Reading: Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement, by Murray Bookchin.

(read it here: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html )

I was once contracted to transcribe audio files to text, and the file I received was a talk from the  man who’s mission had been the eradication of Guinea worm. Outright, wholesale destruction of this terrible parasite, which once afflicted most of Africa. Due to dedicated efforts from the Carter Foundation and the World Health Organization, however, transmission rates steadily decreased, and now the final goal (zero cases globally) is within reach: http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/mini_site/index.html

This is almost universally considered to be a good thing, by nearly every individual and group, with the exception of Deep Ecology (as our reading has pointed out) and other nutjobs: http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm <— These people are fighting to save the worm, even asking for volunteers to host (or “nurture”) the worm inside their own bodies. By what right do we, as humans, choose who lives and dies?

Should we just let nature “take its course?” The elimination of Guinea worm comes primarily from filtering drinking water – by that alone the worm would be extinct. As it turns out, there was a lot of social bias in rural Africa regarding purifying drinking water – I wish I had the source to refer to, but story told in this speech went something like: A man traveled from his remote village to the city for business, and while there learned about the worm and how it can be prevented by filtering drinking water. He returned and started to do so, but faced extreme prejudice, to the point of threatened violence, from the other villagers. They believed that by filtering drinking water he was “offending the Gods,” and would invite Their wrath upon the village. This, to me, sounds like Deep Ecology at work – a mystical supernatural force that was incompatible with rational common sense. It took the testimony of converted shamans, priests and high-profile political leaders, working together, to dispel these idea and get people to filter the water they drink.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the supernatural (or any spiritual or religious) can be disregarded in a theoretically “pure” scientific, or even social, ideology. I only see a clash of ideals when the above happens – suffering needlessly out of fear or ignorance. The point here is not one of denying the spirit, but rather one of regulating it to its proper place – as a framework for personal experience and spiritual growth, and NOT as a method of approach to our current ecological crises. Whether or not humanity, in all its complex social glory, is a product of the natural world or not is irrelevant; we have the power to influence “first” nature with our “second,” and that alone is enough.

Of course, Bookchin’s understanding of the distinction between Self and self is woefully lacking – I’m not surprised, as I don’t believe anyone from the Deep Ecology camp gets it either. What I believe, as I pointed out in class, is that any discussion of the spiritual unfolding of self into Self is a useless one; enlightened behavior is, in no way, externally different from unenlightened behavior. To base a movement of thought and action around a state of being that is both poorly-understood and behaviorally like any other state is a very bad idea.

This same mistake plagues Taoism, which Murray was quick to scorn, in that Taoist texts provide a description of the state itself, and offers no real methods for achieving it. We can, by proximity and osmosis, gain insight and feeling, and by those means possibly move closer to the goal, but it is like being given a road map of Manhattan while one lives in Iowa – you’re not there, but you get an idea of what it could be. To base a movement, or a social structure, on these descriptions is a terrible idea – and yet, one of the central points of Deep Ecology is expanding this sense of self into the larger Self! This is either mood making, delusion, or enlightenment. If we could really expand ourselves by just thinking about it and wishing it were so, I would have been enlightened a million freaking times by now.

Personally, then, I base my actions on an overwhelming sense of proper, normal, common-sense conduct. Within this common-sense framework are my ideologies, my religion, my spiritual experiences, and the like. These factors, however, are limited to their proper spheres – I don’t kill people, even though I believe in reincarnation and the like, because that would be horrible. On the other hand, I naturally feel a sense of superiority over the rest of nature in those things I am good at, namely cognitive thinking. Individual facets of nature are “better” than me in every physical manner – running, swimming, endurance, sex, seeing, hearing, and so on. But my ability to think and act on those thoughts far exceed anything else in nature – why not celebrate this fact? Why not embrace the power that this provides? If we are the products of nature, we have been set as Kings and Queens on the top – as a democratically elected King of Nature, it would be an insult and disservice to not act with the authority that position provides.

And, as may be the case, our abuse of that position may result in our overthrowing, a defenestration of King Man – Man, in this case, being our social structure, the collective activity all of us contribute to. Here Murray is exactly right – it is our social structure that must be fixed, not how we see ourselves. Humanity already has enough compassion and empathy with nature IF we allow for it to grow in society. By structuring ourselves in a manner which denies this basic goodness to each other, how much more difficult to find basic goodness towards anything non-human? That is the vital flaw of Deep Ecology, if it is true – we must “be excellent to one another” on all scales, in all counties, and among all people if we are to truly address the Why of our ecological destruction. To appeal to the spiritual gods of nature, and merge with them, while advocating death and destruction to our families, is both counter-productive and truly terrible.

If you don’t, the maniac will shoot you.

Get Volume 1 Now!

]]> http://forcedsimplicity.com/on-credit-cards/feed/ 1