Deep Ecology/EcosophyThe ideas behind deep ecology have major implications today. They allow people to think more deeply about the environment and eventually better understand their own meaning. People are extremely concerned about the world's technological adolescence, mass consumerism and overpopulation. A man named Arne Naess, former head of the philosophy department at the University of Oslo, founded an idea that can divert people's anxiety from their "shallow" conception of the problem to a much "deeper" view. “Deep ecology goes beyond the superficial and piecemeal approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical view of the world.” (EE p.145) At its most fundamental, deep ecology is a wisdom, an ecosophy, that requires humans to see themselves as part of a larger whole. Naess, Devall, and Sessions describe the basic principles of deep ecology in their writings. Additionally, they address the roles that scientific ecology plays as well as the concept of self-actualization. Beyond these ideas, ecosabotage must be discussed in terms of how it fits into the practice of deep ecology. The basic principles of deep ecology as characterized by the mentioned authors show us what is wrong in the world and also give us an idea. framework through which we can make change. In fact, Naess and Sessions went camping in Death Valley, California, to gain a different perspective. For fifteen years, they condensed their thinking on the theme of deep ecology with the aim of making it attractive to people from all backgrounds. They also emphasize that these principles must all be considered together. The first principle states that the value of life, human or non-human, is intrinsic. This means that everything there is valuable, including individuals, species, populations, habitat and culture. When considering non-human life, it is important to remember that deep ecology likes to include what can be classified as non-living, such as bodies of water and landscapes. Essentially, “the presence of inherent value in a natural object is independent of any awareness, interest, or appreciation of it by a conscious being.” (EE p.147)...... middle of article ......sp;Deep ecology makes a lot of sense. Before we knew about it, superficial ecology seemed legitimate. Clearly, the principles behind deep ecology could be far more productive than anything practiced today. Some will say that a total acceptance of deep ecology is absurd. Completely neglecting our anthropocentric perspective means we have forgotten where we fit in the bigger picture. We have only existed for a short time compared to life on earth. This could easily undergo another dramatic climate change and we would be ancient history, and probably succeeded by a new form of life. The fact is that humans share something valuable. Of course, it's anthropocentric and worth saving. The other issue that seems debatable is the current state of the economy and the market. These writings by Naess and company are somewhat dated and much has since changed with the advent of the Internet. Is the global village really such a bad thing if we use it correctly? Deep ecology wants to preserve independent cultures and economies. I don't know which side to join at the moment. I want to believe most of what deep ecology is true, but some.