

• Metaphysical dualism, which asserts that there are two ultimately irreconcilable substances or realities such as Good and Evil, for example, Manichaeism,^[80]
• Metaphysical pluralism, which asserts three or more fundamental substances or realities.^[80]
• Nihilism, negates any of the above categories (substances, properties, concrete objects, etc.).

Monism in modern philosophy of mind can be divided into three broad categories:

1. Idealist, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism, which holds that only mind or spirit is real^[80]
2. Neutral monism, which holds that one sort of thing fundamentally exists,^[81] to which both the mental and the physical can be reduced^[82]
3. Material monism (also called Physicalism and materialism), which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical^[80][81]

a. Eliminative Materialism, according to which everything is physical and mental things do not exist^[81]

b. Reductive physicalism, according to which mental things do exist and are a kind of physical thing^{[81][note 1]}

Certain positions do not fit easily into the above categories, such as functionalism, anomalous monism, and reflexive monism. Moreover, they do not define the meaning of "real".

Other

In 1896, J. H. Worman, a theologian, identified seven categories of pantheism: Mechanical or materialistic (God the mechanical unity of existence); Ontological (fundamental unity, Spinoza); Dynamic; Psychical (God is the soul of the world); Ethical (God is the universal moral order, Fichte; Logical (Hegel); and Pure (absorption of God into nature, which Worman equates with atheism).^[12]
More recently, Paul D. Feinberg, professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also identified seven: Hylozoistic; Immanentistic; Absolutistic monistic; Relativistic monistic; Acosmic; Identity of opposites; and Neoplatonic or emanationistic.^[83]

Related concepts

Nature worship or nature mysticism is often conflated and confused with pantheism. It is pointed out by at least one expert in pantheist philosophy that Spinoza's identification of God with nature is very different from a recent idea of a self identifying pantheist with environmental ethical concerns, Harold Wood, founder of the Universal Pantheist Society. His use of the word nature to describe his worldview may be vastly different from the "nature" of modern sciences. He and other nature mystics who also identify as pantheists use "nature" to refer to the limited natural environment (as opposed to man-made built environment). This use of "nature" is different from the broader use from Spinoza and other pantheists describing natural laws and the overall phenomena of the physical world. Nature mysticism may be compatible with pantheism but it may also be compatible with theism and other views.^[4]

Nontheism is an umbrella term which has been used to refer to a variety of religions not fitting traditional theism, and under which pantheism has been included.^[4]

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") was formally coined in Germany in the 19th century in an attempt to offer a philosophical synthesis between traditional theism and pantheism, stating that God is substantially omnipresent in the physical universe but also exists "apart from" or "beyond" it as its Creator and Sustainer.^[84]:p.27 Thus panentheism separates itself from pantheism, positing the extra claim that God exists above and beyond the world as we know it.^[85]:p.11 The line between pantheism and panentheism can be blurred depending on varying definitions of God, so there have been disagreements when assigning particular notable figures to pantheism or panentheism.^{[84]:pp. 71–72, 87–88, 105[86]}

Pandeism is another word derived from pantheism, and is characterized as a combination of reconcilable elements of pantheism and deism.^[87] It assumes a Creator-deity that is at some point distinct from the universe and then transforms into it, resulting in a universe similar to the pantheistic one in present essence, but differing in origin.

Panpsychism is the philosophical view held by many pantheists that consciousness, mind, or soul is a universal feature of all things.^[88] Some pantheists also subscribe to the distinct philosophical views hylozoism (or panvitalism), the view that everything is alive, and its close neighbor animism, the view that everything has a soul or spirit.^[89]

Pantheism in religion

Traditional religions

Many traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions^[90] and Native American religions^[91][92] can be seen as pantheistic, or a mixture of pantheism and other doctrines such as polytheism and animism. According to pantheists, there are elements of pantheism in some forms of Christianity.^[93][94][95]

Ideas resembling pantheism existed in East/South Asian religions before the 18th century (notably Sikhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Taoism). Although there is no evidence that these influenced Spinoza's work, there is such evidence regarding other contemporary philosophers, such as Leibniz, and later Voltaire.^[96][97] In the case of Hinduism, pantheistic views exist alongside panentheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, and atheistic ones.^{[98][99][100]} In the case of Sikhism, stories attributed to Guru Nanak suggest that he believed God was everywhere in the physical world, and the Sikh tradition typically describes God as the preservative force within the physical world, present in all material forms, each created as a manifestation of God. However, Sikhs view God as the transcendent creator,^[101] "immanent in the phenomenal reality of the world in the same way in which an artist can be said to be present in his art".^[102] This implies a more panentheistic position.

Spirituality and new religious movements

Pantheism is popular in modern spirituality and new religious movements, such as Neopaganism and Theosophy.^[103] Two organizations that specify the word pantheism in their title formed in the last quarter of the 20th century. The Universal Pantheist Society, open to all varieties of pantheists and supportive of environmental causes, was founded in 1975.^[104] The World Pantheist Movement is headed by Paul Harrison, an environmentalist, writer and a former vice president of the Universal Pantheist Society, from which he resigned in 1996. The World Pantheist Movement was incorporated in 1999 to focus exclusively on promoting naturalistic pantheism - a strict metaphysical naturalistic version of pantheism,^[105] considered by some a form of religious naturalism.^[106] It has been described as an example of "dark green religion" with a focus on environmental ethics.^[107]

Deep ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deep ecology is an ecological and environmental philosophy promoting the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, plus a radical restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas.

Deep ecology argues that the natural world is a subtle balance of complex inter-relationships in which the existence of organisms is dependent on the existence of others within ecosystems.^[1] Human interference with or destruction of the natural world poses a threat therefore not only to humans but to all organisms constituting the natural order.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent of its utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use. Deep ecology is often framed in terms of the idea of a much broader sociality; it recognizes diverse communities of life on Earth that are composed not only through biotic factors but also, where applicable, through ethical relations, that is, the valuing of other beings as more than just resources. It describes itself as "deep" because it regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than that of the prevailing view of ecology as a branch of biology.^[2] The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes) since deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a more holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole. This philosophy provides a foundation for the environmental, ecology, and green movements and has fostered a new system of environmental ethics advocating wilderness preservation, human population control, and simple living.^[3]

Origins

In his original 1972/73 deep ecology paper, Arne Næss claims the deep ecology movement arose from scientists – ecologists – who were out in the field studying the biodiversity and wild ecosystems throughout the world. They were also doing the work of philosophers, laying the foundations for the Age of Ecology and a new ecological worldview to replace the anthropocentric, mastery of Nature, and modernist worldview arising in the 17th and 18th centuries. Three of the most influential ecological spokespersons of the 1960s were Rachel Carson, David Brower, and Paul R. Ehrlich.^[4] Some consider the publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) as the beginning of the contemporary, long-range deep ecology movement. When her book appeared there was a long-standing movement for conservation of land and resources, as well as support for creating parks and other areas devoted to preserving wilderness and spectacular nature. Carson's writings were especially influential because they clearly showed how human well-being depends on the condition of whole biotic communities. She explained in practical terms how living beings are interrelated within ecosystems. She explained how pesticides used to control mosquitoes and other insects led to declines in some bird populations. Silent Spring helped show how complex food webs and networks of biotic relationships function. Since humans are at the top of many food chains, exposure to chemicals becomes more concentrated as these move up the chains. The chemicals also can be stored in human tissues and gradually accumulate over time, adversely affecting health. Carson showed the need for deep changes in human practices and ways of living.

The 1960s was a decade of vigorous social activism in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Australia. Some activism focused on war and peace and the issue of nuclear weapons. A well-known early environmental organization started with a focus on nuclear tests and their environmental hazards. Some people in British Columbia, Canada, were opposed to the test of a nuclear weapon by the US government on Amchitka Island. They hired a fishing vessel and sailed towards the nuclear test site in protest. This action led to the founding of Greenpeace, which became more identified with environmental issues as time went by. These great movements were further catalyzed by the now iconic images of the whole Earth floating in space taken during the return of the Apollo space missions from their journey to the moon. Among the astronauts that witnessed seeing the whole Earth firsthand was Edgar D. Mitchell, who in 1971, during the return mission of Apollo 14, had an epiphany that what is needed to solve the eco-crisis "is a transformation of consciousness".^[5]

Principles

Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. If material goods do not guarantee happiness beyond a very moderate level, and over-consumption is endangering the biosphere, defining a new non-consumptive paradigm of well-being seems primordial, such a paradigm would be non-acquisitive/non-consumerist and non-hierarchical in relation to our place on Earth.^[6] The ethics of deep ecology hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole. Proponents of deep ecology offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:

• The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
• Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves
• Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs
• 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.
• Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening
• Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
• The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
• Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

— Deep Ecology^[7]

These principles can be reduced to three simple propositions:

• Wilderness and biodiversity preservation
• Human population control
• Simple living (or treading lightly on the planet).^[3]

Development

The phrase "deep ecology" was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973.^[8] Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For example, judgments on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it has consciousness (or indeed higher consciousness) have all been used to justify the ranking of the human animal as superior to other animals. Næss states that from an ecological point of view "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species."

This metaphysical idea is elucidated in Warwick Fox's claim that humanity and all other beings are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".^[9] As such deep ecology would support the view of Aldo Leopold in his book A Sand County Almanac that humans are "plain members of the biotic community". They also would support Leopold's land ethic: "a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Daniel Quinn, in his novel Ishmael, showed that an anthropocentric myth underlies our current view of the world.^[10]

The ecological problems faced by the world today are partly due to the loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature - the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose - receives a radical critique in deep ecology.^[5] Deep ecology developed a response to the anthropocentric view and several different actors played an important historical role in its development. Prominent among them was Joseph W. Meeker, who in 1973 told George Sessions about Arne Næss, whom Meeker knew personally.^[11] As Warwick Fox related, "One of the things that initially interested Sessions about Næss was Næss's strong interest in, and innovative approach to, the work of Spinoza. Sessions says that he had himself 'arrived at Spinoza as the answer to the process of teaching history of philosophy by about 1972 and independently of being in contact with Næss.'"^{[citation needed]} Sessions therefore wrote to Næss at this time, beginning a lifelong association. Meeker's (1972, 1997) book The Comedy of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology emerged through the work of scholars seeking an environmental ethic. That book represents Meeker's founding work in literary ecology and ecocriticism, which demonstrates the relationship between the literary arts and scientific ecology, especially humankind's consideration of comedy and tragedy. It reminds readers that adaptive behaviors (comedy) promote survival, whereas tragedy estranges from other life forms. This thesis rests on Meeker's study of comparative literature, his work with biologist Konrad Lorenz, and his work as a field ecologist in the National Park service in Alaska, Oregon, and California.^[5]

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global ecological well-being. Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems in various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature".^[12] Regardless of which model is most accurate, environmentalists^{[citation needed]} contend that massive human economic activity has pushed the biosphere far from its "natural" state through reduction of biodiversity, climate change, and other influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction at a rate between 100 species a day and possibly 140,000 species a year, which is 10,000 times the background rate of extinction. Deep ecologists hope to influence social and political change through their philosophy. Næss has proposed, as Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes, "that the earth’s human population should be reduced to about 100 million."^[13]

Environmental education

Ecology in the narrow sense refers to the biological science of ecology. However, ecological paradigms and principles are being developed and applied in almost all disciplines, and these paradigms have to do with the way we approach understanding the relationships and inter-connections within and between living beings which give to each its special place and identity. Human ecology, e.g., must certainly take account of the role of our subjective lives and spiritual needs, as well as our biological ones, in terms of their ecological effects. Ecology in this sense is not a reductionist undertaking, but a movement toward a more whole (or holistic) vision and understanding of world processes.^[2] Deep ecology seeks to look into all levels of existence and might be viewed as radical by some; for them a more anthropocentric view is appropriate because it put humans at the center. Learning how to live in harmony with our surroundings is beneficial because stopping the global extinction crisis and achieving true ecological sustainability will require rethinking our values as a society. In that way education seems to be the best way to start. Sustainability education aims to help learners understand their interconnectedness with all life, to become creative problem solvers and active citizens, and to engage personally and intellectually in shaping our common future. Experiential learning and critical pedagogy are central to providing opportunities for learners to engage in transformative sustainability learning. The “Environment” broadly defined, remains somewhat neglected within development studies, despite a substantial increase in contributions to the field over the fifteen years since 2000. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses (with some notable exceptions) often “add on” environmental issues as special lectures or modules, and there remains a tendency for those who are grounded in the material and discursive struggles that define the discipline to consider the environment as an exotic special interest, a problem that manifests itself in societies that have the leisure to care about the natural world. Development of a modern education model promoting patriotism and civic responsibility, active social position and healthy lifestyle is closely linked to the development of environmental responsibility in the younger generation. Development of environmentally responsible personality in individual is of particular importance for graduates of educational institutions. Environmental education could be integrated in different curriculum in most fields: education for sustainable development in the context of ecopedagogy.

Ecopedagogy calls for the remaking of capitalist practices and seeks to re-engage democracy to include multispecies interests in the face of our current global ecological crisis. It does so by using different ideas that challenge the way we see education. In Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy and Planetary Crisis: The Ecopedagogy Movement, Richard Kahn (2010) reformulates Herbert Marcuse’s critical theories of society, and supports the kind of education that seizes the power of radical environmental activists and supports the earth democracy in which multispecies interests are represented. The destruction of habitats and threats to biodiversity resulting from expansion of human population and consumption is rarely addressed in a way that confronts students with the necessity to consider moral implications of such destruction.^[14] Pedagogically, a return to education associated with significant life experiences, such as hiking in wilderness areas as a youth; as well as strategically significant education, action competence, social learning, and variations and combinations of those and many other pedagogical approaches developed in the past 40 years. Some of these pedagogical approaches have been disputed—for example, the belief that experiencing environment first hand is an essential component of engaging people in conservation has been disputed by arguments that these education efforts have been informed by behaviorist socio-psychology models that assumed a linear causality between education experience and pro-environmental behavior.^[15] Rather, the critics have argued that people’s environmental behaviors are too complex and contextually dependent to be captured by a simple casual model. The process of environmental education of schoolchildren has the following methodological characteristics:

• Goal-setting as the projected results reflects a model of environmentally responsible personality, taking into account trends in the development of key elements of education system; all natural sciences are involved in the development of basic ecological concepts.

• The introduction of interactive training methods takes place at the high school level in teaching self-reflection, hypothesizing, predicting; school natural science education is rebuilt on the basis of system approach in accordance with the planned ecologization results. Implementation of relevant methodology will promote successful development of environmentally responsible personality in high school graduates.^[15]

In higher education, the analysis of students’ individual writing assignments after viewing films/documentaries presents an interesting case of using radical ‘messages’ within the aims of environmental education in order to trigger both student’s engagement and critical thinking. The case study “If a Tree Falls and Everybody Hears the Sound” provides an example of how environmental advocacy and the objective of pluralistic education can be combined as mutually supportive means of achieving both democratic learning in which students’ individual opinions are seen as extremely valuable, and simultaneously provide an example of the type of ecopedagogy that supports learning for environmental sustainability. The role of environmental advocacy can be crucially important if the interests of all planetary citizens—and not just one species—are to be taken seriously.^[14]

In her book Wild Children — Domesticated Dreams: Civilization and the Birth of Education, Layla AbdelRahim argues that the current institutions responsible for the construction and transmission of civilized epistemology are driven by the destructive premises at the foundation of civilization and human predatory culture.^[16] In order to return to a viable socio-environmental culture, AbdelRahim calls for the rewilding of our anthropology (i.e. our place among other species) and of pedagogical culture, which in civilization is based on the same domestication methods of other animals.^[16][17]

Sources

Scientific

Old-growth forest in Biogradska Gora National Park, Montenegro

Næss and Fox do not claim to use logic or induction to derive the philosophy directly from scientific ecology^[8] but rather hold that scientific ecology directly implies the metaphysics of deep ecology, including its ideas about the self and further, that deep ecology finds scientific underpinnings in the fields of ecology and system dynamics.

In their 1985 book Deep Ecology,^[18] Bill Devall and George Sessions describe a series of sources of deep ecology. They include the science of ecology itself, and cite its major contribution as the rediscovery in a modern context that "everything is connected to everything else." They point out that some ecologists and natural historians, in addition to their scientific viewpoint, have developed a deep ecological consciousness—for some a political consciousness and at times a spiritual consciousness. This is a perspective beyond the strictly human viewpoint, beyond anthropocentrism. Among the scientists they mention specifically are Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, John Livingston, Paul R. Ehrlich and Barry Commoner, together with Frank Fraser Darling, Charles Sutherland Elton, Eugene Odum and Paul Sears.

A further scientific source for deep ecology adduced by Devall and Sessions is the "new physics", which they describe as shattering Descartes's and Newton's vision of the universe as a machine explainable in terms of simple linear cause and effect. They propose that Nature is in a state of constant flux and reject the idea of observers as existing independent of their environment. They refer to Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and The Turning Point for their characterisation of how the new physics leads to metaphysical and ecological views of interrelatedness, which, according to Capra, should make deep ecology a framework for future human societies. Devall and Sessions also credit the American poet and social critic Gary Snyder—with his devotion to Buddhism, Native American studies, the outdoors, and alternative social movements—as a major voice of wisdom in the evolution of their ideas.

The Gaia hypothesis was also an influence on the development of deep ecology.

Spiritual

The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth, not separate from it, and as such human existence is dependent on the diverse organisms within the natural world each playing a role in the natural economy of the biosphere. Coming to an awareness of this reality involves a transformation of an outlook that presupposes humanity's superiority over the natural world. This self-realisation or "re-earthing"^[19] is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realize ourselves. Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea. Deep ecology has influenced the development of contemporary Ecospirituality.^[20]

A number of spiritual and philosophical traditions including Native American, Buddhist and Jain are drawn upon in a continuing critique of the philosophical assumptions of the modern European mind which has enabled and led to what is seen as an increasingly unsustainable level of disregard towards the rights and needs of the natural world and its ability to continue to support human life. In relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition, Næss offers the following criticism: "The arrogance of stewardship [as found in the Bible] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation."^[21] This theme had been expounded in Lynn Townsend White, Jr.'s 1967 article "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis",^[22] in which however he also offered as an alternative Christian view of man's relation to nature that of Saint Francis of Assisi, who he says spoke for the equality of all creatures, in place of the idea of man's domination over creation. Næss' further criticizes the reformation's view of creation as property to be put into maximum productive use: a view used frequently in the past to exploit and dispossess native populations. Many Protestant sects today regard the Bible's call for man to have stewardship of the earth as a call for the care for creation, rather than for exploitation.

The original Christian teachings on property support the Franciscan/stewardship interpretation of the Bible. Against this view, Martin Luther condemned church ownership of lands because "they did not want to use that property in an economically productive fashion. At best they used it to produce prayers. Luther, and other Reformation leaders insisted that it should be used, not to relieve men from the necessity of working, but as a tool for making more goods. The attitude of the Reformation was practically, "not prayers, but production." And production, not for consumption, but for more production." This justification was offered to support secular takings of church endowments and properties.^[23]

Anthropologist Layla AbdelRahim sees the root of the anthropogenic degradation of the biosphere in the anthropology that constructs the human animal as the supreme predator. The ontological explanation offered for Human Supremacy by both science and religion, she says, alienate the human being from the community of life and allow for an immoral control and destruction of the wilderness, which, according to her contains the spirit and intelligence of life.^[17]

Philosophical roots

Spinoza

Arne Næss, who first wrote about the idea of deep ecology, from the early days of developing this outlook conceived Baruch Spinoza as a philosophical source.^[24]

Others have followed Næss' inquiry, including Eccy de Jonge, in Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism,^[25] and Brenden MacDonald, in Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity—Realization of Eco-Literacies^{[26][citation needed]}.

One of the topical centres of inquiry connecting Spinoza to Deep Ecology is "self-realization." See Arne Næss in The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology movement and Spinoza and the Deep Ecology Movement for discussion on the role of Spinoza's conception of self-realization and its link to deep ecology.

Criticism, debate, and response

Knowledge of non-human interests

Animal rights activists state that for an entity to require rights and protection intrinsically, it must have interests.^[27] Deep ecology is criticised for assuming that living things such as plants, for example, have their own interests as they are manifested by the plant's behavior—for instance, self-preservation being considered an expression of a will to live. Deep ecologists claim to identify with non-human nature, and in doing so, deny those who claim that non-human (or non-sentient) lifeforms' needs or interests are nonexistent or unknowable. The criticism is that the interests that a deep ecologist attributes to non-human organisms such as survival, reproduction, growth, and prosperity are really human interests. This is sometimes construed as a pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphism, in which "the earth is endowed with 'wisdom', wilderness equates with 'freedom', and life forms are said to emit 'moral' qualities."^[28][29]

"Deepness"

Deep ecology is criticised for its claim to being deeper than alternative theories, which by implication are shallow. When Arne Næss coined the term deep ecology, he compared it favourably with shallow environmentalism which he criticized for its utilitarian and anthropocentric attitude to nature and for its materialist and consumer-oriented outlook.^[30] Against this is Arne Næss's own view that the "depth" of deep ecology resides in the persistence of its penetrative questioning, particularly in asking "Why?" when faced with initial answers.

Writer William D. Grey believes that developing a non-anthropocentric set of values is "a hopeless quest". He seeks an improved "shallow" view, writing, "What's wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception."^[31]

Bookchin's criticisms

Some critics, particularly social ecologist Murray Bookchin, have interpreted deep ecology as being hateful toward humanity, due in part to the characterization of humanity by some deep ecologists, such as David Foreman of Earth First!, as a pathological infestation on the Earth.^[13] Bookchin^[32][33] therefore asserts that "deep ecology, formulated largely by privileged male white academics, has managed to bring sincere naturalists like Paul Shepard into the same company as patently antihumanist and macho mountain men like David Foreman who preach a gospel that humanity is some kind of cancer in the world of life."^[32] Bookchin mentions that some, like Foreman, defend seemingly anti-human measures, such as severe population control and the claim regarding the Third World that "the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve".^[32] However, Bookchin himself later admitted that "statements made by Earth First! activists are not to be confused with those made by deep ecology theorists".^[34] Ecophilosopher Warwick Fox similarly "warns critics not to commit the fallacy of 'misplaced misanthropy.' That is, just because deep ecology criticizes an arrogant anthropocentrism does not mean that deep ecology is misanthropic."^[34] Likewise, The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology attempts to clarify that "deep ecologists have been the strongest critics of anthropocentrism, so much so that they have often been accused of a mean-spirited misanthropy"; however, "deep ecology is actually vitally concerned with humans realizing their best potential" and "is explicit in offering a vision of an alternative way of living that is joyous and enlivening."^[35]

Bookchin's second major criticism is that deep ecology fails to link environmental crises with authoritarianism and hierarchy. Social ecologists like him believe that environmental problems are firmly rooted in the manner of human social interaction, and suggest that deep ecologists fail to recognise the potential for human beings to solve environmental issues through a change of cultural attitudes. According to Bookchin, it is a social reconstruction alone that "can spare the biosphere from virtual destruction."^[32] Though some deep ecologists may reject the argument that ecological behavior is rooted in the social paradigm (which, according to their view, would be an anthropocentric fallacy), others in fact embrace this argument, such as the adherents to the deep ecologist movement Deep Green Resistance.

Botkin's criticism

Daniel Botkin^[36] has likened deep ecology to its antithesis, the wise use movement, when he says that they both "misunderstand scientific information and then arrive at conclusions based on their misunderstanding, which are in turn used as justification for their ideologies. Both begin with an ideology and are political and social in focus." Elsewhere, though, he asserts that deep ecology must be taken seriously in the debate about the relationship between humans and nature because it challenges the fundamental assumptions of Western philosophy. Botkin has also criticized Næss's restatement and reliance upon the balance of nature idea and the perceived contradiction between his argument that all species are morally equal and his disparaging description of pioneering species.

Response

Some writers have misunderstood Næss, taking his ecosophy T, with its self-realization norm, as something meant to characterize the whole deep ecology movement as part of a single philosophy called "deep ecology". Næss was not doing either of these. He emphasized that movements cannot be precisely defined, but only roughly characterized by very general statements. They are often united internationally by means of such principles as found in the United Nations (UN) Earth Charter (1980), and in UN documents about basic human rights. Næss was doing something more subtle than many thought. He was not putting forth a single worldview and philosophy of life that everyone should adhere to in support of the international ecology movement. Instead, he was making an empirical claim based on overwhelming evidence that global social movements, from the grass roots up, consist of people with very diverse religious, philosophical, cultural, and personal orientations. Nonetheless, they can agree on certain courses of action and certain broad principles, especially at the international level. As supporters of a given movement, they can treat one another with mutual respect. Because of these misunderstandings Næss introduced an apron diagram to clearly illustrate his subtle distinctions.^[5] The apron diagram is meant to illustrate logical, as distinct from genetic, relations between views and their connection with social movements, policies and practical actions. By "logical relations" this means verbally articulated relations between the premises and conclusions.^[5] There is collective cooperation on global concerns, and yet a great variety of ultimate premises from which each person or group acts locally. Within global movements there is diversity at the local level because each place and community is different and must adapt to its unique setting. Thus, Næss stressed that his ecosophy T is not meant to hold for everyone, since it is tailored to his very modest lifestyle suitable to a place such as Tvergastein. The ultimate premises for his whole view might be conceptually incompatible with those in someone else's whole views. But even if this is true, they could both support the platform principles of the deep ecology movement and other social-political global movements, such as for peace and social justice. In recognizing the principle that all living beings have intrinsic worth, there is an acknowledgement that they are good for their own sake. This does not mean committing to biocentric equality or egalitarianism between species. Within the vast diversity of living beings, there are complex relationships the range of which is predation, competition, cooperation, and symbiosis. Many think that symbiosis and complementarity are important values to embrace as they are consistent with global cooperation, community life, and support for the deep ecology movement platform.

Ecofeminist response

Ecofeminism and deep ecology have been in dialogue for some time now, and while the debate between them has been very fruitful over the years, the exploration of their relationship remains important. As valuable as our individually reconnecting with the natural world may be, and as much as such experiences should be encouraged, some have questioned whether this approach is sufficient, given the magnitude of the threat that human encroachment poses to the nonhuman world. With this in mind, the call has been made for a broader challenge to the dominant culture than deep ecological experience may offer. This call has come most forcefully from another school of environmental ethics: ecofeminism. While sharing with deep ecologists a general concern for biocentrism and an appreciation for personal interaction with nonhuman reality, ecofeminists have also offered some harsh criticism of Leopold, Callicott, and advocates of the deep ecological approach, as well as extensionists like Singer and Regan.^[37] Like deep ecology, ecofeminism is not a singular theory, and covers a broad range of thought; in rough terms, its criticism of other forms of nature ethics is grounded in an attempt to synthesize the insights of environmental ethics and animal advocacy with a feminist analysis of Western ethics and culture.^[38] The resulting attempt to rethink our relationship to the animal and nature casts speciesism and anthropocentrism as symptoms of a deeper patriarchy in the Western tradition that needs to be deconstructed before a successful animal ethic can be produced. As Josephine Donovan details, there is evidence to suggest a strong emotional and philosophical affinity among Anglo-American antivivisectionists and suffragettes, who viewed their causes as common responses to Enlightenment rationalism and scientism, and jointly sought a “feminizing” of culture that would liberate human and animal alike.^[37] Ecological feminism began as a critique and rejection of the western cultural worldview with its overemphasis on rationality, and linearity.^[39] It argued against a Cartesian science which elevated the material and objective above the spiritual and the subjective as appropriate ways of knowing the world. Like deep ecology, ecological feminism stresses the importance of experience, and personal experience at that. However, the ecofeminists seem to be talking about experience in a sense more related to bioregionalism than deep ecology.

Both ecofeminism and deep ecology put forward a new conceptualization of the self. Some ecofeminists, such as Marti Kheel,^[40] argue that self-realization and identification with all nature places too much emphasis on the whole, at the expense of the independent being. Similarly, some ecofeminists place more emphasis on the problem of androcentrism rather than anthropocentrism. To others, like Karen J. Warren, the domination of women is tethered conceptually and historically to the domination of nature. Ecofeminism denies abstract individualism and embraces the interconnectedness of the living world; relationships, including our relationship with non-human nature, are not extrinsic to our identity and are essential in defining what it means to be human. Warren argues that hierarchical classifications in general, such as racism or speciesism, are all forms of discrimination and are no different from sexism. Thus, anthropocentrism is simply another form of discrimination as a result of our flawed value structure and should be abolished.^[41]

Experiential deep ecologist Joanna Macy has attempted to avoid these conflicts and criticisms through her Work that Reconnects. By focussing deep ecology on the experience of the consciousness of personal depth within the participant, she speaks of "the greening of the self", which is part of the epochal journey of our times from an egoic or egotistical self to an ecological self.

Links with other philosophies

Parallels have been drawn between deep ecology and other philosophies, in particular those of the animal rights movement, Earth First!, Deep Green Resistance, and anarcho-primitivism.

Peter Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation critiqued anthropocentrism and put the case for animals to be given moral consideration. This can be seen as a part of a process of expanding the prevailing system of ethics to wider groupings. However, Singer has disagreed with deep ecology's belief in the intrinsic value of nature separate from questions of suffering, taking a more utilitarian stance.^[42] The feminist and civil rights movements also brought about expansion of the ethical system for their particular domains. Likewise deep ecology brought the whole of nature under moral consideration.^[43] The links with animal rights are perhaps the strongest, as "proponents of such ideas argue that 'All life has intrinsic value'".^[44]

Many in the radical environmental direct-action movement Earth First! claim to follow deep ecology, as indicated by one of their slogans No compromise in defence of mother earth. In particular, David Foreman, the co-founder of the movement, has also been a strong advocate for deep ecology, and engaged in a public debate with Murray Bookchin on the subject.^[45][46] Judi Bari was another prominent Earth Firster who espoused deep ecology. Many Earth First! actions have a distinct deep ecological theme; often these actions will be to save an area of old growth forest, the habitat of a snail or an owl, even individual trees. Actions are often symbolic or have other political aims. At one point Arne Næss also engaged in environmental direct action, though not under the Earth First! banner, when he chained himself to rocks in front of Mardalsfossen, a waterfall in a Norwegian fjord, in a successful protest against the building of a dam.^[47]

There are also anarchist currents in the movement, especially in the United Kingdom. For example, Robert Hart, pioneer of forest gardening in temperate climates, wrote the essay "Can Life Survive?" in Deep Ecology & Anarchism.^[48]

Robert Greenway and Theodore Roszak have employed the deep ecology platform as a means to argue for ecopsychology.^{[citation needed]} Although ecopsychology is a highly differentiated umbrella that encompasses many practices and perspectives, its ethos is generally consistent with deep ecology.^{[citation needed]} As this now almost forty-year-old "field" expands and continues to be reinterpreted by a variety of practitioners, social and natural scientists, and humanists, "ecopsychology" may change to include these novel perspectives.

Heidegger’s critique of technology^{[citation needed]} has certainly inspired environmentalist and postmodernist of our time. Deep ecologists, like Heidegger^{[citation needed]}, allege that certain metaphysical presuppositions are responsible for ecological destruction, and also contend that any transformation can be brought about only through a renewed awareness about the world. Then the key to environmental crisis, require an ontological shift: from an anthropocentric and utilitarian understanding of world to an understanding which lets things be. A non-anthropocentric humanity would probably initiate attitudes, practices, and institutions that would exhibit respect and care for all beings.