Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered
byBill Devall,George Sessions
3.92 · Rating details · 205 ratings · 18 reviews
Practicing is simple. Nothing forced, nothing violent, just settling into our place. "Deep ecology," a term originated in 1972 by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, is emerging as a way to develop harmony between individuals, communities and nature. DEEP ECOLOGY--the term and the book--unfolds the path to living a simple, rich life and shows how to participate in major environmental issues in a positive and creative manner.
--
roduct description
From the Inside Flap
Contents Preface Nothing Can Be Done, Everything is Possible Minority Tradition and Direct Action The Dominant, Modern Worldview and Its Critics The Reformist Response Deep Ecology Some Sources of the Deep Ecology Perspective Why Wilderness in the Nuclear Age? Nature Resource Conservation or Protection of the Integrity of Nature: Contrasting Views of Management Ecotopia: The Vision Defined
From the Back Cover
Deep Ecology explores the philosophical, psychological, and sociological roots of today's environmental movement, examines the human-centered assumptions behind most approaches to nature, explores the possibilities of an expanded human consciousness, and offers specific direct action suggestions for individuals to practice. Widely read in it first printing, Deep Ecology has established itself as one of the most significant books on environmental thought to appear in this decade.
"Deep Ecology is subversive, but it's the kind of subversion we can use." --San Francisco Chronicle
"This book is an attempt at codifying a scattered body of ecological insight into a philosophy that places human beings on an absolutely equal footing with all other creatures on the planet." --Stephanie Mills, Whole Earth Review
"Difficult and (to some) unfamiliar insights on nature and human beings presented with simplicity and clarity, Deep Ecology rattles a cage full of occidental presumptions and yet it all seems almost like common sense." --Gary Snyder
Bill Devall has studied the social organization, politics, psychology and philosophy of the environmental movement for fifteen years. He teaches at Humbolt State University in California and is active in many environmental groups including Earth First! and the Sierra Club.
George Sessions teaches philosophy at Sierra College California. He was appointed to the Mountaineering Committee of the the Sierra Club in 1962, has served as a philosophy consultant to the National Endowment for the Humanities, and is editor of the International Ecophilosophy Newsletter.
About the Author
Bill DeVall has been a guest lecturer and featured speaker at universities in the United States and Australia and at national and international environmental conferences.
No Information Available.
--
Paperback, 267 pages
Published January 19th 2001 by Gibbs Smith (first published 1985)
Write a review
Jul 07, 2009Gayge rated it liked it
You know, I kind of feel bad giving a book on deep ecology only three stars, especially where deep ecology is really central to my politics. But, one, I think this book would have been much more meaningful to me years ago - the principles of deep ecology are second nature to me at this point. And two, there's a lot of racism in this book, mainly referring to indigenous peoples of the Americas as "primal peoples" and viewing them as all the same, and massive, massive creepy appropriation and romanticisation of several Asian cultures.
If you aren't already well-versed in deep ecology, and you're up enough on anti-racism to know that this book is really racist (and, yes, portraying POC as special magical harmonious with the rest of Nature people and not involving actual current POC voices is hella racist), this will give you a clear intro to deep ecology. But especially given the racism that is part of some sections of the radical environmental movement, I'm looking for a better introduction to direct people to. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 04, 2020Atticus rated it really liked it
Shelves: ecology-and-primitivism
At its core, this book is quite simple; everything present within it is, more or less, an accompaniment to the principles of Deep Ecology that it outlines. I would consider this to be more of a handbook than an actual book, and really it resonates with me more as a piece of aphoristic literature than anything else. There are a plethora of good quotations and sources and interesting bits of related artistry (Snyder's Smokey the Bear Sutra stood out for me, quite a wonderful piece), but in terms of the actual message the book is better suited as an introductory work. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't expect a "deep" reading from it. Still, it is good to consult and look over every now and again, as it is a pretty good introduction and does encompass a lot of important talking points. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Sep 18, 2017Brett rated it liked it
Shelves: environment, philosophy
It takes this book 200 pages to say that people need to refocus their conception of the world away from being human-centered and toward a conception that places humans, other life, and even natural environments on the same level.
I consider myself to an environmental advocate, but I'm not really willing to go as far as Deep Ecology wants to me to go. It may be possible for humans to live deeply satisfying lives with much reduced technological convenience but I don't think the vast majority of humans are seriously interested in trying this out. There is just very little grappling with the details of what the philosophical changes the authors want us to embrace would mean in actual effect. Instead, there are lots of sweeping statements and generalizations. Some of it is compelling; some of it not.
The authors also intersperse lots of snippets of other books, essays, and poems throughout the text, aiming for a general introduction to other thinkers and writers on the topic. In some ways, this is useful for those of us who are new to the topic, but in other ways it seems to prevent the authors from fully fleshing out their own thoughts. They introduce a topic, and insert the appropriate quote from another writer, then leave the topic. For a book that seems to want to be a comprehensive treatment of Deep Ecology, there is surprisingly little meat on the bones.
Rather, there is a lot of spiritual flim flam about the importance of nature and how mountains or rivers are living things that deserve to be valued intrinsically, even at the expense of humans. Nature is of course extremely important and by preserving nature, we greatly increase the odds of preserving the human race as well, but the fact of the matter is that mountains and rivers themselves are not living, and that humans will need to make informed, thoughtful, far-reaching judgments about development. To say that development is unacceptable in the vast majority of circumstances doesn't seem like a tenable position in the debate to me.
One other detail that seems strange, but has to do with when Deep Ecology was published in 1985. There is no mention at all of climate change in the book. Climate change was not understood of course in 1985 the way it is now, but it feels odd to read a book on environmentalism that doesn't speak at all to what has become the pressing environmental issue of our time.
I've been pretty hard on this book in this review, but there were several parts I greatly enjoyed, and I'm not even closing myself off entirely from the position advocated by the authors. The fact is that we are coming to a point in human development where we have greatly jeopardized our position on the planet through mindlessly burning fossil fuels, even decades after it became incontrovertible that doing so was causing serious harm. In the discussion of what it is that we can do now to try to stave off disaster, there is a place for someone to make the Deep Ecology argument. But I hope they can do it more effectively than this book does. (less)
flag1 like · Like · 2 comments · see review
Jul 08, 2009Joshua added it
Shelves: hippie, summer09
This is a good overview of the philosophical underpinnings of Deep Ecology. It does a better (more polished) sales job than Naess's books, says something deep (better than Berry's book), and at least attempts a synthesis (unlike Milbraith). I particularly enjoyed the discussion of different types of ecotopias that have been proposed/presented.
This would make a good starter book to get someone interested in DE. Once they are hooked, then point them to Devall's "Simple in Means, Rich in Ends" for some practical advice.
(less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Feb 05, 2008Jessenoah rated it really liked it
Recommends it for: budding biophiliacs
lots of good quotes and standpoints regarding environmental philosophy. examining the myriad ways of looking at current issues, through the lenseseseses of poets and scientists alike.
check it out on the toilet.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Aug 02, 2020Brandon rated it did not like it
I don't know who this was written for, but it wasn't for me. I got 2/3rds of the way through before throwing in the towel. I wanted to learn what deep ecology meant/stood for, but I walked away having learned little to nothing.
The organization and structure is terrible. The book is a hodgepodge of jumbled together thoughts with little rational order or flow, frequently interspersed with bulleted asides or excerpts that detract from any sort of cohesive argumentation.
The ideas presented are so vague and immaterial that they don't offer any real insight into what deep ecology means. Perhaps in the last 3rd of the book they actually lay out and develop this idea. The first 2/3rds of the book consisted of supremely self-sanctimonious finger wagging at every other section of society except the authors and indigenous peoples. And indigenous peoples are treated as a monolithic mystical nature cult who all live in complete harmony with the natural world and had solutions to all of life's problems - i.e. the authors are spouting the same racist 'noble savage' bullshit that Rousseau was spewing 200 years ago, only dressed up in new wave garb.
Relatedly, the authors never develop an argument that convinces the reader of the soundness of their position or the demerits of the so called 'professional ecologists', whom they depict as a bunch of number crunching nerds who don't understand the soul of nature. They frequently state that they are in the right and that corporations and foresters are in the wrong, but they never actually do the work of developing an argument and supporting it with evidence. This is lazy, self-righteous environmentalism at its worst and does nothing to actually promote conservation. The authors clearly weren't trying to convince anyone, so I suppose this book was intended to be a primer for people who already believed that a mystical ecology was the proper direction. Even in that though, it fails (b/c of the aforementioned vagueness).
I'm still interested in the concept of deep ecology, but won't be circling back to it for a while thanks to this drek. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
May 17, 2021Mauro rated it really liked it
Deep Ecology is still our only, albeit tenuous, hope to survive the Anthropocene.
flagLike · see review
May 09, 2018Emma rated it really liked it
Indeed the book's terminology is dated, as is the formulation of some ideas, however it's of its time. I don't think that this should detract too much from the neat and accessible means of introduction Sessions provides into deep ecology thinking. It is fairly comprehensive, drawing together key contributors of the time, and providing impetus for further thought... It is interesting to consider the sense of urgency three decades prior, the predictions/fears for the future, and how, unfortunately, so little has changed by way of dominant ideology that parts could almost have been written today. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Sep 19, 2008Jake rated it really liked it
Great stuff. This book is a natural extension of the mass self-loathing we all deserve as destroyers of the otherwise perfect Earth. Well, it wasn't really that sort of book, but it does discuss the emotional implications of a nature-centered life. I think we could all benefit from a more thoroughly realized sense of community. Technology is a good thing, but what's the hurry? A more deliberate path would allow us to maintain the wisdoms of the past while integrating those of the future. Utopian? Of course, but why the hell not? (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Dec 20, 2007Kelly rated it really liked it
This is a great book. I originally read it to use in an environmental justice paper, and found that it provides a good basis for the environmental movement in general. Parts of it tend toward a self-righteous tree hugger mentality, but I liked it. It's inspiring. It's one of those books that I bought for school but have actually picked up since. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jan 27, 2010Kate rated it liked it
Shelves: environmental
Parts of this book I really love—some keen insights on how we relate to our world, and to the non-humans (creatures, landscapes) that share it with us. But then other parts are intensely policy heavy and don't add much to the discussion, and then some parts a lil too new agey. So certain parts definitely 5 stars, and worth the read. But I have to give it a 3 stars overall. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Nov 30, 2014Ruth rated it it was ok
I'm not sure why I picked this book up again after reading it sometime in the 90's. It's very cut-and-pasty and weirdly written with all these quotes and bullets. I think I liked the appendices the best, because they were actual reprints of articles and a little easier to read. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Nov 08, 2010Lorelei Yang rated it really liked it
Shelves: philosophy-polisci
As a philosophy, deep ecology is both compelling and perplexing: hence the necessity of reading this volume.
flagLike · comment · see review
Paperback, 267 pages
Published January 19th 2001 by Gibbs Smith (first published 1985)
Write a review
Jul 07, 2009Gayge rated it liked it
You know, I kind of feel bad giving a book on deep ecology only three stars, especially where deep ecology is really central to my politics. But, one, I think this book would have been much more meaningful to me years ago - the principles of deep ecology are second nature to me at this point. And two, there's a lot of racism in this book, mainly referring to indigenous peoples of the Americas as "primal peoples" and viewing them as all the same, and massive, massive creepy appropriation and romanticisation of several Asian cultures.
If you aren't already well-versed in deep ecology, and you're up enough on anti-racism to know that this book is really racist (and, yes, portraying POC as special magical harmonious with the rest of Nature people and not involving actual current POC voices is hella racist), this will give you a clear intro to deep ecology. But especially given the racism that is part of some sections of the radical environmental movement, I'm looking for a better introduction to direct people to. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 04, 2020Atticus rated it really liked it
Shelves: ecology-and-primitivism
At its core, this book is quite simple; everything present within it is, more or less, an accompaniment to the principles of Deep Ecology that it outlines. I would consider this to be more of a handbook than an actual book, and really it resonates with me more as a piece of aphoristic literature than anything else. There are a plethora of good quotations and sources and interesting bits of related artistry (Snyder's Smokey the Bear Sutra stood out for me, quite a wonderful piece), but in terms of the actual message the book is better suited as an introductory work. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't expect a "deep" reading from it. Still, it is good to consult and look over every now and again, as it is a pretty good introduction and does encompass a lot of important talking points. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Sep 18, 2017Brett rated it liked it
Shelves: environment, philosophy
It takes this book 200 pages to say that people need to refocus their conception of the world away from being human-centered and toward a conception that places humans, other life, and even natural environments on the same level.
I consider myself to an environmental advocate, but I'm not really willing to go as far as Deep Ecology wants to me to go. It may be possible for humans to live deeply satisfying lives with much reduced technological convenience but I don't think the vast majority of humans are seriously interested in trying this out. There is just very little grappling with the details of what the philosophical changes the authors want us to embrace would mean in actual effect. Instead, there are lots of sweeping statements and generalizations. Some of it is compelling; some of it not.
The authors also intersperse lots of snippets of other books, essays, and poems throughout the text, aiming for a general introduction to other thinkers and writers on the topic. In some ways, this is useful for those of us who are new to the topic, but in other ways it seems to prevent the authors from fully fleshing out their own thoughts. They introduce a topic, and insert the appropriate quote from another writer, then leave the topic. For a book that seems to want to be a comprehensive treatment of Deep Ecology, there is surprisingly little meat on the bones.
Rather, there is a lot of spiritual flim flam about the importance of nature and how mountains or rivers are living things that deserve to be valued intrinsically, even at the expense of humans. Nature is of course extremely important and by preserving nature, we greatly increase the odds of preserving the human race as well, but the fact of the matter is that mountains and rivers themselves are not living, and that humans will need to make informed, thoughtful, far-reaching judgments about development. To say that development is unacceptable in the vast majority of circumstances doesn't seem like a tenable position in the debate to me.
One other detail that seems strange, but has to do with when Deep Ecology was published in 1985. There is no mention at all of climate change in the book. Climate change was not understood of course in 1985 the way it is now, but it feels odd to read a book on environmentalism that doesn't speak at all to what has become the pressing environmental issue of our time.
I've been pretty hard on this book in this review, but there were several parts I greatly enjoyed, and I'm not even closing myself off entirely from the position advocated by the authors. The fact is that we are coming to a point in human development where we have greatly jeopardized our position on the planet through mindlessly burning fossil fuels, even decades after it became incontrovertible that doing so was causing serious harm. In the discussion of what it is that we can do now to try to stave off disaster, there is a place for someone to make the Deep Ecology argument. But I hope they can do it more effectively than this book does. (less)
flag1 like · Like · 2 comments · see review
Jul 08, 2009Joshua added it
Shelves: hippie, summer09
This is a good overview of the philosophical underpinnings of Deep Ecology. It does a better (more polished) sales job than Naess's books, says something deep (better than Berry's book), and at least attempts a synthesis (unlike Milbraith). I particularly enjoyed the discussion of different types of ecotopias that have been proposed/presented.
This would make a good starter book to get someone interested in DE. Once they are hooked, then point them to Devall's "Simple in Means, Rich in Ends" for some practical advice.
(less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Feb 05, 2008Jessenoah rated it really liked it
Recommends it for: budding biophiliacs
lots of good quotes and standpoints regarding environmental philosophy. examining the myriad ways of looking at current issues, through the lenseseseses of poets and scientists alike.
check it out on the toilet.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Aug 02, 2020Brandon rated it did not like it
I don't know who this was written for, but it wasn't for me. I got 2/3rds of the way through before throwing in the towel. I wanted to learn what deep ecology meant/stood for, but I walked away having learned little to nothing.
The organization and structure is terrible. The book is a hodgepodge of jumbled together thoughts with little rational order or flow, frequently interspersed with bulleted asides or excerpts that detract from any sort of cohesive argumentation.
The ideas presented are so vague and immaterial that they don't offer any real insight into what deep ecology means. Perhaps in the last 3rd of the book they actually lay out and develop this idea. The first 2/3rds of the book consisted of supremely self-sanctimonious finger wagging at every other section of society except the authors and indigenous peoples. And indigenous peoples are treated as a monolithic mystical nature cult who all live in complete harmony with the natural world and had solutions to all of life's problems - i.e. the authors are spouting the same racist 'noble savage' bullshit that Rousseau was spewing 200 years ago, only dressed up in new wave garb.
Relatedly, the authors never develop an argument that convinces the reader of the soundness of their position or the demerits of the so called 'professional ecologists', whom they depict as a bunch of number crunching nerds who don't understand the soul of nature. They frequently state that they are in the right and that corporations and foresters are in the wrong, but they never actually do the work of developing an argument and supporting it with evidence. This is lazy, self-righteous environmentalism at its worst and does nothing to actually promote conservation. The authors clearly weren't trying to convince anyone, so I suppose this book was intended to be a primer for people who already believed that a mystical ecology was the proper direction. Even in that though, it fails (b/c of the aforementioned vagueness).
I'm still interested in the concept of deep ecology, but won't be circling back to it for a while thanks to this drek. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
May 17, 2021Mauro rated it really liked it
Deep Ecology is still our only, albeit tenuous, hope to survive the Anthropocene.
flagLike · see review
May 09, 2018Emma rated it really liked it
Indeed the book's terminology is dated, as is the formulation of some ideas, however it's of its time. I don't think that this should detract too much from the neat and accessible means of introduction Sessions provides into deep ecology thinking. It is fairly comprehensive, drawing together key contributors of the time, and providing impetus for further thought... It is interesting to consider the sense of urgency three decades prior, the predictions/fears for the future, and how, unfortunately, so little has changed by way of dominant ideology that parts could almost have been written today. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Sep 19, 2008Jake rated it really liked it
Great stuff. This book is a natural extension of the mass self-loathing we all deserve as destroyers of the otherwise perfect Earth. Well, it wasn't really that sort of book, but it does discuss the emotional implications of a nature-centered life. I think we could all benefit from a more thoroughly realized sense of community. Technology is a good thing, but what's the hurry? A more deliberate path would allow us to maintain the wisdoms of the past while integrating those of the future. Utopian? Of course, but why the hell not? (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Dec 20, 2007Kelly rated it really liked it
This is a great book. I originally read it to use in an environmental justice paper, and found that it provides a good basis for the environmental movement in general. Parts of it tend toward a self-righteous tree hugger mentality, but I liked it. It's inspiring. It's one of those books that I bought for school but have actually picked up since. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Jan 27, 2010Kate rated it liked it
Shelves: environmental
Parts of this book I really love—some keen insights on how we relate to our world, and to the non-humans (creatures, landscapes) that share it with us. But then other parts are intensely policy heavy and don't add much to the discussion, and then some parts a lil too new agey. So certain parts definitely 5 stars, and worth the read. But I have to give it a 3 stars overall. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Nov 30, 2014Ruth rated it it was ok
I'm not sure why I picked this book up again after reading it sometime in the 90's. It's very cut-and-pasty and weirdly written with all these quotes and bullets. I think I liked the appendices the best, because they were actual reprints of articles and a little easier to read. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Nov 08, 2010Lorelei Yang rated it really liked it
Shelves: philosophy-polisci
As a philosophy, deep ecology is both compelling and perplexing: hence the necessity of reading this volume.
flagLike · comment · see review
