The Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: 1960-2000--A Review

Bill Devall

Ethics & the Environment, Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2001, pp. 18-41
(Article)

Published by Indiana University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/een.2001.0004

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/11195

[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

 THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE
ECOLOGY MOVEMENT
1960–2000—A REVIEW

ABSTRACT
Aarne Naess, in a seminal paper on environmental philosophy, distin-
guished between two streams of environmental philosophy and activ-
ism—shallow and deep. The deep, long-range ecology movement has de-
veloped over the past four decades on a variety of fronts. However, in the
context of global conferences on development, population, and environ-
ment held during the 1990s, even shallow environmentalism seems to
have less priority than demands for worldwide economic growth based
on trade liberalization and a free market global economy.

“If nature is not a prison and earth a shoddy way-station, we must

find the faith and force to affirm its metabolism as our own—or rather, our
own as part of it. To do so means nothing less than a shift in our whole
frame of reference and our attitude towards life itself, a wider perception
of the landscape as a creative, harmonious being where relationships of
things are as real as the things. Without losing our sense of a great human
destiny and without intellectual surrender, we must affirm that the world
is a being, a part of our own body” (Shepard 1969, 3).
When Paul Shepard wrote this passage, he summarized a stream of
thought that was developing during the 1960s in the writings of Gary
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001 ISSN: 1085-6633

©Indiana University Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

18 ETHICS &
Direct all correspondence to: Journals Manager, Indiana University Press, 601 N. Morton St.,
Bloomington. IN 47404
THE USA journals@indiana.edu 6(1) 2001
ENVIRONMENT,
Snyder, Alan Watts, and Rachel Carson, among others. Two books were
particularly effective during the 1960s in stimulating conservation activ-
ism, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and Stewart Udall’s The Quiet
Crisis (1963). These books emphasize both the unintended and negative
impact that certain human behaviors have on ecological relationships and
the philosophy that humans are part of, not apart from, the rest of nature.
This stream of thought and activism has been traced to John Muir and
Henry David Thoreau and to pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and eventu-
ally to the Sumerians in the Epic of Gilgamesh at the beginning of civiliza-
tion (Nash 1989; Oelschlaeger 1991; Sessions 1981; Sessions 1995a).
Professor Arne Naess of the University of Oslo catalyzed discussion of
two streams of environmental philosophy when he articulated the distinc-
tion between “shallow ecology” and the “deep, long-range ecology move-
ment” (DEM) in a short paper published in 1973. He characterized the
shallow ecology movement as “Fight against pollution and resource deple-
tion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed
countries” (Naess 1973).
When Naess outlined principles of the deep, long-range ecology per-
spective, he included “fight against pollution and resource depletion,” but
he went beyond that statement to include principles that are not part of
the dominant social paradigm. These included “ecocentrism,” “wide
sustainability,” “complexity, not complication,” and “rejection of man-in-
environment image in favor of a relational, total-field image” (Naess 1973).
Naess made it socially acceptable for academics to be activists on conser-
vation issues by relating reflection to action. He also showed how people
can move from denial to creative, nonviolent direct action based on their
core values.1
When Naess wrote his original essay on deep ecology, he knew there
was limited scientific data available on the impact of industrial civilization
on free nature. That is why he was inspired by both the science and the
feelings for free nature expressed by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring.2
The wave of enthusiasm for the environment that began with Earthday
1970 was reaching a climax in the United States with the passage of the
federal Endangered Species Act. Many supporters of deep ecology in the
U. S. consider the federal Endangered Species Act to be the most ecocen-
tric environmental legislation because the underlying premise of the act is
that humans have no right to willfully cause the extinction of other spe-
cies, regardless of their value, or lack of value, for humans.

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 19

 The Endangered Species Act therefore moves us, in the words of Robyn
Eckersley, “beyond human racism.” “Green political theorists can make a
contribution here in critically exploring and articulating fundamental value
orientations and defending principles which enable the mutual satisfaction
of human and nonhuman needs. A more proactive task for green political
theorists might be to explore how social institutions might be arranged to
expand conventional boundaries of care in day to day practices, while also
redressing the problems of willful neglect and ignorance of ecosystems.
Indeed, in the light of the history of discrimination against nonhuman spe-
cies, it might even be said that there is now a case for ‘affirmative action’
for nonhuman nature” (Eckersley 1998).
Many researchers have documented the recurring, anthropogenic-
caused collapse of natural systems at the regional or landscape level since
modern humans began spreading across the planet approximately 35,000
years ago. However, the contemporary environmental crisis is the first plan-
etary-wide anthropogenically caused extinction crisis (Wilson 1992; Bright
1998) and environmental crisis.
Much of the scientific research advanced during the 1970s, which had
been proclaimed the “decade of the environment” by President Richard
Nixon, is summarized in a report authorized by President Jimmy Carter
and published in 1980, The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering
the Twenty-First Century (CEQ 1980). This report concluded, “if present
trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted,
less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world
we live in now (i.e., 1980). For hundreds of millions of the desperately
poor, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better.
For many it will be worse.”
Those trends did continue, and the Global 2000 report was written
before the AIDS epidemic and before the emergence of a general agree-
ment among scientists that global warming is occurring, probably at least
partially due to anthropogenic causes.
While the Global 2000 report is phrased within the framework of
conservation of natural resources for human populations, it foreshadowed
reports written from a deep ecology perspective during the past two de-
cades that focus on “wide ecological sustainability.” The well-known equa-
tion I=PAT means that human impact on a region, or on the whole planet,
is a combination of human population growth, plus affluence (or rate of
consumption) and technology.

20 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

 The Global 2000 report was intended as a warning to humanity to
collectively change its behavior, and this warning has been reaffirmed many
times during the past two decades. For example, using computer modeling
of a simulated world system, the authors of Beyond the Limits ran several
computer models of the ‘world system’ varying rates of resources use, in-
dustrial output, human population growth, food production, and pollution.
Projected from 1900 to 2100, all of the computer runs, using different
rates for the different variables, forecast an overshoot of carrying capacity
and collapse of the collective human enterprise around 2050 (Meadows,
Meadows, and Rander 1992). They argue, however, that collectively the
human species can learn to change its behavior in a short (decade ) period
of time and move into a “sustainable” mode of collective behavior.
A convergence of various trends has led to what is frequently called
the “environmental crisis.” On a finite planet there is no “new land” avail-
able for expansion of industrial civilization. Yet human population has
continued to grow; per capita consumption has increased; and technolo-
gy has been applied on a grand scale. Demographers proclaimed that the
six billionth human was born in October 1999. While some people believe
that humans will find solutions to many problems through technology, the
pace of technological change continues to disrupt the lives of hundreds of
millions of people.
The process of worldwide economic integration, called globalization,
continues to disrupt the social and economic security of billions of people
while global warming, acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer and other
effects of industrial civilization undermine the integrity of natural systems
across the planet.
William Catton, Jr., a sociologist trained in ecological theory, con-
cluded that there are several modes of adaptation that societies may take
to ecologically inexorable change. In many contemporary societies includ-
ing both developed nations, such as the United Kingdom and the United
States as well as so-called Third World nations, such as India and China,
many people continue to insist that “sustainable” economic growth is pos-
sible. Catton labels this mode of adaptation “ostrichism.”
Some proponents of reform environmentalism used the images of earth
sent from platforms orbiting the earth in space to argue that “spaceship
earth” or the “blue planet” is an appropriate image for “ecological con-
sciousness” as a response to the contemporary environmental crisis. How-
ever, critics writing from a deep ecology perspective have warned that, at

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 21

 best, such metaphors are ambiguous. For example, Wolfgang Sachs con-
cluded that “shooting a satellite into space is perhaps the most radical way
of establishing the distance from our world necessary for fantasies of large-
scale planning. The image of the Blue Planet—so small and easily compre-
hensible—suggests that what has hitherto provided the preconditions for
diverse forms of human existence may now be planned and managed as a
single unit” (Sachs 1994).
In contrast, poet-ecophilosopher Gary Snyder suggests the meta-
phor of humans singing and dancing around “a little watering hole in deep
space.” The choice of metaphors and slogans is crucial for any social move-
ment. When supporters of deep ecology reject the phrase, “spaceship earth,”
they are rejecting a mechanistic worldview. When they accept slogans such
as “Earth First!” or “thinking like a mountain,” they are rejecting human
hubris and placing Homo sapiens, as a species, in a more modest position
in the cosmos.
In a short essay, “Modesty and the Conquest of Mountains,” Naess
reflects that “ . . . modesty is of little value if it is not a natural consequence
of much deeper feelings, and even more important in our special context, a
consequence of a way of understanding ourselves as part of nature in a
wide sense of the term. This way is such that the smaller we come to feel
ourselves compared to the mountain, the nearer we come to participating
in its greatness. I do not know why this is so” (Naess 1979, 16).
In the face of a crisis of planetary scale, some radical environmental-
ists argue that mild reforms in public policy and practices are basically
useless. Deep changes in society require a ‘paradigm shift’ from the domi-
nant modern paradigm of industrial civilization to a “new environmental
paradigm” or “new ecological paradigm” (Catton 1980b; Drengson 1980).

THE ROLE OF THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY

MOVEMENT IN PROMOTING SOCIAL CHANGE
Several scholarly summaries of themes in the emerging DEM and the
deep ecology perspective show the intellectual development of the move-
ment over the past four decades (Devall 1979, 1980, 1991, 1995a, 1995b;
LaChapelle 1988; Sessions 1981). Anthologies drawing from the deep ecol-
ogy literature include those edited by Sessions (1995a) and Drengson (1995).
In 1984, while camping together in the California desert, Arne Naess
and George Sessions compiled the platform for the deep, long-range ecol-
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

ogy movement. Some supporters of the DEM assert that the ‘platform’ is

22 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

the “heart of deep ecology” (McLaughlin 1993). Other supporters of the
DEM disagree, arguing that the gestalt of deep ecology, the intuition of
deep ecology, is the heart of the movement (Glasser 1997).
Naess said his purpose in developing this ‘platform’ was ‘modest’, that
is, to develop a set of very general principles or statements upon which
supporters of deep ecology could comment and discuss. Naess’s goal is to
help people articulate their own deep ecological total view. The deep ecol-
ogy “platform” therefore is a pedagogical tool to assist people in the pro-
cess of developing their own statement of ecosophy and as a device to
stimulate dialogue between supporters of and critics of the DEM.

PLATFORM OF DEEP ECOLOGY

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. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a sub-
stantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-
human life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with nonhuman world is excessive, and
the situation is rapidly worsening.
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 (dwell-
ing in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increas-
ingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of
the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation di-
rectly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the nec-
essary changes (this version of the deep ecology ‘platform’ is found in
Devall 1988).
The DEM is based on radical pluralism in ‘foundational’ beliefs. Bud-

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 23

 dhists, Christians, Jews, Moslems, pantheists, agnostics, and materialists
can come to a kind of deep ecology position or perspective both from their
own experience (which Naess calls ‘the intuition of deep ecology’) and
from historic philosophic and religious traditions (Naess 1989).
Naess defines ecosophy as “ . . . a philosophy of ecological harmony
or equilibrium. A philosophy as a kind of sofia (or) wisdom, is openly
normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority an-
nouncements and hypotheses concerning the state of affairs of our uni-
verse. Wisdom is policy wisdom, prescription, not only scientific descrip-
tion and prediction. The details of an ecosophy will show many variations
due to significant differences concerning not only the ‘fact’ of pollution,
resources, population, etc., but also value priorities’ (in Sessions 1995a).
Thus, when individuals and communities articulate their own authentic
ecosophy they provide an intellectual and emotional basis for their prac-
tice of deep ecology. Arne Naess calls his version “ecosophy T.” His philo-
sophical reflection on his own ecosophy is based on his experiences in a
mountain hut in Norway where he has worked for many decades. A com-
plimentary statement of ecosophy by Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. is
developed in his book, Earth in the Balance (Gore 1992). Although Gore
devotes a few paragraphs in his book to denouncing “deep ecology” based
on misconceptions of the movement, his own ecosophy is grounded in
deep ecology kind of thinking (Glasser 1996; Carmer 1998).
The slogan, “simple in means, rich in ends,” emphasizes that the DEM
encourages rich experiences, and rich experience includes experiences in
free nature. As modern life continues to encroach on our daily lives, mil-
lions and millions of people are less and less able to have rich experiences
in free nature. The importance of such experience is emphasized in the
growing field of ecopsychology.
For Naess, rich experiences in free nature contributes to a sense of
maturity. Both Dolores LaChapelle (1988) and Paul Shepard (1973, 1998)
have contributed thoughtful commentary on the usefulness of looking at
other cultures, especially primal cultures, for models of appropriate expe-
riences that encourage greater human maturity.
The practice of deep ecology includes both personal lifestyles and com-
munity lifestyles (Devall 1993). In the United States several organizations
have arisen to assist individuals and communities who want to change
their lifestyles to incorporate simple means and rich experiences.3
Some supporters of the DEM see a need to develop more emphasis on

24 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

developing public policy initiatives from a deep ecology perspective. A
recent study of the impact of deep ecology perspectives on public policy in
the United States concludes, “The deep ecology movement continues to
struggle against its critics with hopes of one day transforming society and
politics. Though deep ecologists have enjoyed success in developing an
alternative political and social vision from their deep respect for nature,
they have had only limited success in advancing their agenda” (Cramer
1998, 226). However, many supporters of the DEM remain quite active in
politics. For example, Arne Naess who is in his 80s, continues to engage in
political action. The development of argumentation based on Naess’s prin-
ciples provides a way of getting the camel through the eye of the needle in
making public policy decisions by establishing priorities for policy and
action (Glasser 1996).
Naess concludes that the DEM has a special role in political life. “For
one, it rejects the monopoly of narrowly human and short-term argumen-
tation patterns in favor of life-centered long-term arguments. It also re-
jects the human-in-environment metaphor in favor of a more realistic hu-
man-in-ecosystems and politics-in-ecosystems one. It generalizes most
ecopolitical issues: from ‘resources’ to ‘resources for . . . ’; from ‘life qual-
ity’ to ‘life quality for . . . ’; from ‘consumption’ to ‘consumption for . . . ’;
where ‘for . . . ’ is, we insert ‘not only humans, but other living beings’.
Supporters of the Deep Ecology movement have, as a main source of mo-
tivation and perseverance, a philosophical/ecological total view (an
ecosophy) that includes beliefs concerning fundamental goals and values
in life which it applies to political argumentation. That is, it uses not only
arguments of the usual rather narrow kind, but also arguments from the
level of a deep total view and with the ecological crisis in mind. But sup-
porters of the Deep Ecology movement do not consider the ecological cri-
sis to be the only global crisis; there are also crises of social justice, and of
war and organized violence. And there are, of course, political problems
which are only distantly related to ecology. Nevertheless, the supporters of
the Deep Ecology movement have something important to contribute to
the solution of these crises: they provide an example of the nonviolent
activism needed in the years to come” (in Sessions 1995, 452).
Naess continues to emphasize that most of supporters of the DEM are
not intellectuals nor ideologues but ordinary people who continue to
struggle to find a way to live based on their core beliefs and values. How-
ever, even when people want to “do the right thing” they are hamstrung by

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 25

 force of habit, a sense of despair, lack of community support for change,
and institutional constraints. Anthropological research in the U. S. has
found widespread acceptance of major principles in the ‘platform’ of deep
ecology across a wide spectrum of the population including labor union
members, rural and urban residents, as well as members of conservation
organizations (Kempton et al. 1995).
Some researchers suggest the “biophilia hypothesis” provides a socio-
biology explanation for agape, love of nature as something more than a
social construction, although a biologically-based love of nature is con-
stantly mediated by socio-psychological expressions of biophilia (Kellert
1993).
The translation of values and the ‘intuition’ of deep ecology into ac-
tion in the midst of industrial civilization requires purposeful, collective
action and attention to “ecological self.” The “ecological self,” defined by
Naess as “broad identification” with nature, whether based on biophilia
or on experiences in the “wildness” of nature, has stimulated some of the
most provocative theories developed from a deep ecology perspective (see
for example Mathews 1991; Everden 1993; Macy 1991; Fox 1990). When
people have gone from denial to despair, how do they recatalyze energy to
respond effectively and creatively to the environmental crisis? Teachers
such as John Seed and Joanna Macy have pioneered in developing ex-
periental workshops where participants are invited to explore “broader
identification” through a “council of all beings” (Seed 1988). At least one
researcher has concluded that experiences individuals have during a “council
of all beings” can assist in helping participants engage in nonviolent direct
action based on their awareness of their “ecological self” as part of an
unfolding, interdependent “net” of relationships (Bragg 1995).
Joanna Macy, and other teachers who are supporters of the DEM,
have demonstrated that participation in the “council of all beings” and
other rituals and exercises designed to explore the “ecological self,” is ef-
fective cross-culturally. Macy herself has led such exercises in Russia, Aus-
tralia, several European nations, as well as in the United States with
participants from culturally diverse backgrounds.4
Since many supporters of the DEM have been critical of some of ma-
jor assumptions of modernity, it is not surprising that deep ecology has
been greeted with hostility both by some critics on the left and critics on
the right, as well as post-modern theorists (for example, van Wyck 1997).
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

However, as Glasser has documented, some of the criticism of deep ecol-

26 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

ogy perspectives is the result of misconceptions and fallacies committed
by the critics. It is difficult to speak across paradigms when the basic ap-
proach of different paradigms is phrased in language that is incommer-
surable (Glasser 1998). The “Eight points” platform of the DEM formu-
lated by Arne Naess and George Sessions does not concern the question of
what is the main cause of the ecological crisis. There are a variety of views
about causes such as those advanced by social ecologists and ecofeminists.
Supporters of the DEM can also support social ecology and ecofeminism
and vice versa.5
Some postmodern critics have had special difficulties with the DEM.
But Charlene Spretnak, a scholar who has specialized in the development
of ‘green’ politics, concludes that ‘deconstructionist postmodernism’ should
not be confused with ‘ecological postmodernism’ (Drengson 1996; Spretnak
1997). The key metaphor of ‘ecological postmodernism’ is ecology and
the primary truth is ‘particular-in-context’, or bioregionalism.
Naess asserts that there are three great social movements of the 20th
century—the ecology movement, the peace movement, and the social jus-
tice movement. These three movements speak to our yearning for libera-
tion and can be compatible with each other in specific political campaigns.
However, in situations of conflict, priorities must be established.
Soon after Earthday 1970, commentators were warning of possible
conflicts between environment and civil rights (Hutchins 1976) and be-
tween economic growth and environmental quality (Heller 1973). As the
deep ecology perspective became more widely discussed during the 1980s,
critics from postmodern schools of thought, feminism, and social ecology
argued strenuously for nonessentialist, anthropocentric approachs to envi-
ronmental ethics. Supporters of the DEM demonstrated that there are par-
allels between ecofeminism and deep ecology (Fox 1989; Plumwood 1992).
Some critics assume that the DEM is inappropriate for the Third World
because the Third World must address problems of militarism, poverty,
food supply, and demands for gender equality (Guha 1989). On the con-
trary, supporters of the DEM conclude it is most appropriate for the Third
World because of its emphasis on long-range sustainability of natural sys-
tems within which humans as well as all other species must dwell (Naess
1995; Cafaro 1998).
During the 1980s and 1990s, shallow or reform environmental move-
ments continued to emphasize the tenet that “sustainable economic growth
and development” for both developed and “underdeveloped” societies is

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 27

 desirable, and indeed necessary, in order to achieve goals of cleaner air and
water as well as protection of natural resources for sustained use by a
growing human population (see the Bruntland Report, Our Common Fu-
ture 1987, and Agenda 21 approved by the Rio Summit on Development
and the Environment 1992). The subtext of all the major documents, based
on reform environmentalism, is that an increasing population of humans
will “sustainably” use increasing amounts of “natural resources” by ef-
ficiently using evolving technologies such as biotechnology, computer tech-
nology, nanotechnology, and energy technology.
Most of the documents issued at world conferences on the environ-
ment fail to clearly answer the questions “what is being sustained,” “how
long is it being sustained,” and “how will conflicts between priorities or
between the short-term interests of various categories of people be re-
solved?” “How will priorities of the current generation of humans and
future generations be resolved?”
Supporters of the DEM recognize the need to address the great dispar-
ity between the opportunities of people living in the Third World to sus-
tain their vital needs and people living in Japan, the United States, Canada,
and the European Union. Much effort has been given by supporters of the
DEM to addressing issues of environmental justice raised by a globalizing
economy and the impact of free trade treaties such as NAFTA (and the
WTO) on our ability to speak for the protection of wild species and their
habitat, as well as the impact that global financial structures have on the
lives of ordinary people around the world (Mander 1991).
When the demands for redistribution of money, power, and wealth, in
the short-term, between more wealthy and less wealthy societies, between
genders, between age groups, between politically defined ethnic groups,
and so forth, become the primary agenda of social activists, there is a dan-
ger, as George Sessions has concluded, of “the demise of the ecology move-
ment” because social justice concerns frequently replace concern for the
ecological integrity of the Earth (Sessions 1995b, 1995c ). While many
social issues can be addressed simultaneously, even if a utopian social jus-
tice society could be established, it may be on a planet that is rapidly losing
biodiversity, primary forests, and free nature.

WARNINGS TO HUMANITY
Before the Rio Summit on Development and the Environment in 1992,
the Union of Concerned Scientists circulated the World Scientists’ Warn-

28 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

ing to Humanity, signed by over 1,700 scientists, including 104 Nobel
laureates. The Warning stated, in part, “Human beings and the natural
world are on a collision course . . . A great change in our stewardship of
the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided
and our global home on the planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated . . .
No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the
threats we now confront will be lost” (Ehrlich 1996, Appendix B).
In April 1999, the World Commission on Forests, created after the Rio
Summit of 1992, concluded that nearly 15 million hectares of primary for-
ests, an area the size of England and Wales, have been lost due to logging
and other human activities each year since 1980. Original frontier forests
have all but disappeared in 76 countries, and declined by at least 95 % in
11 countries. The planet’s original forest cover of 6 billion hectares has been
reduced to 3.6 billion hectares (World Commission on Forests 1999).
During the 1980s some commentators suggested that the 1990s
would be a “turnaround decade” or a “turning point” where rapid changes
would encourage the emergence of a new social paradigm or a new type of
social organization based on ecology (Capra 1982). Has a paradigm shift
occurred, or is it occurring on a planetary scale at the beginning of the 21st
century?
It is widely accepted that reform environmentalism is now part of the
political agenda of most nations. Politicians are expected to include “the
environment” as part of their campaign promises and public policy objec-
tives. Many governments of developing nations are willing to participate
in conservation programs—if they are given cash in exchange for their
participation, such as the “debt for nature” agreements reached with some
nations in South America. Findings from cross-cultural surveys indicate
that even in poor nations, there is widespread awareness of and concern
with environmental issues (Brechin 1994). Radical grassroots environmental
movements have developed in many Third World nations (Taylor 1995).
Whether or not motivated by deep ecology or reform environmental per-
spective or demands for tribal or First Nations sovereignty from national
governments, grassroots movements have irritated governments, some cor-
porations, and other economic and political interest groups who ignited a
backlash against radical environmentalism both in the United States and
in many developing nations. Campaigns of suppression, detention, and
even murder of grassroots radical environmentalists have been extensively
documented (Rowell 1996).

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 29

 Leaders of all the major world religions including Native American
pantheism, Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholic, Buddhism, Islam, and
Judaism have presented statements that echo the World Scientists’ Warn-
ing to Humanity. Religious leaders have presented statements affirming
that conservation is part of their ethical teachings and that humans have
no right to destroy the integrity of natural systems (Oelschlaeger 1994).
In 1982, the United Nations General Assembly passed the World Char-
ter for Nature, sponsored by a Third World nation—Zaire—with only one
dissenting vote, the United States. The World Charter contains significant
deep ecology statements including,
1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be dis-
rupted.
2. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the popu-
lation level of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least
sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be
maintained.
3. All areas, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of
conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, repre-
sentative sample of all ecosystems and the habitats of rare and endan-
gered species.
4. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as land, marine and atmospheric
resources which are utilized by man shall be managed to achieve and
maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as
to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or species with
which they coexist.
5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other
hostile activities.
The Charter challenges national and local governments to select the
appropriate mix of social, political, and economic methods to achieve their
goals (Wood 1985). However, the major world environmental conferences
held during the 1990s, including the Rio Summit on Development and the
Environment (1992) and the Kyoto Conference on Global Warming (1998),
presented documents that retreated from deep ecological statements found
in the World Charter for Nature.
Even by their own anthropocentric criteria, the world environmental
conferences of the 1990s have had limited success. Five years after the Rio
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

summit, the United Nations Environmental Programme issued a report,

30 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

The Global Environmental Outlook. The report concludes that “significant
progress has been made in confronting environmental challenges. Never-
theless, the environment has continued to degrade in nations of all re-
gions. Progress toward a sustainable future has simply been too slow”
(UNEP 1997).
Agenda 21, the document approved by governments attending the Rio
Summit, clearly states that sustainable development would be achieved
through trade liberalization. Since the Rio Summit, forest destruction from
Mexico to Siberia and from Brazil to Indonesia has increased due to the
impetus provided by “free trade” and globalization of the timber trade
(Menotti 1998).
An Earth Charter was to have guided the Rio Summit on Environment
and Development, but governments could not agree on such a statement
of ethical principles. However, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
were interested in the idea and formed a network of NGOs to develop a
citizens’ Earth Charter. In early 1997, an Earth Charter Commission com-
posed of distinguished persons from each continent was appointed at a
meeting of international NGOs to draft a citizens’ Earth Charter.
A Draft Earth Charter was released in March 1997 at the Rio+5 Fo-
rum. The Earth Charter is supposed to provide “an ethical framework for
decision making on all matters of environment and development.” The
Draft Earth Charter contains eighteen planks. The first plank says, “Re-
spect Earth and all life. Earth, each life form, and all living beings possess
intrinsic value and warrant respect independent of their utilitarian value
to humanity,” and plank 2, “Care for Earth, protecting and restoring the
diversity, integrity, and beauty of the planet’s ecosystems. Where there is
risk of irreversible or serious damage to the environment, precautionary
action must be taken to prevent harm.”
The clear statement that ecological sustainability must take precedence
in all policy decisions in the citizens’ Draft Earth Charter contrasts starkly
with the development tone of official Agenda 21 documents released
through the United Nations.
The United Nations sponsored Cairo conference on Development and
Population in 1994 presented documents primarily devoted to develop-
ment of women’s opportunities to participate in economic growth in Third
World nations. Decline in birth rates was linked to “empowerment” of
women and to “economic opportunities” for women in a growing economy.
It was assumed that if women participate in economic growth under capi-

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 31

 talism, have access to contraceptives and choice on abortions, and are more
educated, that the birth rate will fall. Some critics of the Cairo conference
statement, including representatives of Moslem nations and the Catholic
church, noted the ideological tone of the Cairo statement and failure of the
Cairo statement to respect cultural diversity. Five years after the Cairo
conference, at a world conference of governments and nongovernmental
organizations called to assess the outcomes of the Cairo conference, the
political consensus of 1994 was in disarray. The environmental caucus of
Cairo+5 in particular insisted that “we cannot address access to food, water
safety, and migration without addressing the environment as well. A healthy
environment should be a priority when seeking to address human health
and welfare.”6 It was also unclear if contributing nations would raise the
programmed $10 billion a year for implementation of the Cairo agree-
ment and the anticipated $22 billion a year that will be needed by 2015.
The United Nations Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995
included “environment” as one of the twelve planks in its “platform for
action.” However, that plank read, “Eliminate all obstacles to women’s
full and equal participation in sustainable development with equal access
to and control over resources; integrate rural women’s traditional knowl-
edge and practices into environmental management programs; support
women’s consumer initiatives by promoting recycling, organic food pro-
duction and marketing and product labeling that is clear to the illiterate.”
There was no plank in the women’s platform that emphasized the role
of women in maintaining wide ecological sustainability by responsibly lim-
iting the number of children they have, nor any support for intrinsic values
of other species, nor support for programs that protect the habitat of na-
tive species in each bioregion. In commenting on this platform, a British
writer, Sandy Irvine, concludes, “ . . . Some fundamental aspects of the
eco-crisis, particularly overpopulation, are ignored or denied. Organisations
such as the Women’s Environment Movement specifically deny that exist-
ing human numbers are already too great for the global ecosystem to sus-
tain” (Irvine 1995).
With the prospect of a conscious, collective movement of rapid social
turnaround fading, some supporters of the DEM suggest that the human
species has exceeded the limits of natural systems to respond to anthropo-
genic changes, and that radical changes in human society will occur during
the 21st century because “nature bats last” (Catton 1980a; Meadows et al.
1992).

32 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

 In his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, Barry Commoner summarized
these ‘laws’ of ecology: Nature is more complex than we know, and prob-
ably more complex than we can know. Everything has to go somewhere.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. And, the most controversial ‘law’,
Nature knows best (Commoner 1971). Some commentators conclude that
humans in industrial civilization have become like a cancer on the planet,
killing the host organism.
Other visionary writers hypothesize that as a species Homo sapiens is
evolving toward a planetary civilization that “ . . . will come from the
synergy of the collective experience and wisdom of the entire human fam-
ily—the entire species. The world has become so interdependent that we
must make it together, transcending differences of race, ethnicity, geogra-
phy, religion, politics, and gender. It is the human species that must learn
to live together as a civilized and mutually supportive community. To fo-
cus on the development of civility among the human species is not to inflate
unduly the importance of humanity within the ecosystem of life on Earth;
rather it is to recognize how dangerous the human race is to the viability of
the Earth’s ecosystem. Humanity must begin consciously to develop a plan-
etary-scale, species-civilization that is able to live in a harmonious rela-
tionship with the rest of the web of live” (Elgin 1993, 14).
Philosopher Thomas Berry calls this project the “great work” of hu-
mans. Berry concludes that humans live in a “moment of grace” as we
move into the 21st century which enables humanity to “be present to the
planet in a mutually beneficial way” (Berry 1999). Others believe that Gaia
herself, a conscious, self-organizing system, will regulate such an unruly
species as Homo sapiens. The Gaia hypothesis has stimulated not only
controversy among scientists but also has stimulated numerous religious,
mystical, and feminist responses that indicate a yearning for integration
with the “Earth Mother.”7
Naess himself says he remains an optimist “for the 22nd century.”
“There is no time for overly pessimistic statements that can be exploited
by passivists and those who promote complacency. The realization of what
we call wide ecological sustainability of the human enterprise on this unique
planet may take a long time, but the more we increase unsustainability this
year, and in the years to come, the longer it will take. . . . The Deep Ecol-
ogy movement is concerned with what can be done today, but I forsee no
definite victories scarcely before the twenty-second century” (in Sessions
1995a, 464).

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 33

 The resurgence of interest in bioregionalism, restoration, locally-based
agriculture, and new initiatives to establish huge nature reserves in many
nations indicates that supporters of the DEM will continue to be leaders in
developing new agendas for the conservation movement as we move into
the 21st century. For example, there is a growing number of alliances be-
tween conservation groups and tribal or First Nation peoples (a designa-
tion most commonly used in Canada) with the objective of assisting tradi-
tional cultures and protecting wildness. From Ecuador to British Columbia,
numerous NGOs continue to implement projects with tribal and First Na-
tion peoples.8
Yet, since liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, as well
as green parties in Europe, Japan, and North America, have found it diffi-
cult to integrate a deep ecology perspective and environmental justice agen-
da into their political agendas, it is difficult to see where the political mo-
mentum for radical social change based on the norm of wide ecological
sustainability will arise. Fritjof Capra, however, concludes that “while the
transformation (from one paradigm to another) is taking place, the declin-
ing culture refuses to change, clinging ever more rigidly to its outdated
ideas; nor will the dominant social institutions hand over their leading
roles to the new cultural forces. But they will inevitably go on to decline
and disintegrate while the rising culture will continue to rise, and eventu-
ally will assume its leading role. As the turning point approaches, the real-
ization that evolutionary changes of this magnitude cannot be prevented
by short-term political activities provides our strongest hope for the fu-
ture” (Capra 1982, 419).
Joanna Macy, and other visionary scholar/teachers who are support-
ers of the deep, long-range ecology movement and who utilize system theory
approaches in their teaching, emphasize that emergent forms of social or-
ganization that arise out of the chaos and breakdown of current social
systems may be very different from present forms of social organization
and cannot be predicted based on linear trend analysis.

CONCLUSION
Ecological systems approaches to global modeling and analysis have
developed extensively over the past several decades to the extent that some
scientists are calling for “international ecosystem assessment.” These sci-
entists argue that an international system of ecosystem modelling and
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

monitoring, integrating the many differing factors—climate change, bio-

diversity loss, food supply and demand, forest loss, water availability and

34 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

quality—is urgently needed. The magnitude of human impacts on ecosys-
tems is escalating. One-third of global land cover will be transformed in
the next hundred years. In twenty years world demand for rice, wheat, and
maize will rise by 40%. Demands for water and wood will double over
the next half-century. At the turn of the millennium, they argue, we need
to undertake the first global assessment of the condition and future pros-
pects of global ecosystems (Ayensu 1999).
The continuing collective efforts to change human behavior to fore-
stall global warming indicates that some attempts at effective political ac-
tion in the face of a “global environmental crisis” are being made (Depledge
1999). Deep ecology perspectives and the DEM have contributed to the
development of ecophilosophy, ecopsychology, and intellectual discussions
of these issues over the past four decades, in particular by helping people
articulate and develop their own ecosophy both individually and as part of
a community (Glasser 1996). However, how the planet as an interdepen-
dent ecosystem, subject to increasing and generally negative human inter-
ventions, will fare in the 21st century remains an open question.
There are those who see hope for the future of Homo sapiens living in
harmony with the rest of nature. They maintain that Homo sapiens have
the capacity to develop into mature human beings both as individuals and
collectively if humanity practices CPE on the earth—conservation, preser-
vation, restoration (Brower 1995). Others, seeing that even small popula-
tions of Homo sapiens armed with simple but very effective technology of
fire and stone arrowhead have, over the past 35,000 years, had immense
impact on landscapes of whole continents (such as Australia), and con-
clude that at best Homo sapiens can be seen as an auto immune disease on
the world system, on Gaia, or as a cancer on the world system that at this
time has begun to destroy the vital organs of the planet.
Another forecast is presented by Bill Joy, chief engineer for Sun Elec-
tronics and one of the creators of Java for the Internet. He begins with
Murphy’s Law, “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong,” and with
the premise from systems theory that when systems involved are complex,
involving interaction among and feedback between many parts, any changes
in such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is
especially true when human actions are involved. Joy explores the unin-
tended consequence of developing the new fields of technology including
robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology.
Since “biological species almost never survive encounters with supe-
rior competitors” and given that robotics, at the current rate of develop-

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 35

 ment, could be superior in intelligence to Homo sapiens within fifty years,
and could self-replicate, it is likely that cyborgs will out-compete current
Homo sapiens and win control of the planet. For Joy, the only hope for
Homo sapiens in the 21st century is if, as a species, we relinquish research
on robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. Exploring the love
and compassion that is more basic to our humanness than the “will to
power” in capitalist, free-market economies based on exponential growth
of technology, humans can enter a path toward a utopia based on altruism
(Joy 2000).
We are left to contemplate the question asked by John Muir, consid-
ered by many historians to be the founder of the American conservation
movement, in 1875. Returning to the Central Valley of California, after
spending another summer meditating in the Sierra Nevada, Muir wrote in
his journal:
Every sense is satisfied. For us there is no past, no future—we live only
in the present and are full. No room for hungry hopes—none for re-
grets—none for exaltation—none for fears.
Enlarge sphere of ideas. The mind invigorated by the acquisition of
new ideas. Flexibility, elasticity.
I often wonder what men will do with the mountains. That is, with
their utilizable, destructable garments. Will he cut down all, and make
ships and houses with the trees? If so, what will be the final and far
upshot? Will human destruction, like those of Nature—fire, flood, and
avalanche—work out a higher good, a finer beauty. Will a better civi-
lization come, in accord with obvious nature, and all this wild beauty
be set to human poetry? Another outpouring of lava or the coming of
the glacial period could scarce wipe out the flowers and flowering
shrubs more effectively than do the sheep. And what then is coming—
what is the human part of the mountain’s destiny? (Engberg and Wesling
1980, 162)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author expresses thanks to Harold Glasser for his extensive com-
mentary and help on preliminary drafts of this article.

NOTES
1. The Selected Works of Arne Naess, edited by Harold Glasser and published by
Kluwer Academic Publishers, will be available in early 2001. Information con-
cerning the current status of this project is available from the Foundation for
Deep Ecology, Building 1062, Ft. Cronkhite, Sausalito, CA 94965.

36 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

2. Naess frequently uses the term “free nature” to refer to landscapes that are
relatively unmodified by human activities. Other supporters of the DEM fre-
quently use the term “wild nature” to refer to landscapes that may contain
human communities such a tribal societies, but are relatively untrammeled by
industrial civilization, agriculture, roads, cattle, or sheep grazing. Henry David
Thoreau expressed one of the central axioms of the modern conservation move-
ment when he wrote “in wildness is the preservation of the world.”
Virtually all regions of the planet are currently impacted by planetary in-
dustrial civilization as witnessed by “global warming,” the “hole in the ozone
layer,” and massive deforestation of all the primary forests on the planet (World
Commission on Forests 1999).
3. See, for example, the Northwest Earth Institute, Suite 1100, 506 SW 6th St.,
Portland, OR 97205.
4. Recent educational material on the deep, long-range ecology movement in-
cludes the 13-part radio series, “Deep Ecology for the 21st Century,” available
from New Dimensions Broadcasting Network, P.O.Box 569, Ukiah CA 95482.
Two videos highlight the work of Arne Naess in articulating deep ecology;
“Crossing the Stones,” produced by Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation in
1992 and available in the United States from Bullfrog Films, Oley PA; and
“The Call of the Mountain,” produced by ReRun Produkties in 1997, distrib-
uted in the United States by the Foundation for Deep Ecology, Building 1062,
Ft. Cronkhite, Sausalito, CA 94965.
5. The International Forum on Globalization, Building 1062, Ft. Cronkhite,
Sausalito, CA 94965, provides books, articles and other material on the envi-
ronmental and social impacts of globalization.
6. Population and Habitat Update: Cariro+5: Identifying Successes, New Chal-
lenges: National Audubon Society’s Population and Habitat Campaign, May/
June 1999.
7. When James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis presented the Gaia Hypothesis, it
was embraced by the broader public before it was embraced by the community
of scientists (Lovelock 1987). Surfing through Amazon.com, I found more than
120 books that use the word Gaia in titles published after 1988. These included
“a guided meditation for vibrational medicine cards and Gaia matrix oracle,”
“from eros to Gaia,” “Gaia and God: an ecofeminist theology of earth healing,”
“gay and Gaia, ethics, ecology, and the erotic,” and “the goddess in the office: a
personal energy guide for the spiritual warrior at work.”
8. The agenda of the DEM now includes “rewilding,” a term not yet found in the
dictionaries. According to Michael Soule, author of numerous books on bio-
diversity and president of The Wildlands Project, rewilding means “the process
of protecting Nature by putting all the ecological pieces back together and
restoring the landscape to its full glory and building a network of conservation
reserves—cores, corridors, and mixed-use buffers—with enough land to allow
wolves, jaguars, bears and other large carnivores to move freely and reclaim a
part of their former range” (Soule 1998).

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 37

 REFERENCES
Ayensu, Edward, et al. 1999. “International Ecosystem Assessment.” Science 286
(October): 685–86.
Berry, Thomas. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future. New York: Bell
Tower.
Bragg, Elizabeth. 1995. “Towards Ecological Self: Individual and Shared Under-
standings of the Relationship Between Self and Environment.” Dissertation.
North Queensland: James Cook University.
Brechin, Steven R., and Willett Kempton. 1994.“Global Environmentalism: A Chal-
lenge to the Postmaterialism Thesis?” Social Science Quarterly 75 (2): 245–69.
Bright, Chris. 1998. Life Out of Bounds: Bioinvasions in a Borderless World. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Brower, David. 1995. Let the Mountains Talk, Let the Rivers Run. San Francisco:
Harper/Collins West.
Cafaro, Philip and Monish Verma. 1998. “For Indian Wilderness.” Terra Nova
(3): 53–58.
Capra, Fritjof. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Catton, William R. Jr. 1980a. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary
Change. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
Catton, William R. Jr. and Riley E. Dunlap.1980b. “A New Ecological Paradigm
for Post-Exuberant Sociology.” American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1): 15–47.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1980. The Global 2000 Report to the
President: Entering the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Cramer, Phillip F.1998. Deep Environmental Politics: The Role of Radical Envi-
ronmentalism in Crafting American Environmental Policy. Westport, Connecti-
cut: Praeger.
Depledge, Joanna. 1999. “Coming of Age at Buenos Aires: The Climate Change
Regime after Kyoto.” Environment 41(7) (September): 15.
Devall, Bill. 1979. “Reformist Environmentalism.” Humboldt Journal of Social
Relations 6:(2) 129–58.
———.1980. “The Deep Ecology Movement.” Natural Resources Journal (20):
299–322.
———.1980. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Salt Lake
City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books.
———. 1991. “Deep Ecology and Radical Environmentalism.” Society and Natu-
ral Resources (4): 247–58.
———. 1993. Living Richly in an Age of Limits. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith
[196.24.72.17] Project MUSE (2024-10-22 14:27 GMT)

Books.

38 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

———. 1995a. “Twenty-Five Years Since Earthday: Reflections of a Sometime
Social Activist.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 21 (1): 15–34.
———.1995b. “Earthday 25: A Retrospective of Reform Environmental Move-
ments.” Philosophy in the Contemporary World 2 (4).
Drengson, Alan.1980. “Shifting Paradigms: From the Technocratic to the Person-
Planetary.” Environmental Ethics (3): 221–40.
Drengson, Alan and Yuichi Inoue, eds.1995. The Deep Ecology Movement: An
Introductory Anthology. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
Drengson, Alan. 1996. “How Many Realities?—Editorial.” The Trumpeter 13 (1):
2–3.
Eckersley, Robin.1998. “Beyond Human Racism.” Environmental Values.
Ehrlich, Paul and Anne Ehrlich.1996. The Betrayal of Science and Reason: How
Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our future. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Elgin, Duane. 1993. Awakening Earth: Exploring the Evolution of Human Cul-
ture and Consciousness. New York: William Morrow.
Engberg, Robert and Donald Wesling, eds. 1980. To Yosemite and Beyond, Writ-
ings from the Years 1863 to 1875. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Everden, Neil. 1993. The Natural Alien, 2nd edition. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Fox, Warwick.1989. “The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels.”
Environmental Ethics 11 (1): 5–26.
———.1990. Toward a Transpersonal Ecology. Boston: Shambhala.
Glasser, Harold.1996. “Naess’s Deep Ecology Approach and Environmental Policy.”
Inquiry (39)157–87.
———. 1998. “Demystifying the Critiques of Deep Ecology.” In Michael E.
Zimmerman, et al., eds. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to
Radical Ecology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 212–24
———.1997. “On Warwick Fox’s Assessment of Deep Ecology.” Environmental
Ethics 19 (1): 69–85.
Gore, Al Jr.1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Guha, Ramachandra. 1989.“Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness
Preservation: A Third World Critique.” Environmental Ethics (11):1.
Heller, Walter. 1993. “Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: Collision or
Co-Existence,” reprint. Morristown, N.J..General Learning Press.
Hern, Warren M.1993. “Is Human Culture Carcinogenic for Uncontrolled Popu-
lation Growth and Ecological Destruction?” BioScience 43 (11): 768–73.
Hutchins, Robert M.1976 “Environment and Civil Rights.” The Center Magazine
(January): 2–5.
Irvine, Sandy.1995. “Just Junk Male?” Real WORLD. (Autumn).

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 39

 Kellert, Stephen R. and Edward O. Wilson, eds.1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kempton, Willett, James S. Boster, and Jennifer A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental
Values in American Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
LaChapelle, Dolores.1988. Sacred Land, Sacred Sex: Rapture of the Deep. Durango,
Colo.: Kivaki Press.
Joy, Bill. 2000. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired 238–62.
Lovelock, James. 1987. A New Look at Life on Earth. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Macy, Joanna. 1991. World as Lover, World as Self. Berkeley, Calif.: Parallax Press.
Mander, Jerry.1991. In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and
the Survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
McLaughlin, Andrew.1993. Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Mathews, Freya.1991. The Ecological Self. Savage, Md.: Barnes and Noble.
Meadows, Donella, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers.1992. Beyond the Limits:
Confronting Global Collapse: Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, Vt.:
Chelsea Green.
Menotti, Victor.1998. “Globalization and the Acceleration of Forest Destruction
Since Rio.” The Ecologist 28 (6):354–62
Naess, Arne.1973. “The Shallow and the Deep,Long-Range Ecology Movements:
A Summary.” Inquiry (l): 16.
———. 1979. “Modesty and the Conquest of Mountains.” In Michael Tobias, ed.
The Mountain Spirit. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press.
———. 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle, trans. and rev. by David
Rothenberg. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———.1995 “The Third World, Wilderness, and Deep Ecology.” In George Ses-
sions, ed. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambala, 397–407.
Nash, Roderick Frazier.1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental
Ethics. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.
Oelschlaeger, Max. 1991. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of
Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 1994. Caring for Creation: An Ecumenical Approach to the Environmen-
tal Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Plumwood, Val.1992. Gender and Ecology: Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.
London: Routledge.
Rowell, Andrew.1996. Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental
Movement. New York: Routledge.
Sachs, Wolfgang.1994. “The Blue Planet: An Ambiguous Modern Icon.” The Ecolo-
gist 24 (5): 170–175.
Seed, John, Joanna Macy, Pat Fleming, and Arne Naess. 1988. Thinking Like a

40 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 6(1) 2001

 Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings. Santa Cruz, Calif.: New Society
Publishers.
Sessions, George.1981. “Shallow and Deep Ecology: A Review of the Philosophi-
cal Literature.” In Robert C. Schultz and J. Donald Hughes, eds. Ecological
Consciousness: Essays from the Earthday X Colloquium, University of Denver,
April 21–24, 1980. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Sessions, George, ed.1995a. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the
Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism. Boston: Shambhala.
———. 1995b.“Postmodernism and Environmental Justice: The Demise of the
Ecology Movement?” The Trumpeter 12 (3): 150–154.
———. 1995c.“Political Correctness, Ecological Realities and the Future of the
Ecology Movement.” The Trumpeter 12 (4): 191–96.
Shepard, Paul and Daniel McKinley, eds.1969. The Subversive Science: Essays
Toward and Ecology of Man. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
Shepard, Paul. 1973. The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. New York:
Scribner’s.
———. 1998. Coming Home to the Pleistocene. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Soule, Michael and Reed Noss. 1998.“Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complimen-
tary Goals for Continental Conservation.” Wild Earth 8 (3).
Spretnak, Charlene.1997. The Resurgence of the Real: Body, Nature, and Place in
a Hypermodern World. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
van Wyck, Peter C.1997. Primitives in the Wilderness: Deep Ecology and the Miss-
ing Human Subject. Ithaca, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,
Taylor, Bron Raymond, ed. 1995. Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global
Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: State Uni-
versity of New York Press,
United Nations Environment Programme. Global Environment Outlook.1997. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Edward O.1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Wood, Harold W., Jr.1985. “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The
Developing Nations’ Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment.”
Ecology Law Quarterly (12): 977–96.
World Commission on Forests.1999. Our Forests, Our Future. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.

BILL DEVALL THE DEEP, LONG-RANGE ECOLOGY MOVEMENT 41