The Third World, Wilderness, and Deep Ecology

Abstract

Naess opens with a critique of both modern agriculture and industrial-urban culture as practices that have an unsustainable impact on the biosphere, and he claims that "prior to agriculture, our ancestors left few traces [. . . .] nor was there ever any essential conflict between humans in moderate numbers and a state of wilderness or wildness" (281). He goes on to argue that deep ecology as a movement, on the one hand, does not attempt to control Third World environmental policy (against Guha's assertion) and, on the other hand, "ecologically concerned people in the poor countries [must] trust" deep ecology supporters in order for cooperation to occur (282). Here, he assumes that consumerism and subsistence agriculture should not be promoted or enabled in the developing world. He goes on to say that urban redevelopment is crucial to sustainability––to concentrate people in cities and to preserve wider stretches of wilderness globally (283). Naess argues, however, that ecological sustainability should not emphasize the prevention of catastrophes––an inferior goal he suggests to protecting "the full richness and diversity of life forms on the planet"; he labels the latter "wide" (vs. 'narrow') ecological sustainability (286). That said, he concludes that the environmental slogan of 70s (think globally, act locally) should pair now with "think globally, act globally" (288). As his conclusion suggests, Naess views the environmental problems and challenges of the West and the global South as basically the same: "the global perspective reveals," he maintains, "the basic similarity of the situation among poor and rich" (290).