Article

Return to Paradise

Return to Paradise

It is fitting that philosopher Arne Naess developed the theory of deep ecology on the craggy, snow-swept face of a Norwegian mountain. From this solitary perch high above the ground, the world looked different to Naess than it does to most of us. While many of us tend to see the world through an anthropocentric lens, Naess perceived nature as a vast, unbroken plane. He sensed the continuity of a single, unifying substance and subsequently identified that the problem with our culture is our tendency to think that we exist in opposition to nature. “Ultimately,” he concluded, “all life is one: an injury to one’s opponent becomes an injury to one’s self.”

It was from this monistic premise (influenced by the teachings of Gandhi and Spinoza) that Naess developed an ecological philosophy situating humans within the “larger self” of the ecosystems that contain us. On this level plane of existence humans and nature are equal – the natural world should not be subjugated to human want nor manipulated for human gain. The flaw in “shallow” ecology, according to Naess, is its attempt to address the problems of nature within an industrialized, capitalist framework. It is not until we stop looking at the earth as a resource and come to regard it as an extension of our collective self that we will attain the “deep” understanding required for true, meaningful sustainability.

When Naess passed away earlier this year at the age of 96, he died an optimist, believing that humans were slowly beginning to see the way forward. He was often corrected by journalists when he expressed hope for “heading back in the direction of paradise” by the 23rd century. “You mean the 21st,” they would reply. “No,” Naess corrected, “I am a short-term pessimist and a long-range optimist.” He predicted that in the centuries to come, people – including those in the developed West – would suffer greatly as populations continue to swell and we stubbornly cling to our faith in technology.

It is not until we broaden our narrow conception of self to include the natural world that we will be able to perceive the scope of the chaos we have caused. For that kind of vantage point, Naess believed, we have to keep climbing. We have to slowly and painfully scale the path of truth until our ecological aesthetic changes. There, on a snow-swept summit many hundreds of years from now, when we look out at the earth, we will see only ourselves.

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

Adbusters #83

All Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
August
20, 2009
01:58 pm
Link
We should be happy with whatever happens to us; either the alive or the dead is just fine. Ollie
June
09, 2009
12:48 pm
Link
We do not need to leave industrialism behind, we couldn't go back to the dark ages even if we wanted to. What does need to happen is change. A realization that we are a part of the earth and it is a part of us. In order to save ourselves it is required that we save the earth. The human race needs the earth and its resources to survive, the planet will go on living long after we die out. By using renewable resources instead of fighting over the rapidly depleting source of oil is the first step towards saving ourselves and the planet. Climate change is happening, so we need to change too and only the adaptable will survive.
June
09, 2009
12:34 pm
Link
Industrialism does not need to be left behind - we just need to embrace more natural ways of living and sustaining the earth at the same time. It is possible to use renewable resources instead of rapidly depleting oils. Unless we start treating the earth as the temple it is that we are lucky enough to reside on, we are going to destroy it and ourselves. Climate change is happining largely because of the human race and the only way to continue living is to change with our environment - only the adaptable will survive.
June
01, 2009
10:23 pm
Link
no one will read this, but if you really want to know more about him the best way to do it is read the 'series editor's introduction' of the Selected Works of Arne Naess on google books. the set costs over a thousand dollars, in 10 volumes, and 3,600 pages, but the 40 page intro occurs at the beginning of every volume and therefore even as a fragmented gbook the intro is available in its entireity ultimately there. if you look a full documentary is available about him on youtube, and you can read the full 40 pg interview linked from the sidebar of the correct video
June
01, 2009
01:40 pm
Link
The Earth is a resource, it just shouldn't be treated like a commodity.
June
01, 2009
12:14 am
Link
The social ecology is riddled with a question of life itself. How do we sustain mankind, especially since our ability to overcome adversity has led us to become dependent on technology, while at the same time live symbiotically with our environment. "We" as a species have subverted the unrelenting chaos of nature EI disease, famine, and conflict(with other species)through the use of technology(plundering of natural resources). We are at war with nature, if life is the common value. So how do we sustain ourselves without using nature as a tool for survival? Again dependence on modern medicine is a great decision model, do we prioritize the disconnected human being over the natural world IE build hospitals over fields of daisies, create drugs with harsh chemicals, test on animals bearing the negative consequence, and plunder natural resources by using them for our benefit or do we give in to the natural process of selection and let billions die from epidemics, plagues, and disease. There is no common value that all of nature shares except for its species individual survival. (even the plants fight over land and nutrients). P.S. I'm an extreme liberal/environmentalist. Well just a little moderate on the liberal thing.
May
31, 2009
03:42 pm
Link
"And harmony means that the relationship between all the elements used in a composition is balanced, is good." Karleheinz Stockausen The problem is the lack of harmony. It's easy to debate against technology while we use it in the process. It's easy to eat too much, drink too much, have too much, talk too much. Making sure all the elements are balanced implies assuming personal responsibility for our cacophony. Having the will to change our "shallow ecology" depends on the individual. When the individual is motivated by individualism well... We know the consequences of a history plague by individualism. We live to tell the story of a perpetuating individualistic tragedy. Maybe our harmony is cacophonic. Maybe the discord is our undeniable destiny. Although, there is light. I remember seeing it somewhere. I sometimes see it in me. Sometimes in you.
May
30, 2009
10:47 am
Link
Gandhian economics are why India is a 3rd world basketcase while nations like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and so forth are prosperous Western largely democratic states. Besides, Gandhi didn't free India. The English withdrew from its empire after it exhausted itself fighting back the Kaiser, the Soviet Union, the Nazis, Fascist Italy, and the Japanese imperialist. As Niall Ferguson puts it: "It was the staggering cost of fighting these imperial rivals that ultimately ruined the British Empire. In other words, the Empire was dismantled not because it had oppressed subject peoples for centuries, but because it took up arms for just a few years against far more oppressive empires. In the end, the British sacrificed the Empire to stop the Germans, Japanese and Italians from keeping theirs. Did not that sacrifice alone expunge all the Empire's other sins? " http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/ArticleItem.aspx?pageid=167
May
30, 2009
07:22 pm
Link
"Gandhian economics are why India is a 3rd world basketcase while nations like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and so forth are prosperous Western largely democratic states." Hmmm, I didn't know India had local craft production and food production in decentralized Ashram federations. I always thought the were a Capitalist industrializing nation with a hierarchical government bureaucracy. Have you even read 'My Experiments with Truth' or the books that inspired Gandhian economic/politics like Thoreau's 'Walden', Ruskin's 'Unto the Last' or Tolstoy's 'The Kingdom of God is within You'?
May
29, 2009
03:09 pm
Link
This is silly. The earth is a resource. The animals and plants that grow on it are resources. We human beings are resources. Everything feeds on everything else. If we did not feed on each other, we would all die out, and all life would end. Life is consumption. But consumption isn't the end. It's merely a stage in the process. Nothing is stagnant, nothing is stationary. It's always changing, evolving. The things that you love, your personal moral, spiritual, and political values, these do not exist in a vacuum, they are the result of this process. We believe and feel the way we do, because the structure of our bodies spent millions of years evolving for survival, in order to self-replicate in an environment of scarcity. Adbusters seems increasingly silly, to me. Always fighting, fighting, fighting, to cleanse the womb of the people who you do not understand, and are intolerant of. Live your lives, take the things that you want, make the things that you love. But don't sit here and dictate what is true and what is blasphemy. The first lesson of philosophy, is that the wisest man is the one who is aware that he knows nothing. The last lesson came from Buddha: There never was anything to know. Peace and plastic,
May
29, 2009
02:58 pm
Link
another matt might want to give that quote another look - it doesn't refer to western populations per se.
May
29, 2009
12:33 pm
Link
The best answer to overpopulation is to raise living standards for all. Many developed nations have negative population growth. The earth can support a sustainable technological civilization, it cannot support a capitalist consumerist civilization. Life before technology was not paradise, it might have been fun and magical but also dangerous, brutal and short. Arne Naess is about as far removed from reality as you can get. We should use technology as a tool to liberate humanity and allow us to fully realize our creative potential.
May
29, 2009
02:43 pm
Link
"The earth can support a sustainable technological civilization, it cannot support a capitalist consumerist civilization." Ah, but how to make technology sustainable? Plastics may be able to be made from corn, but what a a sustainable (and hopefully non-toxic) substitute for argon, neon, mercury, etc?
May
29, 2009
01:15 pm
Link
he has never argued for no technology. this is your misunderstanding. just as non-proliferation activists do not argue against all technology (just the nuclear kind for war and what not), Naess argues for a type of social organization without certain kinds of patterns/tools. there's also no such thing as 'life before technology'. Deep Ecology is not for no technology. even crows, bonobos and certain dolphins use technology. and more to the point, no human relative of ours has been sans-technology. this after all is what "distinguishes our species above/from others" if you're to think like imperialistic anthropologists did ages ago. the human species has been using technology for 3 million years. 99% of that time is spent gathering-hunting-gardening- within which a great deal of technological culture is needed to accomplish that kind of tribal success on that kind of a time scale. it also continues to this day. the idea that beyond civilization there is no technology or simply 'primitive' technology is bullshit too. colonial bullshit i might add. contraceptive and vision-enhancement plants, herbal abortifacients, entheogenetic drugs are some of the treasures of millennia of tribal adaptation. civilized people have had a shorter life-spans than tribal people until very recently- the industrial revolution- and only in certain parts of industrial europe. it is civilization that makes life nasty, short, brutish, solitary, poor and brutish (or in some such Hobbesian order). haven't you heard the refrain that cutting down rainforests is 'destroying so many species potentially useful to pharmaceutical research'? and what about the main cash crops of civilization that it stole from tribal people? -corn, tomatoes, potatoes are just a few. this constitutes great 'technological' understanding of plants.
May
29, 2009
02:48 pm
Link
"contraceptive and vision-enhancement plants, herbal abortifacients, entheogenetic drugs are some of the treasures of millennia of tribal adaptation." I agree and disagree. Your right, not even the most hardcore anarcho-primitivist is saying that humans can live without some modification of natural elements for our own purposes. However I would define herbal use, stone cutters, etc. as tools, but without an overarching technological system, using the differentiation between tool and technology originating with Mumford, Ellul and Illich and continued by Tucker, Zerzan, Jensen, etc.
May
29, 2009
11:17 am
Link
There's a reason our ancestors have almost always embraced new technologies and opted for agriculture over hunter-gathering and so forth: It's because our lives have always improved the further away we get from nature. We have less disease, less violence, and overall better lives because of it. The only people rail against it is because they see the few minor ill effects and are pig ignorant of history and make up hippy stories about how great it is to live in the forest. Mother Nature is like a crazy x-girlfriend trying to kill you, technology is the restraining order we slap on her looney self.
June
01, 2009
10:29 pm
Link
naess didnt want to idealize primitive societies, he readily admitted their shortcomings. as it has been said, he is definitely against techno-optimism. http://www.naturearteducation.org/paintHolland/Interviews/Naess1.htm here is a really long interview, but his opinions will suprise you and often defy any attempt to pidgeonhole. for example, somewhere in there he says that there are no nonviolent solutions for deep conflicts. read my other comment about google books if you really want to understand the man.
May
29, 2009
02:56 pm
Link
"We have less disease, less violence, and overall better lives because of it." I have to disagree. Every disease known to man came from the domestication of animals. (ie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gotQ0Kuvyjo and see Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond) Also, every anthropologist agrees that hunting and gathering is characterized by a lack of large scale violence and that the violence that does occur is highly ritualistic and guided by a strong sense of honor (ie less people die than in modern conflict because killing someone from a distance is seen as less honorable than killing someone close up with a club, obviously leading to a lower mortality rate among warriors than among modern soldiers.)
May
29, 2009
03:54 pm
Link
" every anthropologist agrees that hunting and gathering is characterized by a lack of large scale violence and that the violence that does occur is highly ritualistic and guided by a strong sense of honor " Not since the 60s. Europeans called natives savages for a reason that reason was horrific levels of violence.
May
29, 2009
07:41 pm
Link
Again not true. "Savage" (or in the French, Sauvage) comes from the vulgar Latin word Salvaticus meaning "of the woods" which in turn came from the Latin root word "Silva", meaning wood, woods or forest. Europeans called native peoples savages because of where they lived.
May
30, 2009
10:40 am
Link
And savage took on the meaning it does today because them there forest people were pretty violent. Go read Jared Diamond's writings on Papua New Guinea and see how peaceful them there savages be.
May
30, 2009
07:29 pm
Link
I have. I'm not saying they were totally non-violent (the desirability of which I highly question considering the emotional and social harm that comes about when rage is suppressed [see Freud] and the fact that small scale, normalized ritual violence can be effective in suppressing the emergence of hierarchy [see Clastres 'Society Against the State'])I'm simply stating that there is no comparison with the level, intensity and brutality of violence in hunter-gatherer societies when compared to the de facto never ending war of each against all against each in modern societies.
May
29, 2009
11:55 am
Link
this is like patriarchy in a nutshell.
May
28, 2009
08:03 pm
Link
Perhaps suffer by western standards is what was meant. The gasoline powered automobile is a good example of this. if the west continues to set this as the standard for living and populations swell, the automobile as a piece of technology will cause suffering. Almost anything that draws on the earth as a resource in this way will have the same outcome. In the west suffering may occur as people are told they are no longer "allowed" to drive a gas power car... as the developing world suffers from the long lasting effects of the west exploiting resources this way?
May
28, 2009
07:52 pm
Link
" He predicted that in the centuries to come, people – including those in the developed West – would suffer greatly as populations continue to swell and we stubbornly cling to our faith in technology. " Well given that the populations of the West have been decline for decades now and are below sustainable rates, this shouldn't be a problem. Does anyone check to see if their source is spouting nonsense? Jesus, even Fox News would have caught the above quoted howler.
June
16, 2009
11:41 pm
Link
While population growth "rates" have been declining in the West, there is a lag in the time it takes for population to stabilize then decrease (when there are more deaths than births). For example, those born in the early 1900s had lots of kids who had lots of kids, and now even if our generation has fewer kids, there are so many of us compared to past generations that population will continue to increase for quite a while. So, yes, we in the West will continue to suffer as our populations swell into the foreseeable future. And what do you mean we are below sustainable rates? If we continue to endorse the Western lifestyle, then we need 5 more Earths (or 1/5 the current population) to support its people based on ecological footprint. Not so sustainable...
May
28, 2009
06:20 pm
Link
Technology is indeed horrible. Uh-oh, I have tuberculosis! Socialism is the answer, not deep ecology. Leaving industrialism behind means the deaths of billions.
May
29, 2009
02:58 pm
Link
Not leaving industrialism means the death of everything.
May
29, 2009
08:27 am
Link
no, your dreams of technotopia are the same as the capitalist's. continuing industrialization means the deaths of billions as it is. the pathology of civilization unambiguously comes from domestication- keeping human and non-human animals captive in cities kills the spirit. industrial civilization requires and would soon collapse without the widespread use, denial and justification of violence. socialism is not exempt from this insofar it is the continuation of civilization with different jockeys on the horse. fuck the race.

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 83,846 strong!

Join Us >>

TOOLS FOR ACTIVISTS

What's This?

RECENT ADBUSTERS MAGAZINES

Logo Small