Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

In, Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology, by Murray Bookchin, Bookchin begins with a criticism of environmentalism and societys

materialistic nature. Born from the seventies, Earth Day was the global holiday that brought the human race together to show respect to our life bearing planet Earth, as well as to spend time to gather together and pickup trash, plant trees, etc.. Bookchin argues that our response to an inevitable eco crises, threaten the integrity of life itself, raising a far more basic issues that can be resolved by Earth Day cleanups and fainthearted changes in environmental laws. Though a seemingly more radical and blunt attitude, Bookchin argues that a radical change is necessary if we desire to survive. Many movements have used the term ecology to describe their agendas, but one in particular, Deep Ecology, is a condescending and misleading environmental attitude. Bookchin says that Deep Ecology differentiates itself from Shallow Ecology, as to apply it to a new context, which ultimately changes the entire meaning itself. Deep Ecologys new meaning is one that includes spiritual eco-babble, anti-humanism, and biocentricism. The spiritual eco-babble that Bookchin references, is the attempt of Deep Ecology to necessitate the blending of spirituality, nature, and humans; to create a better society. But Bookchin points out a counter-example of ancient Egypt and how they had animal deities and used the Nile river in a highly ecological manner, yet was an oppressive society; such a casual relation need not be true. In regards to anti-humanism, Bookchin argues that, Deep Ecology reduces people from social beings to a simple species. In doing so though, Deep Ecology ignores, the social nature and origins of the eco crises, and we ultimately lose sight of the individual self among such spirituality and eco-babble. Finally in regards to biocentricism, Bookchin argues that we can maintain a self that is aware of itself being different from nature, but still have the best for nature in mind. Such materialistic and egocentric attitudes that are to blame for a lack of assistance towards aiding our ecocrises is primarily enacted not by the common civilians, but instead by the corporations and the politicians who actually have the power. And only the common civilians can create the change and justice towards those with more power. If the notion of the individual is maintained, we can dodge us becoming, as Bookchin calls it, the Great Connected Whole. An interesting point the Bookchin mentions is the issue of the tiniest microbes and how they are connected with us, and all, with the Self. Viruses, such as smallpox and AIDS, are technically living organisms too, and by Deep Ecology, they should be included as well. Although such an example is an extreme, Bookchin mentions this, as to see if all living organisms are to be included, or if nature should be allowed to continue its course with no human intervention. Bookchin also makes the connection of the need for population control, as developed by Deep Ecologists, and the AIDS virus. He argues that forcing population control would actually increase the desire and growth of the populations, as elaborated by the example of comparing a society that provides better quality of live, compared to one that does not. Bookchins solution to Deep Ecology is the alternate theory called Social Ecology. Social Ecology recognizes humans as being the creation of evolution in nature, instead of worshiping nature in its wholeness. We must then approach nature as the evolved and gifted human we are to address the issue of nature, instead of glorifying it on a supernatural level.