How Deep is Deep Ecology? George Bradford 1989 Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HowDeepIsDeepEcology?—AChallengetoRadicalEnvironmentalism 6 EcologyandtheNecessityforSocialCritique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 “Biocentrism”Versus“Anthropocentrism” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TheProblemofHumanIntervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 “MalthusWasRight” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 AStruggleforSurvival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ModernizingMalthusianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ScientificReductionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 AnEconomisticAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 TechnologyandAlienation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ScientificIdeologyasMaterialForce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TheGrasshopperandtheAnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ADeepEcologistWhoAdvocatesGenocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TheTatteredFood-Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 TheGlobalSupermarket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 TheWorldGoingtoHell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Woman’sFreedom:KeytothePopulationQuestion 36 TheTwoSidesofBirthControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 PopulationControlandtheColdWar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 AuthoritarianandTechnocratic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 MalthusianFatalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 PopulationControlasGenocide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 AnExpansionofRights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Personal,Political,Planetary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2 Foreword I first came across the Fifth Estate containing “How Deep is Deep Ecology?” in an anarchist bookstore on a visit to Sydney, Australia. I knew very little of deep ecology, but I had attended some Earth First! meetings, had bought the newspaper, and had been mostly inspired but occa- sionallyupsetbywhatI’dheardandread. Bradford’s essay placed these mixed reactions in perspective and gave me enough insight into deep ecology to see that both the positive and negative aspects of Earth First! might be attributabletoaphilosophicalpointofviewratherthanbeingmerelyexpressionsofindividual personalities. I thought it was a valuable critique of a philosophy and a movement that are in manywaysperceptiveandadmirableandwhichhavethuscapturedtheimaginationandloyalty ofmanyenergeticandcaringhumanbeings.Itisthisverysuccessthatrendersanyseriousshort- comingsofphilosophysodistressfulandevendangerous,inaworldthatisindesperateneedof suchinsightsasdeepecologyhasfosteredandofthekindofbraveexamplesmanyofitspeople haveset. ItwasobvioustomethatBradfordwaswritingfromjustsuchconcern,andthattheessayhad in some ways been a painful undertaking for him. I thought that he had succeeded in making clear his sharing of perspective with much that deep ecology is supposed to be about, and that many who use the deep-ecology label could read it profitably without any feeling of being put down. As the new editor of Times Change Press, I had been eager to resume its publication of new titles. I soon decided that these essays afforded a fine opportunity to bring to a larger audience somethingIfoundimportant.Thisisthefirstnewtitleourpresshasbroughtoutsince1977. Bradford,whocontinuestowriteonthethemeofradicalecologyfortheFifthEstate,feltthat the essay-review on “Woman’s Freedom: Key to the Population Question” should be included aswell,sinceitaddressesanaspectofthepopulationproblemthattendstobeslightedbydeep ecologistsandotherswhoexpressgraveconcernaboutoverpopulation. The Fifth Estate is addressed to activists, and that means that it has a somewhat special vo- cabularyandtendstowardsternnessinitscritiques.TheFifthEstate grouparguedthatsomeof itsspecialwordsshouldberetained,astheymeritwideruse,relating,astheydo,tosignificant phenomenaandattitudesthatcannotbesuccinctlyexpressedwithoutthem. Ihopethatthesometimesforcefulopinionswillbeseenincontext,andnotasanattackonwhat is worthwhile in deep ecology. I have, for example, a little knowledge of public positions taken byArneNaess,whomayhavecoinedthephrase“deepecology.”Inmyopinion,thesepositions clearlydemonstratethathe—and,byextension,otherless-well-knowndeepecologists—have littlesympathyformisanthropyorracism.BythetimethisseesprintNaess’sownbook,Ecology, CommunityandLifestyle:OutlineofanEcosophy (CambridgeUniversityPress),willfinallybein printinEnglish,andreaderscanjudgehiswritingsforthemselves. TruedefendersofMotherEarthwillseeeasilyenoughthatBradfordisontheirside.Heand his comrades’ purpose, clearly, is to encourage human endeavor toward creating a society that willenrichandextendhumankind’sstayonthisplanet,amidstthecountlesswondersofnature andthevitalcreativityofourfellows. —LamarHoover TimesChangePress 3 Preface Describinga“planetarydimension”ofcontemporaryculturethatlinkedthedesireforanau- thenticlifetothehealthofthenaturalworlditself,TheodoreRoszakwroteinhisinspiredbook Person/Planetofhiscertaintythat“withinthenextgeneration,therewillemergeawell-developed bodyofecologicaltheorythatilluminatesthissubtleinterrelationandgivesitenoughpolitical forcetodisplacetheinheritedideologiesofindustrialsociety.”Thatwasin1978.Thoughwedid not come to read his prediction until much later, the expansion and dissemination of just such theory has been the project of the radical antiauthoritarian journal Fifth Estate, in which the following essays appeared, since about the same time that Roszak’s book was published. These particularessaysondeepecologyandthepopulationquestion,whichappearedinlate1987and early 1988, were in fact an attempt to bring radical social critique to bear on the growing, yet amorphous,ecologicalconscience. Now that George Bush has declared himself an environmentalist and Time magazine has namedthisplunderedEarth“planetoftheyear,”nowthateveryoneexpressesecologicalconcern, fromthepeoplelivingincontaminatedcommunitiestothebusinessesthatcontaminatethem,it istimetoregardenvironmentalismasamovementwhoserealpromiseremainsunfulfilled.The insightsofecologyhavebeendebasedtoeverydayclicheswhiletheactualplunderandpoison- ing are accelerating. The environmental movement itself has to a great degree been integrated asakindofcorrectivemechanismintotheoperationallogicoftheindustrial-capitalistmachine presentlystrip-miningthebiosphere.Thisisbecausetheenvironmentalistshavefocusednoton the root-causes of ecological destruction but on the symptoms. Thus the radical critique which informstheseessaysisveryappropriate,sinceradical meansgoingtotheroot. But it should be emphasized that the essays were not academic evaluations. Their purpose was rather to begin a dialogue with those people in the more intransigent, “no-compromise,” direct-action wing of the environmental movement who might share our vision. They were a challenge from one group of activists to another to debate and discuss perspectives and goals. Ultimately, the challenge was taken up, and we made many positive connections through the ensuing discussions. Many themes only touched on here were explored further in subsequent issuesofFifthEstateandelsewhere.ThereadermaywriteusatP.O.Box02548,Detroit,Michigan 48202toinquireaboutfurtherworkonthesematters. Theseessaysdonotpresumetodiscusseveryaspectoreveryrepresentativeofdeepecology. Nor do they attempt to judge the entire green/ecology phenomenon, but they are nevertheless relevant to its fundamental concerns. Because they examine the tension between causes and symptoms, between civilization’s power complex and the resulting ecological degradation, be- tweenoppositionalmovementsandtheirreabsorptionbythesystemtheyoppose,betweenide- ology and theory, they will prove valuable to that discourse anticipated by Roszak and to the worldwidemovementthatwillmakeuseofittoadvanceavisionarysocialrevolution. Iusethefirst-personpluralheretodescribetheproductionoftheseessaysbecauseFifthEstate hasalwaysbeenacollectivetheoreticalandpracticalproject,withparticularauthorshiponlya functionofcircumstancesorindividualmania.Iwanttothankandacknowledgemycomradesat theFEforreadingandediting,andfortheentirespectrumofactivitiesthathavemadeitpossible. I extend these thanks as well to Freddie Baer and daniel g, of San Francisco, who collaborated withusinediting,layout,andgraphics. 4 LamarHooverofTimesChangePresshascontributedgreatlytostreamlining,clarifying,and improving the text for this book edition. He has warned me that readers may have difficulties with some of the somewhat idiosyncratic language of the radical political discourse in which weparticipate.Icanonlyhopethatmostofthetermsarerelativelyself-explanatory,andhave insistedonmaintainingthosethatIthinkcouldnotbereplacedbymorecommonwordswithout altering their meaning. The modern world is a totalitarian affair in which words occasionally havebeenreconstituted,stolen,oralchemizedtodescribecomplexphenomena.Myuseofwords reflectsnotonlymyinfluencesbutalsomydesires.Inlinguistics,asinsocialmatters,anarchist creativityandrisk-takingarethebestapproach.   —GeorgeBradford 5 How Deep Is Deep Ecology? — A Challenge to Radical Environmentalism “Ineveryperceptionofnaturethereisactuallypresentthewholeofsociety.”—Theodor Adorno,AestheticTheory “The human race could go extinct, and I, for one, would not shed any tears.” — Dave ForemanofEarthFirst!,adeep-ecologyenvironmentalorganization Booksandpublicationsreviewedinthisessay: Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, by William R. Catton, Jr., University ofIllinoisPress,Urbana,1980. DeepEcology:LivingAsIfNatureMattered,byBillDevallandGeorgeSessions,GibbsM.Smith, Inc./PeregrineSmithBooks,SaltLakeCity,1985. DeepEcology,editedbyMichaelTobias,AvantBooks,SanDiego,1985. Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, revised and updated, by Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, Ballantine Books, New York, 1978; Institute for Food and Develop-ment Policy, 145NinthStreet,SanFrancisco,California94103. InsidetheThirdWorld,byPaulHarrison,PenguinBooks,NewYork,1981. Earth First!, published eight times a year by the Earth First! movement, from P.O. Box 2358, Lewiston,ME04241. Ecology and the Necessity for Social Critique The present ruination of the earth in the wake of widening industrial plagues is a situation whichappearstohavenomeaningfulorcomparableprecedent.Massextinctionsofspecies,in- dustrial contamination, runaway development, war, starvation, and megatechnic catastrophes have led to a sense of deep disquiet and mounting terror about the fate of the planet and of all life.Thereisalsoagrowingrecognitionthattheenvironmentalcrisisisthecrisisofacivilization destructiveinitsessencetonatureandhumanity. “Allthinkingworthyofthename,”writesLewisMumfordinTheMythoftheMachine,“must become ecological.” Indeed, ecology, the word that sees nature as a household, has become a household word. Envisioning the world as an interlocking, organic whole, ecology attempts to transcend mechanistic, fragmentary, and instrumental perspectives. But ecology as a scientific discipline is itself fragmentary; the notion of nature as a system can be as mechanistic and in- strumentalaspreviousscientificmodesemployedbyindustrialcivilization,asthecontemporary convergenceofcybernetics,systemstheory,andbiotechnologyattests. Ecologyassciencespeculates,oftenwithprofoundinsight,aboutnature’smovementandthe impactofhumanactivitiesonit.Butitisambiguous,orsilent,aboutthesocialcontextthatgen- eratesthoseactivitiesandhowitmightchange.Inandofitself,ecologyoffersnosocialcritique, 6 so where critique flows directly from ecological discourse, subsuming the complexities of the social into a picture of undifferentiated humanity as a species, it goes astray and is frequently vapid.Oftenitisemployedonlytojustifydifferentpoliticalideologies,maskingsocialconflicts inpseudoscientificgeneralizations.SocialDarwinism,withitsMalthusianlegitimationofcapital accumulation and human immiseration during the nineteenth century, is a trenchant example oftheideologicalutilizationofscientificdiscourse—anexamplewhichunfortunatelyremains, likeallfragmentaryideologiesinthemodernworld,toplagueustoday. Whetherornotanentirelycoherentnaturephilosophyisevenpossible,thenaggingquestion of humanity’s relation to the natural world and its parallel significance to our relations among ourselveshasbecomeamajorissue(andthemostimportantone)inthelastfewyears.Adeepen- ingrevulsionagainsttheindustrial-workcultureandtheshockattheobliterationofecosystems, species, cultures, and peoples have inspired an emerging anti-industrial counterculture and a rediscovery of the lifeways of our primal roots. This has led to some degree to a convergence of environmental and antiwar movements; with it has come a significant radicalization and de- veloping strategy of mass direct action and sabotage against megatechnic projects and the war machine. Anarchism, too, and antiauthoritarian ideas in general, have had no small influence on this movement. Deepening critiques of industrial-capitalist civilization (in its private West- ern form, and its bureaucratic Eastern form, both of them statist), technology, science, and the mystiqueofprogresshavecontributedtoanew,ifdiverse,philosophicalorientation. Amongecologicalthinkerstherehasbeenanattempttomovebeyondthelimitationsofeco- logicalsciencetowardanaturephilosophyandearth-basedculture.Somehavepro-posedanew perspective,deepecology,asanemergingsocialmodelor“newparadigm”forhumanity’srela- tionshipwithnature.Deepecologyisarathereclecticmixtureofwritingsandinfluences,draw- ingontheonehandfromromanticandtranscendentalistwritings,naturepoetry,Easternmys- ticism, and the land wisdom of primal peoples, and on the other hand from general ecological science, including modern Malthusianism. This far-from-coherent mixture is not entirely sepa- ratefromecologyingeneral.Atthesametime,anorganizeddeep-ecologyactionmovementhas appeared, with a newspaper and many local chapters and contacts, as well as its own mythos, history,intellectualluminaries,andmilitantchieftains. This group, Earth First!, was founded in the early 1980s as a radical alternative to the main- streamenvironmentalorganizations,“atrueEarth-radicalgroup”thatsawwildernesspreserva- tionasitskeystone.“Inany decision,considerationforthehealthoftheEarthmustcomefirst,” wroteafounder,DaveForeman,intheOctober1981Progressivemagazine.Wildernesspreserva- tion means not only to protect remaining wilderness but to “withdraw huge areas as inviolate naturalsanctuariesfromthedepredationsofmodernindustryandtechnology.” Earth First! claims to be nonhierarchic, nonbureaucratic, and decentralized; many of its ad- herents consider themselves anarchists. It practices and encourages an explicitly Luddite form of direct action against the machinery of developers, and favors tree-spiking and other tactics to stop deforestation by lumber corporations — all these described as “monkey wrenching,” af- ter Edward Abbey’s novel about eco-saboteurs, The Monkeywrench Gang. Its people have done much to oppose development projects and protect national parks, using demonstrations, guer- rillatheatre,andcivildisobedience.Theirnewspaperisalsoanexcellentsourceforinformation on rainforest destruction, battles over wilderness and old-growth forests, defense of habitat for bears and others species — in short, for environmental confrontations all over the world. They havedefinitelyplayedapositiveandcreativeroleinencouragingandpublicizingamoreintran- 7 sigentenvironmentalismthatiswillingtogobeyondletter-writingandlobbying.InEarthFirst! there is little information on struggles against toxic wastes or megatechnic development in the cities,orofantimilitariststruggles.Startingfromwhattheycalldeep-ecologicalprinciples,they seetheireffortsatwildernesspreservationascentral. Doesdeepecologyrepresentanemergentparadigmforanearth-basedculture?Isitthecoher- entculminationoftheanti-industrialtradition? “Biocentrism” Versus “Anthropocentrism” Deep ecology as a perspective was originated by Norwegian writer Arne Naess in the 1970s andremainsaneclecticandambiguouscurrent.Todate,thetwomostinfluentialbooksinEnglish dealing explicitly with the subject are anthologies containing a mixture of writings, sometimes complementary,sometimescontradictory.DeepEcology (AvantBooks,1984),editedbyMichael Tobias, is a collection of poetry and essays from writers like William Catton, George Sessions, Murray Bookchin, and Garrett Hardin. The essayists are widely divergent, the poetry a mix of generalnatureandecologicalthemes.Anothercollection,DeepEcology:LivingAsIfNatureMat- tered(PeregrineSmithBooks,1985),iswrittenandeditedbyGeorgeSessionsandBillDevalland isprobablythemorecompletebook,madeupofessaysbytheeditorsandquotesfromamyriad ofsources.TheTobiasvolume,nevertheless,hasseveralusefulessaysforunderstandingtheper- spective(includingalongphilosophicalessaybyBookchinanticipatingsomeoftheproblemsin it). ItwasArneNaesswhoin1973describeddeepecologyasanattempt“toaskdeeperquestions.” This“ecosophy,”ashecalledit,consciouslyshifted“fromsciencetowisdom”byaddressinghu- manity’srelationshipwithnature,since“ecologyasasciencedoesnotaskwhatkindofsociety wouldbebestformaintainingaparticularecosystem.”Sessionsseesitasa“newphilosophyof nature,” and one text from a green network, quoted in his anthology, describes such ecological consciousnessas“aproperunderstandingofthepurposesandworkingsofnature”thatdoesnot “imposeanideologyonit.” The philosophy has as its basic premises the interrelatedness of all life, a biotic equality for all organisms (including those for which human beings have no “use” or which might even be harmfultous),andarejectionof“anthropocentrism”(thebeliefthathumanbeingsareseparate from, superior to, and more important than the rest of nature). Anthropocentrism, they feel, underlies human arrogance toward and exploitation of the natural world. They call for a new “landethic,”afterenvironmentalistwriterAldoLeopold,notonlytorestoreaharmoniousbalance innature,buttoanswerafundamentalhumanneedtoexperienceuntrammeledwildernessand toliveinharmonywiththeplanet.Manyoftheseconcernsarenotuniquetodeepecology;atthe FifthEstate newspaper,forexample,wehavemadesuchareconciliationwiththenaturalworld acentralfocusforthelastdecade. Theappealofabiocentricorientationanditscritiqueoftheconquestofnaturethathaschar- acterized all state civilizations (particularly Western civilization and capitalism) is undeniable. Seeing human beings as members of a biotic community may at least suggest the question of “whatkindofsocietywouldbebest”forlivinginharmonywiththeearth.This,ofcourse,isthe vision of primal peoples, the animist mutualism and rootedness that is in everyone’s past. As LutherStandingBearsaidofhispeopleinhisbookLandoftheSpottedEagle,“TheLakotawasa 8 truenaturist—aloverofNature.”Hispeople“lovedtheearth,theattachmentgrowingwithage… Kinship with all creatures of the earth, sky, and water was a real and active principle… and so closedidsomeoftheLakotacometotheirfeatheredandfurredfriendsthatintruebrotherhood theyspokeacommontongue.” Therejectionof“humanchauvinism,”asdeepecologistJohnSeedputsitinhisessay,“Anthro- pocentrism” (in the Devall/Sessions anthology), is a rediscovery of this view. “‘I am protecting therainforest,’”Seedwrites,“developsto‘Iampartoftherainforestprotectingmyself.Iamthat partoftherainforestrecentlyemergedintothinking.’” Thewisdomofthisvisionisclear;thepresentapocalypsethatweareexperiencingisthecul- minationofthehubriswhichwantstobringallofnatureunderhumancontrol,eitherthrough rapacious devastation or “benign” meddling. When one considers how people live in this high- energy-consumptionsociety,withitshatredandcontemptforlifeandnature,withitsdemonic development projects that gouge the earth and destroy myriad life forms to create the empty, alienatedcivilizationofcomputerizednihilism,eventheresponseofmisanthropyisunderstand- able — such as naturalist John Muir’s comment that “if a war of races should occur between thewildbeastandLordMan,Iwouldbetemptedtosympathizewiththebears…”Deepecology claimsthatthattimehascome. Aspoeticcommentary,Muir’smisanthropyiscommendable.Butitmustberememberedthat humanbeingsareanimalstoo,andthesameforcesthataredestroyingthebearshavedestroyed manyhumanbeingsandcultures,andareunderminingallhumanlifeaswell.Therejectionofbi- otichierarchy,andof“man”asthepinnacleandlordofcreation(themodelforallhierarchies),is crucialtoareconciliationwiththenaturalworld,butthedeep-ecologycritiqueofanthropocen- trismisitselfmiredinideology. In opposition to “humanism” (defined rather simplistically as the ideology of human supe- riority and the legitimacy to exploit nature for human purposes), deep ecology claims to be a perspective taken from outside human discourse and politics, from the point of view of nature as a whole. Of course, it is a problematic claim, to say the least, since deep ecologists have de- veloped a viewpoint based on human, socially generated, and historically evolved insights into nature,inordertodesignanorientationtowardhumansociety.Atanyrate,anyvisionofnature and humanity’s place in it that is the production of human discourse is by definition going to be to some degree “anthropocentric,” imposing as it does a human, symbolic discourse on the nonhuman. Deep ecologists reject other forms of environmentalism, such as technocratic resource con- servation,asanthropocentricbecausetheyareframedintermsofutilitytohumanbeings.And, criticizinganimalliberation,SessionsandDevallarguethatitsimplyextendsmoralandpolitical categoriesoflegalrightsfromthehumanworldtonature,thusfurtheringthehumanconquest ofnature. Butdeepecology’s“intuition…thatallthingsinthisbiospherehaveanequalrighttoliveand blossom” is the same projection of human social-political categories onto nature — a legalistic andbourgeois-humanistanthropocentrismitself.Ecologyconfirmstheanimistvisionofinterre- latedness,butwhenexpressedintheideologicaltermsofthissociety,itdenaturesandcolonizes animism, reducing it to a kind of economics or juridical, legal formalism. Neither animals nor primal peoples recognized or conferred abstract legal rights, but lived in harmony and mutual- ism,includingamutualismofpredationofotherspeciestofulfilltheirneedsanddesires.Human subsistencewasboundupwithnaturalcyclesandnotinoppositiontothem;peopledidnoten- 9 visionanalienated“humanityversusnature”dualism(which,whetheronetakes“nature’sside” or“humanity’s,”isanideologyofthiscivilization),butrather“humanized”naturebyinteracting mythicallyandsymbolicallywithit. Whenecological“antihumanism”(justly)rejectstechnocraticresourcemanagement,itdoesso forthewrongreasons.Thedualismofitsformulationtakesthetechnocraticreductionofnature to resources for an undifferentiated species activity based on supposed biological need. While humanbeingsandinstitutionsthatactivelyengageinthedestructionofnaturemustbestopped byanymeansnecessaryandassoonaspossible,itshouldnotautomaticallybeassumedthatthey areactingoutthebiologicaldestinyofthespecies;thatwouldbetotakeatfacevaluethecorpo- rateandstaterationalizationsforexploitation(“wedoitallforyou”).Thehumansocialcontext thatproducesthisaberrantdestructivenessisnotreadilyexplainedbyecologicalanalysis. Deep ecologists err when they see the pathological operationalism of industrial civilization asaspecies-generatedproblemratherthanasonegeneratedbysocialphenomenathatmustbe studiedintheirownright.Concealingsociallygeneratedconflictsbehindanideologyof“natural law,”theycontradictorilyinsistonanddenyauniquepositionforhumanbeingswhileneglecting thecentralityofthesocialinenvironmentaldevastation.Consequently,theyhavenoreally“deep” critiqueofthestate,empire,technology,orcapital,reducingthecomplexwebofhumanrelations toasimplistic,abstract,scientisticcaricature. Thus humanity as a species, or a voracious human self-interest acting through “humanism,” isblamedforecologicaldegradationbymost(ifnotnecessarilyall)deepecologists,particularly theAmericanadherentsclosetoEarthFirst!.Thisformulation,sharedbymanypeopleintheU.S. conservationmovement,tendstooverlookthefactthatpreservationofwildernessanddefenseof naturalintegrityanddiversityisessentialtohumansurvivalalso.Thereisnoisolated“intrinsic worth”butaninterrelateddependencythatincludesusall. The Problem of Human Intervention Anotherconfusioninthecritiqueofanthropocentrismistherejectionofhumanstewardship ofnature.Thenotionofinterventionisanthropocentrictothesedeepecologists;theyassociateit withgeneticmanipulation,scientificforestrymanagement,andresourcedevelopment(actually extraction) for “human needs.” But they offer only an alternative form of management. As Ses- sionsandDevallwrite,“Ourfirstprincipleistoencourageagencies,legislators,propertyowners andmanagerstoconsiderflowingwithratherthanforcingnaturalresources.”Theycallfor“in- terim management” and technological intervention. This ambiguity (and ingenuousness about agencies, legislators, and the rest) informs this entire discussion. Their description of policy de- cisions“basedonsoundecologicalprinciples”soundslikeapictureofpresent agenciesandtheir self-justifications.ThedetailedwildernessproposalsinEarthFirst!arealsoanexampleofanotion ofhumanstewardship. Anddespitetheirlackofsympathyformasstechnics,theyhavenocritiqueoftechnologyas a system or of its relation to capitalist institutions. In this same anthology, we read that while humans “have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs” (a rather ambiguous qualification), snowmobiles are deemed “necessary today to satisfy vital needs” of northern peoples such as the Innuit. So, in with the snowmobiles must slip the industrial appa- ratusandpetroleum-basedenergyeconomythatarenecessarytoproduceandusethem.Infact, 10