Is deep ecology just inconsistent eco-la-la?
Murray Bookchin, the founder of the Social Ecology movement criticizes “…the intellectual poverty of ‘the father of ecology’ and the silliness of the entire deep ecology ‘movement'”. ‘Deep Ecology and Anarchism’, page 47. Bookchin describes Deep Ecology as ‘eco la-la’. He considers it to be half-baked New Age nonsense masquerading as philosophy. Although Bookchin may be too dismissive, there are inconsistencies in deep ecology. Principle #3 of ‘Deep Ecology Platform’ of deep ecology is that: “Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.” But what count as ‘vital needs’? Deep ecologists generally count ‘vital needs’ as those necessary for survival or that serve the goal of self-realization. In practice this can mean eating meat, which Devall and Sessions justify because ‘mutual predation is a biological fact of life’ (see Paul Shepherd, ‘The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game’). Many deep ecologists advocate hunting as a means of staying
