Graduation date: 1992

As a starting point, I've created a simple, five step argument for my view on humanity's environmental responsibility. The first four steps are premises upon which I will elaborate to some degree over the course of this paper, and the fifth step is a conclusion that should necessarily follow from the premises if they are true. 1) Humans are currently threatening the earth's viability as a habitat for living thing. 2) Humans have a duty not to threaten the earth's viability as a habitat for living things. 3) Our duty not to threaten the viability of the earth as a habitat for living things is stronger than our duty to obey the law. 4) The exclusive use of traditional, legal attempts to change patterns of human behavior to eliminate their threat to the earth's viability as a habitat for living things is and will always be ineffective. 5) Therefore, when our duty not to threaten the earth's viability as a habitat for living things conflicts with our duty to obey the law, we ought first to satisfy the former.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Not available / text

The subject-matter of the following essay is to investigate the relationship between what is commonly called Deep Ecology or Biocentric Philosophy, as articulated by the co-founder of the Deep Ecology Movement, Arne Naess, and later proponents of the biocentric school of environmentalist thought. I contrast Naess’ concept of Self-realization as founded in his Ecosophy T to the ideas of american conservationist and co-founder of the radical green movement Earth First! Dave Foreman, and to the controversial finnish environmentalist and ecofascist Pentti Linkola’s ideological agenda of population-reduction respectively. According to some critics of the movement, especially the social ecologist Murray Bookchin and French liberal philosopher Luc Ferry, the Deep Ecology ideology is essentially misanthropic and totalitarian in structure. A central idea among deep ecologists is that ecosystems and natural entities have intrinsic value in themselves, even outside a human social context. This idea is thought of among deep ecologists to create a philosophically sound basis for counteracting the environmental global crisis. Both Bookchin and Ferry argue that this idea reduces the role of human reason and ethics in a fundamental way, especially in relation to questions concerning population-growth control. My aim is to show that the original intention of Arne Naess in his philosophy (Ekosofi T) does not resemble either Ferrys focus of critique, neither the controversial statements made by Dave Foreman and Earth First! nor Linkolas population-control agenda.