Asurvey of socio-political models and movements based on ecocentric ethics — left biocentrism, bioregionalism, global eco-village movement, post-historical primitivism, and the “coerced” biocentrism of Pentii Linkola — reveals that all these models share a common vision of an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, and decentralized (self-sustained) society, while conventional political modes to this time have mainly been based on centralised, authoritarian, human structures—Monarchies, Empires, Republics—all designed to serve human needs. With the growing complexity and interdependence of ecosystems in the entire planet, these social organizations pose a grave threat to human beings, to the environment, and to non-human species. Incorrect decisions made at the top of the human power structure can easily propagate, augment their impact, and affect a great number of humans as well as animals of the non-human world. Decentralisation of power and “local” solutions seem to offer the only remedies that can avert us from imminent global destruction.

Left biocentrism

According to David Orton3, an originator of left biocentrism, this socio-political model has descended from several parallel anti-capitalist and anti-industrial movements in green politics and environmental activism, with the aim of marrying deep ecology and left perspective:

• “deep green theory” of Richard Sylvan14
• “socialist biocentrism” Helga Hoffman and David Orton2, 3
• “ecologism” of Andrew Dobson16;
• “radical ecocentrism” of Andrew McLaughlin15;
• “revolutionary ecology” of Judi Bari13;
• “green fundamentalism” of Rudolf Bahro12.

In fact, left biocentrism can be viewed as a left political wing of deep ecology4. The later, however, is known more as a philosophy of ecocentric ethics14. The “left” means that biocentrists try to weave ecoethics with the class issues and social justice, but do not hold them above biocentrism, or ecocentrism (like the left parties). At present, this direction is being developed within the international discussion group, comprising activists, philosophers, scientists, poets and ecologists. The group was initiated in the 90s by a Canadian writer-activist David Orton.3 The group has an on-line theoretical journal Dandelion Times1 and links with other left-wing “green” organisations.

Bioregionalism

Bioregionalism is a political, cultural, and environmental system based on naturally-defined areas called bioregions, or ecoregions18. Bioregions are defined through physical and environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics. Bioregionalism stresses that the determination of a bioregion is also a cultural phenomenon, and emphasizes local populations, knowledge, and solutions19 The term appears to have originated in work by Peter Berg and Raymond Dasmann in the early 1970s.20

The bioregionalist perspective opposes a homogeneous economy and consumer culture with its lack of stewardship towards the environment. This perspective seeks to:

• Ensure that political boundaries match ecological boundaries.21
• Highlight the unique ecology of the bioregion.7
• Encourage consumption of local foods where possible.
• Encourage the use of local materials where possible.
• Encourage the cultivation of native plants of the region.
• Encourage sustainability in harmony with the bioregion.22

So far, bioregionalism has spread primarily in North America. Since 1984 there have been bi-annual gatherings of bioregionalists23 that have given rise to national level Green Parties.

Global eco-villages

Today, the number of eco-villages in the world exceeds 10 000. They all are interconnected in the Global Ecovillage Network.6, 24 Eco-villages are the small communities (20 to 500 members) with tight social connections, united by common ecological and spiritual interests. These communities could be rural, urban, usually low-tech, depending on circumstances and the intentions of their members. For example, Ökodorf Seiben Linden  is a rural community in Eastern Germany with a minimum energy consumption. Eco-village “Los Angeles” is a small region in Los Angeles. Village Sasardi  is hidden in the tropical rain forest in northern Columbia. The world’s oldest (since 1962) Findhorn eco-village is located at the northern extremity of Scotland. They all have deep respect for nature and are striving to build self-sustainable communities with a minimal ecological footprint. Many eco-villages serve as a learning ground for those who seek to radically change their life ways.

Post-historical primitivism

This (theoretical) model is based on the works of Paul Shepard. According to Fred Bender,9, 10 Shepard recommends that we need to recover pre-history and reconnect to mythos (sacred story), ancestors, and nonhuman Others. He believes that history’s real lesson is that it is no guide to the future, because it is a declaration of independence from the deep past and its peoples, living or dead, and from the natural state of our being. Despite these deep-rooted prejudices, we must study primal peoples (who are not primitive in any defensible sense of the term) so we can begin to think about living ecologically in post-historic and post-industrial ways. Contrary to the deep-rooted prejudices, we must study aboriginal people, in order to learn how to live ecologically in post-historical and post-industrial times. Other deep ecologists, particularly, Jerry Mander11 also develops this theory.

The radical biocentrism of Pentti Linkola

Radical biocentrist Pentti Linkola stands at some distance from the aforementioned models, as his model is based on a coerced radical reduction of population, rejection of technologies and consumerist economy. His programme, elaborated mainly for his native Finland, despite its radicalism, does not differ in essence from other decentralist models.17 The only significant difference is that Linkola envisages the introduction of an authoritative government as the most radical solution for the transition of society and conservation of life (he does not have illusion about the voluntary transition to the new way of life). Linkola’s programme has 205 points and evokes admiration from some and severe critique from the others. Nonetheless, we can’t render Linkola a “fascist” because he speaks against nationalism or any expansion of a nation, or race, to the detriment of all others – which is the major feature of fascism.

Conclusion

To prevent the global catastrophe, provoked by an excessive anthropogenic pressure, deep change in individual consciousness is needed. But that is not enough. We need to radically change the social structures. Some ecocentric ideologues are sceptical as to voluntary transition of the large masses, let alone “the golden billion”, to the ecocentric society. The issue of the permissibility of a coerced transition remains open.

About the author

Viktor Ivanovitch Postnikov is a Russian-born independent scientist (DSc.) who lives in Kiev, Ukraine. A prolific poetry translator, he has also translated books on both eastern philosophies and deep ecology, and written many essays on Russian anarchism and eco-poetry for journals and other publications.

References

1. http://dandeliontimes.net/category/left-biocentrism/

2. http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

3. David Orton – My Path to Left Biocentrism: Pt.1- The Theory http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/GW63-Path.html

4. David Greenfield –The Left in Left Biocentrism http://dandeliontimes.net/2008/07/the-left-in-left-biocentrism/

5. Bill Metcalf – Sustainable Communal Living Around the Globe, Diggers and Dreamers 00/01, p.5 -19.

6. Albert Bates, Ecovillages – What Have We Learned? – Communities Magazine, issue #117.

7. V.Postnikov – Ecocentric Ukraine Project – a sketch http://www.proza.ru/2009/01/13/716 (In Russian).

8. V.Postnikov – Russian Roots: From Populism to Radical Ecology, Anarchist Studies, Volume 12, N.1, 2004.

9. Frederic Bender (2003). The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Amherst, NY: Humanity.

10. Frederic Bender, On the Importance of Paul Shepard’s Call for Post-Historic Primitivism and Palaeolithic Counter-Revolution against Modernity, The Trumpeter, Volume 23, Number 3 (2007)

11. Jerry Mander, In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1991.

12. David Orton, Rudolf Bahro (1935 – 1997): A tribute, Socialist Studies Bulletin_ No. 50 (Oct.-Dec. 1997).

13. Judi Bari, Revolutionary Ecology. http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html

14. Patrick Curry, Deep Ecology and Left Biocentrism: An Introduction,
http://dandeliontimes.net/2008/08/deep-ecology-and-left-biocentrism-an-introduction/

15. Andrew McLaughlin – Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology (Albany, State University New York Press, 1993.)

16. Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought: An Introduction  (London: Harper Collins      Academic, 1990). A book review by David Orton http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Ecologism.html

17. Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? http://www.evfit.com/linkola_CLP.htm

18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioregionalism

19. Don Alexander, Bioregionalism: The Need For a Firmer Theoretical Foundation, Trumpeter, v.13.3, 1996.

20. Berg, Peter and Raymond Dasmann, “Reinhabiting California,” The Ecologist 7, no. 10 (1977)

21. Davidson, S. (2007) The Troubled Marriage of Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism, Environmental Values, vol. 16(3): 313-332

22. Bastedo, Jamie. Shield Country: The Life and Times of the Oldest Piece of the Planet, Red Deer Press, 1994.

23. North American Bioregional Congress website http://biocongress.org/

24. http://gen.ecovillage.org/index.html

Over the years, in trying to discern the nature of the ecological movement, a number of activists and thinkers have made distinctions between different shades or types of green. Some have distinguished between a light or shallow shade of green and a dark or deep shade of green, while others have distinguished between left and right shades of green. It has become apparent to me that there are shades of green within the contemporary ecological movement, and that it is important to name these to begin to chart the way forward. I have come to discern some nine distinct shades of green. These are:

• Light Green
• Business Green
• State Green
• Citizen Green
• Centre-Left Green
• Far left Green
• Radical Action Green
• Deep Green and
• Deep left Green

1. Light Green

Light green signifies the very basic sense of environmental responsibility, which almost everyone today professes. It would include the very basic ideas of recycling, conserving energy, etc. While this basic shade of green may be thought of as being non-political, it does tend to carry some political assumptions. It tends to assume that ecological imbalance is fixable through individual lifestyle changes, and that the deeper institutional power structures of our society either need not be changed or cannot be changed.

2. Business Green

Business green signifies the range of environmentally oriented businesses and products that have emerged with the growth of a green industrial sector. Particular businesses, products and areas of green business will very in their credibility and depth of greenness. I would include the expanding renewable energy sector, the organic food sector, and various other lines of supposedly green products. It isn’t all bad. I am glad that there are businesses producing windmills, solar cells, and organic food. There are risks, however, if one develops a sense of ecological thought and policy centred too specifically around a business green paradigm. The green business sector, like all business sectors, is committed to economic growth, the marketing of products, and the shaping of a social paradigm in ways which are taylor-made to the needs of business. Adjusting taxation systems and government policy to create a climate more favourable to green business is, at best, only a small part of the overall puzzle.

3. State Green

State green signifies the array of environmentally related departments and programs in the realm of government. It is largely a managerial shade of green, including various government programs responsible for environmental regulation, parks and wilderness management, state-based environmental education, and so forth. Many state green programs and policies over the years have been well-intended, while others have been deliberate attempts at greenwashing. Overall, since state policy in capitalist society tends to serve the interests of corporate power, or at best be limited to what the corporate elite is willing to allow, it would be fair to say that state green has been limited to the boundaries of green as defined by, or allowed by, the capitalist elite. Of course, there have been instances when governments have made the right decisions on environmental issues, and have stood up to particular development interests. Usually this has occurred as a result of strong grass roots pro-ecology citizen resistance, which managed to form a counter-balance to the power of industry.

4. Citizen Green

Citizen Green signifies the tens of thousands of ecological citizen organizations that exist throughout the world. These organizations, to qualify as citizen green, must be both non-government and non-corporate. This shade of green includes the full range of environmental groups, from groups of ten or twenty people which come together to mobilize on a particular issue, to large-scale organizations with thousands or millions of members which may mobilize on a variety of environmental issues over a long period of time. It is these organizations, large and small, which form the backbone of the ongoing environmental movement, raising concerns with governments, educating the public, and shaping the political landscape on environmental questions. Citizen green must, by definition, be free of both corporate and government control. If an ecological citizen organization decides to take funding from either the corporate sector or government, it is dancing a dangerous dance where its actions and entire focus may slide down the slippery slope toward serving state or corporate interests. As well, when ecological activists have formed political parties, such as Green Parties, and these parties have become part of government or of parliamentary oppositions, there is often a similar tendency to drift away from citizen green values toward serving the agenda of state and industry.

5. Centre-Left Green

Centre-left green signifies those ecological activists and thinkers who combine their ecological concerns with a commitment to peace and justice issues, but who tend to remain within a social democratic paradigm. Typically, centre-left greens come from the activist wing of the centre-left, and have sympathies toward, and past or present involvement in, such movements as the labour movement, women’s movement, peace movement, anti-poverty movement, and so forth. Centre-left greens will tend to have a reasonable awareness of issues of oppression within human society, but will believe that such oppression can be overcome within the boundaries of a reformed capitalism. They will often relate easily to the Earth Charter, with its intertwined call for peace, social justice and sustainability, and will usually not tend to view the term, “sustainable development” as being contradictory. The centre-left shade of green is perhaps a step or two closer to seeing the whole picture, with its commitment to peace and justice questions, but tends to believe that capitalism and the growth economy can be made sustainable.

6. Far Left Green

Far left green signifies those eco-activists and thinkers who reject capitalism as unsustainable, who are seeking to transform society in a revolutionary way, usually toward some type of revolutionary socialist, or communitarian, alternative, but who also tend to reject Deep Ecology as being misguided. Generally, far left greens come from a marxist or social anarchist background, with strongly held beliefs in the necessity of class struggle and class revolution, with the goal of overthrowing capitalism. People of the far left shade of green will often tend to reject an analysis that holds all of humanity to be responsible for ecological destruction, and will view capitalism as being the primary enemy of nature. Far left greens will tend to relate to the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration of 2008, and will criticize the Earth Charter and centre-left greens for not rejecting capitalism.

7. Radical Action Green

Radical action green signifies those ecological activists who are prepared to use more radical forms of action in ecological struggle. This would include various types of nonviolent civil disobedience, sit-ins, blockades, trespassing and the like, as well as the more direct inhibbiting and damaging of property as in classic Earth First-style monkey wrenching. People involved in the radical action shade of green may, in some cases, also have a more radical analysis of ecological issues, but the defining feature of radical action green is the willingness to participate in more radical forms of action.

8. Deep Green

Deep green signifies those who are drawn to the perspective of Deep Ecology, as expressed in the Eight Point Platform of Deep Ecology, (1984 revised in 2001), and the ecocentric perspective expressed in A Manifesto for Earth, in 2004. The deep green perspective stresses the need for human beings to undergo a fundamental shift in consciousness, away from human-centredness toward ecocentrism. This involves a fundamental realization that the earth does not belong to us, and that we have no right to interfere with the richness and diversity of an eco-system except, to satisfy vital needs. Instead, we belong to the earth, as one of many species, all of whom have intrinsic value, independent of human use. The deep green perspective teaches a different kind of radicalism from that of the traditional left, calling for a reduction in the quantitative standard of living for human beings, a reduction in the human population, and an increase in the standard of living for the rest of nature.

9. Deep Left Green

Deep Left Green signifies those eco-activists and thinkers who accept the idea of deep ecology or ecocentrism as described in the previous point, but who combine this with a strong anti-industrialist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist analysis and commitment. Deep left greens believe that, while transforming human consciousness toward a oneness with nature, reducing our per capita impact on the earth, and reducing the human population, are all necessary, it is also necessary to put an end to capitalism and empire, and to create an equitable society within the limits of the ecosphere. Deep left greens most commonly refer to themselves as Left Biocentrists or Left Ecocentrists, and have summarized their thought in the ten point Left Biocentrism Primer of 1998. Deep left greens are critical of the far left green perspective for being too human-centred, and have expressed criticism toward some deep greens for being too philosophical and too removed from the realities of ecological struggle.

Summary and Further Thoughts

These nine shades of green represent an interesting range of thought and action within the contemporary ecological movement. Shades two to four tend to be defined by where the shade stands in relation to the dominant structures within capitalist society, the business sector, the state or the grass roots movement. Shades five to nine tend more to be defined by ideological perspective. The different shades tend to interact, and many individuals may be influenced by, and be a part of, several shades. I view the last five shades, centre-left green, far left green, radical action green, deep green and deep left green, as forming a five-way conversation, or pentalogue, between them. A pentalogue, by its nature, is less dualistic than a simple dialogue of two. The five perspectives each bring something to the conversation, and should each be willing to learn from the others.

• The centre-left green, being the most wide-spread and most moderate, can have the effect of helping to keep the other shades in touch with the broader, more moderate progressive green movement, and enabling the deeper and more leftward shades to build bridges with those who share many of the same values, but who don’t go quite as far.
• The far left green may help keep the other shades in touch with movements of oppressed people seeking to combine their struggles with the ecological struggle.
• The radical action green brings to the conversation the direct wisdom of physically confronting industry, and may help to balance tendencies toward intelectualism in the other shades.
• The deep green may remind the other shades of the fundamental fact of planetary finiteness and the need to shift fundamentally from a human-centred to an earth-centred consciousness.
• The deep left green combines ecocentrism with an awareness of the realities of power and oppression within human society, and can hopefully help build bridges and heighten awareness among all the other shades.

With this model of the nine shades of green, and of the pentalogue among the last five shades, we may perhaps move forward with a mutualistic pattern of change, finding our way through the luminous fog of our time.

About the Author

Dave Greenfield is an activist and thinker from Saskatchewan who has been involved in peace, ecology and social justice concerns since the mid 1980s. His analysis of the reality of corporate and state power and its role in human oppression and ecological destruction has led him to combine the non-violent, social anarchist philosophy with deep ecology to tackle the ecological implications of living on a finite planet.

Many deep ecologists, and ecological thinkers in general, have over the years declared that the politics of ecology transcend the traditional categories of left and right. In the early 1980′s the slogan, “We are neither left nor right but forward” became a popular cliché of some Green political parties and movement groups. There were those in the mix who referred to themselves as biocentrists or ecocentrists, who also described their position in one way or another as being beyond Left and Right, or neither Left nor Right. By putting the word ‘Left’ in front of biocentrism, we are bucking the trend among Deep Ecologists, and clearly indicating that there is more to be said about the social aspects of Deep Ecology.

The Left-Right Spectrum

Before examining what we mean by the Left in Left-biocentrism, it will be useful to examine what is meant politically by Left and Right, and what is meant by calling oneself neither Left nor Right. Left and right is a spatial metaphor, and as a metaphor, it is not perfect. It is, however, the primary metaphor that we have, to describe something very profound. Left and Right emerged as a political metaphor from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly at the time of the French Revolution. The more radical parties were seated to the left of the Speaker, with the more conservative groups seated to the right. This choice of seating arrangement may have emerged out of a deeper, more ancient sense of the right hand representing power, respectability, and the establishment, and the left hand representing non-respectability, those outside the establishment, the great unwashed.

Left and right is a spatial metaphor, and as a metaphor, it is not perfect. Over the past two hundred years, both the Left and the Right have had many political incarnations, and have been interpreted by both their respective advocates and their critics as meaning many things. Because the Right has tended to be the social group in power, the mistakes of the Left been used to taint the definition of the entire Left. The Left-Right spectrum is, however, the primary political metaphor that we have, and it describes something quite profound. Broadly speaking, we can divide the Left-Right spectrum into five distinct sections. They are the:

• Far Right
• Centre-Right
• Centre
• Centre-Left, and
• Far Left.

The far right signifies forms of domination which pre-date the industrial capitalist era: patriarchy, the military state, feudalism, monarchy and aristocracy, religious fundamentalism, racial supremacy, and so forth. These forms pre-date capitalism and, though they still exist today, tend to have their grounding in situations that pre-date the modern industrial era.

The centre-right signifies the predominant secular capitalist society in which we live. Its primary form of oppression is that of class power, but it will make use of forms of domination from the far right, (such as patriarchy or racism), when it serves its purposes.

The centre generally accepts the capitalist system with all its oppressive qualities, but tries to moderate capitalist realities, ever so slightly, with such liberal individualist instruments as elections, charters of rights and freedoms, moderate environmental legislation and half-hearted attempts at corporate accountability. The centre also tends to stress the role of the individual, and personal change, in bringing about social and environmental improvement.

The centre-left tries to go a few steps further than the centre in countering the raw oppressive nature of capitalism. The centre-left would include historical movements for “a social safety net ”, adequate social assistance programs, pensions, progressive labour legislation, minimum wages, universal healthcare, and so forth, as well as moderate moves toward government ownership and consumer and worker cooperatives. The centre-left accepts the existence of capitalism, but tries to counter-balance capitalist power with such popular initiatives as mentioned above.

The far left signifies those sections of the Left which go beyond trying to reform capitalism, to advocating the overthrow or replacement of capitalism with some type of worker or community-owned, classless, egalitarian, cooperative system. The far left should not be thought of as being synonymous with state centralism or the Leninist and Stalinist tradition. The strand that includes Lenin and his successors is only one strand of the far left. The far left also includes socialist anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, and more decentralist Marxists like William Morris. What all strands of the far left have in common is a revolutionary anti-capitalism and a vision of a just, egalitarian post-capitalist world.

Based on the above definitions, where you stand on the Left-Right spectrum signifies where you stand in relation to the capitalist and pre-capitalist power systems. Are you part of the problem (far right or centre-right)? Are you bargaining with the power system (centre or centre-left)? Or are you working for a world beyond the power system (far left)?

Not ‘Neither Left Nor Right’

The idea that ecology, and an ecological politics, is “Neither Left nor Right” seems to come from two different starting points: one somewhat valid, and one very much over-simplified.

The first starting point acknowledges, correctly, that both the corporate agenda and the working class movements opposing it, are essentially human-centred and require the increased exploitation of the Earth in order to accomplish their goals. All of the main stream forms of social democracy as well as Marxism and anarchism, have assumed that humanity could keep on using the Earth at an unsustainable rate. It does not follow, however, that a truly Green alternative must exist, on neither the left nor right, but in some newly-imagined, mystical centre.

The second starting point for the “Neither Left nor Right” slogan, is a simplistic idea that associates the Right with big business and pro-capitalist militarism, and associates the Left with large centralized state ownership and state planning. Since some ecologists in the 1970′s came to identify with decentralism, and such concepts as “Small is Beautiful,” some came to see this decentralist alternative as being neither Left nor Right, but a centrist ‘foreward.’ This stereotypic definition of the Left obviously does not include some of the Left’s greatest thinkers, who often envisioned a future in very decentralist terms.

Whether or not this was the original intent, one of the effects of the “Neither Left nor Right ” slogan was the increasing tendency to gloss over questions of class power, and other related forms of domination, in human society. The belief was increasingly expressed that everyone — bankers and beggars, company presidents and peasants — could walk along together and help build a new ecological world, without any conflict or inequality between them. While it can be argued to a point that from an ecological perspective we are all in the same planetary boat, it is also true that the capitalist class and the labouring classes will be effected to vastly different degrees by any ecological crisis or even by ecologically-sound technological change, and that these different classes will certainly tend to view ecological issues differently.

It may even come to pass that the top three to five percent of human society will find a way to survive a planetary ecocide, perhaps in steel-domed cities, while they allow the rest of humanity to die a slow and painful death outside. Whatever your prognosis, it should be clear that ecology cannot move forward without a strong analysis of class oppression. As a friend of mine once commented, “Neither Left nor Right” is a dangerous slogan to have, regardless of its original intent.

The Left in Left-biocentrism

Having examined the political meaning of Left and Right, and the inadequacies of a “Neither Left nor Right ” slogan, it is time to turn more directly to the question of the meaning of Left in Left-biocentrism.

If we define all the strands of the far left as having in common a revolutionary anti-capitalism and a vision of an egalitarian post-capitalist society, then Left-biocentrism can certainly fit into this space. However, Left-biocentrism differs from most forms of Marxism and anarchism in that it does not place the worker or the labouring classes at the centre of the picture, either when envisioning the new society or the means of getting there. Instead, it attempts to place the entire ecosphere at the centre, and is primarily concerned with human beings not as workers, but as Earth-dwellers. Left-biocentrism understands the capitalist system and the other faces of the right (patriarchy, militarism, colonialism, racial oppression, religious fundamentalism, etc.) as oppressing both human beings and the Earth. But it is particularly concerned with the way these systems exploit other species and destroy the Earth’s ecosystems.

For Left-biocentrists, the battle is not capital versus labour, but private power versus bio-community. Left-biocentrists reject capitalism and the other forms of oppression mentioned above, envisioning a world both of equity and cooperation among human beings, as well as deep ecological awareness and well-being. The models of worker, producer and consumer cooperatives, and community-based self-governance that have come primarily from the more decentralist and communitarian strands of the Left, are seen as being helpful in discerning possible models for a new ecocentric society. It is also understood that, moving to such a society will require confronting the corporate and capitalist state power structures in ways not unlike how some of the better grass roots movements of the Left have confronted capitalist power over the years. Movements such as the Spanish workers’ revolution of 1936, the Cuban Revolution from 1959 onward, the Nicaraguan Revolution from 1979 to 1990, and the Chiapas resistance from 1994 to the present, may have much to tell us about how to organize and retain a grass roots resistance to tyranny and empire.

‘Left’ for good reasons

In short, we are Left-biocentrists rather than simply biocentrists, for several key reasons:

• We understand that the capitalist class power system, and other forms of oppression are real, and that they are an impediment to building a just and ecological society;
• We understand that capitalism must be replaced by systems of social organization which allow human beings to live well within the boundaries of ecological balance;
• We look to models of human equity, cooperation and mutual aid, to provide the building blocks of a possible new ecological society; and
• We believe that it is not enough to simply think and theorize about a biocentric future, but that biocentrism must be a vibrant and relevant political movement that confronts the power system and creates viable alternatives.

In acknowledging that the Left-Right spatial metaphor is still relevant, but that there is a whole new set of questions we must confront around humanity’s relationship with the rest of the ecosphere, it is probably most useful to think in terms of a two dimensional spectrum, with a Left-Right axis representing equity versus empire within the human species, and an up-and-down axis representing anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism in how humanity relates to Nature and the Earth. In this two-dimensional spectrum, different perspectives, policies, historical periods and cultures can be measured and compared in a more complex way, than on a one dimensional Left-Right axis.

Left-biocentrism is a result of acknowledging the importance of both the pursuit of human equity and the pursuit of ecology, and that one is not possible without the other. In the light of all we have come to know, the Left in Left-biocentrism seems both appropriate and necessary. While it is true that there is no justice on a dead planet, it is also true that there probably isn’t much of a living ecological future without a Deep Ecology that embraces social justice.

Dave Greenfield is an activist and thinker from Saskatchewan who has been involved in peace, ecology and social justice concerns since the mid 1980s. His analysis of the reality of corporate and state power and its role in human oppression and ecological destruction has led him to combine non-violent, social anarchist philosophy with deep ecology to tackle the ecological implications of living on a finite planet.

Other posts by David Greenfield

• Nine Shades of Green

Milan, Italy — The political situation of the green movement in Italy is not good. The Italian Green Party has nothing ‘deep green’ about it – not even a tiny grass-shoot of green in a barren, brown meadow. Green Party publications do not mention Deep Ecology, their only reference being to its origins in the Italian Communist party.

This isn’t unusual in Italy: there’s almost no mention of the environment in Italian political discourse and the concept of Deep Ecology is almost unknown in my country. The last Italian elections were a disaster for the Green Party, and with no green representative in the Italian parliament there is little hope of any deep or even shallow greening coming from the political sphere.

Italians are generally divided between the majority with a secular and mechanistic view of the world, and a minority who follow the strict doctrines of Catholicism. Practically there’s no difference, and only one aim: growth, growth, and more growth. The economic worldview is always present, with very few exceptions. The common behaviour is consumerism, as in both tendencies there’s no concern about natural ecosystems, or that animals are sentient beings who have a right to exist in a free and autonomous way, or for the need to maintain ecological complexity.

Last winter and spring I gave a series of lectures and classes on Deep Ecology at two UNITRE (adult open universities) and several high schools. Despite the fact that my audiences showed a high level of interest in the concepts of Deep Ecology and had no real opposition to them, for most it was the first time they had heard anything about it. Many could not at first imagine a non-anthropocentric view, but, after some explanation, most of my listeners at least could grasp the concept.

The Catholic Church and the Earth Manifesto

At the beginning of 2007 the Vatican requested a copy of Manifesto for Earth by Mosquin and Rowe, as representative of the ecocentric viewpoint. Afterwards, J. Navarro-Valls, a high-ranking Catholic Church speaker, became active in the debate about Deep Ecology, especially concerning the Manifesto.

An article by Navarro-Valls entitled The Ecological Question was printed in the front page of the 13th May, 2007 issue of the important Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica. Professor Paolo Scroccaro, president of the Eco-Philosophical Association (Treviso-Veneto) wrote an article Ecocentrism by Mosquin and Rowe – Anthropocentrism by J. Navarro-Valls in answer.

Associations and cultural activities

Many environmental associations are active in Italy, but only two espouse the principles of Deep Ecology:

Associazione Eco-Filosofica www.filosofiatv.org, president professor Paolo Scroccaro, is based in Treviso in north-eastern Italy. Its philosophy is based on a complete adherence to Deep Ecology principles and its principal activity is the organisation of lectures, meetings, and courses especially in the Italian region of Veneto. The group publishes a good monthly revue reflecting a eastern spiritual world view plus a strong understanding of western and indigenous people’s philosophies.

Associazione Progetto Gaia has its office and natural products shop in Milan. President Manlio Massi has a materialistic but systemic worldview. Its nearly a thousand members are scattered throughout Italy and the group adheres to the Lovelock-Margulis’ Gaia Theory that accepts nearly all the principles of Deep Ecology. A vegetarian or vegan diet is recommended although non-vegetarians are accepted. Its website is www.progettogaia.it  and email posta@progettogaia.it It also maintains the website www.concezionedelmondo.org, which has some material in English.

Websites

About Deep Ecology:

www.ecologiaprofonda.com is the only one exclusively dedicated to Deep Ecology. Mario Spinetti is a naturalist-writer very fond of Nature, who now lives in northern Finland. He wrote some books about eagle, bear and wolf.>

www.naturalspirit.it  Stefano Fusi is a writer-painter who writes about deep ecology and native cultures. He lives near Milano and holds meetings about the subjects.>

About Eco-psychology:

www.ecopsicologia.it and www.inventareilmondo.it The Italian Eco-psychology School is at Osnago (Lecco–Lombardy). Marcella Danon is the best representative of ecopsychology in Italy: she wrote a good book on the subject. She is in contact with Fritjof Capra and Joanna Macy.

www.filosofia-ambientale.it carries the most complete information on Italian ecological and green positions. It is run by Piergiacomo Pagano, a scientist of ENEA.

Other sites:

• www.estovest.net (philosophycal writings)
• www.decrescita.it (for an economical decrease)
• www.oltrelaspecie.org (animal protection)
• www.auraweb.it (ecology and related subjects)
• www.ecologist.it (branch of the international revue)
• www.alberosacro.org (Giuseppe Moretti – bioregional instances)
• www.geofilosofia.it (Luisa Bonesio – geophylosophy)

About the Author

Guido Dalla Casa is an ecologist and writer in Milan, Italy. An updated edition of his 1996 book Deep Ecology will be published this July by Arianna Editrice as a 270-page e-book Deep Ecology: Steps To A New Worldview. An abridged English translation of the original can be downloaded as a PDF at Steps To A Deep Ecology.