Ecofascism

[Faustian Dreams]

Ecofascism is the "totalitarian" philosophy of government that glorifies Nature above all else (in particular, individual rights and desires) and assigns to natural law control over every aspect of national life. Social policy reflects the few evident laws that Nature provides, from which a series of corollary laws may be derived which dictate what sort of behavior lies in accordance with these fundamental principles. The economy is thus redirected to reflect the interest of the biosphere as a whole, and not simply mankind (which is an exclusionist and limited perspective), with the understanding that only this institution may be sustainable and not relative to ephemeral political or social interests.

The motto of the Italian Fascist Party, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.")" is thus rephrased: "Everything is part of Nature, nothing lies outside of the jurisdiction of Nature, and no acts shall be committed nor tolerated which discredit the Primacy of Nature."


Nature

Humans originated in the natural world, and are still dependent upon it. While we can perhaps build plastic cities and generate our food artificially, removing us from our environment deprives us of a superior order to anything we've produced so far, as well as something of great beauty and possibilities for learning. Currently the public is in denial of the dire situation of our environment, which can be summarized as follows: humanity is using too much land, overfarming natural animal resources, and creating too much pollution.

While the amount of land and food that it produces remains the same, the human population of earth continues to grow exponentially. At some point, we will either expand to fill every space on earth, thus causing starvation and worldwide collapse, or we will learn to limit our population. Further, as we grow, we move more people to first-world lifestyles that are high in energy cost and waste production. The result is like a cancer infesting the globe, in that we will eat it from within and only confront the consequences when they have reached a fatal level.

To preserve nature, we must reserve most of the land and sea for the complex interlocking orbits of natural ecosystems that support each other, and through them, the whole. Every creature serves a purpose, from monocellular bacteria to elephants, and without these different levels of the global ecosystem being healthy, the whole collapses structurally and thus, after a delay, falls apart on a visible level. For this reason we must discipline our expansion and habits before we reach a stage of visible failure.

Whether or not global warming or any of the other current symptoms of natural collapse are accurately described, the basic mathematics remains the same: if we keep growing in population, and using more resources and producing more waste, eventually we will consume the earth and poison ourselves with our own waste. The primary principle of the LNSG is thus that we must achieve a balance with our environment and grant to it exclusively most of the resources on earth; in order to do this, we must re-organize our thinking toward a naturalistic view of life and impose it on all humanity.
http://www.nazi.org/nazi/principles/nature/

[Petr]

Deep down of it, the eco-fascists have the same mentality as Aztecs, who also believed that men should live in strict "harmony with nature" and that chaos would follow if they would not sacrifice huge amounts of men to natural deities on a regular basis. In their worldview, shed human blood was like a grease that kept the great machine of nature running.

Gary North has speculated that should "Deep Ecologists" ever get to decide, they would sacrifice mankind to Nature, being good animists.

Radical environmentalism has produced some of the most fanatical haters of Christianity (that declares the categorical superiority of man to the rest of nature) - Ludwig Klages is a good example:

http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/library/essence_of_fascism_6.php


"Klages is appalled at Nietzsche's inconsistency. He rails against Christianity--this feeble-nerved, vile, and cowardly religion of slaves in rebellion against the laws of Nature and Life, and yet refuses to comply with these laws himself, fatuously pursuing the phantom of some "higher" and "nobler" form of existence. Nietzsche, for all his passionate aversion to Christianity, Klages suspects, never quite overcame the Christian superstition that animal life was not enough. His philosophy of Natural Values is contaminated by spiritual elements. Klages made it the task of his life to decontaminate it."


Petr

[Hakluyt]

A trollish and stunted presentation of some otherwise legitimate principles, of course with no understanding of the conflict between such plebeian and massified ideologies as fascism & National Socialism and applied ecology.

[Hakluyt]

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Rosenberg_contra_Klages.html

NSDAP’s Official Greeting to Klages on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Berlin Edition of the Völkischer Beobachter 12/10/42):

On the 70th birthday of Ludwig Klages, we wish once again to insist that we regard this man as our enemy. With regard to all of the decisive philosophical questions, we state that there can be no reconciliation whatsoever between the World-View of Klages and that of the National Socialist Movement. His view of nature and history, of man and his future, is, in principle, utterly incompatible with the fundamental theses of National Socialism!

[Petr]

It looks like anti-Christian Nazis like Alfred Rosenberg were plagued by the same hypocrisy that Klages found in Nietzsche - how even after violently tossing away God of the Bible (who made man as His own image), they wanted to entertain the illusion that they could be something more than mere animals without Him...


"He rails against Christianity--this feeble-nerved, vile, and cowardly religion of slaves in rebellion against the laws of Nature and Life, and yet refuses to comply with these laws himself, fatuously pursuing the phantom of some "higher" and "nobler" form of existence."


Petr

[Kodos]

My biggest beef with the enviromental movement is they are so bigoted against nuclear power, which is essential to our economic survival now. We are going to need hundreds of new nuclear power plants in order to generate not just electricity but to get off oil to power our cars( and save the remaining oils for plastics to which we have no substitute)...

[Vindex]

Well we live in a world of reaction, after all.

[Hakluyt]

My biggest beef with the enviromental movement is they are so bigoted against nuclear power, which is essential to our economic survival now. We are going to need hundreds of new nuclear power plants in order to generate not just electricity but to get off oil to power our cars( and save the remaining oils for plastics to which we have no substitute)...
The founder of Greenpeace came out in favour of new powerplants a few months ago actually. As far as my experience goes most greens I talk to support it; the main segment that seems to oppose it is the middle aged feminists.

[Faustian Dreams]

My biggest beef with the enviromental movement is they are so bigoted against nuclear power, which is essential to our economic survival now. We are going to need hundreds of new nuclear power plants in order to generate not just electricity but to get off oil to power our cars( and save the remaining oils for plastics to which we have no substitute)...

This is with the assumption that the world needs to be able to support the current population.

This is also limited to the question of providing energy for society, without regard for staple resources such as food, clean air, clean water, etc., none of which can be supported for much longer, considering that the world is over 13 times the carrying capacity. Why bicker over where you and your kids are getting the energy to power your microwave oven, your remote, your computer, and your station wagon? Why not come to terms with the fact that the current lifestyle is simply not sustainable, especially here in the U.S., and that we must readjust our values to reflect an awareness for something beyond human, beyond today, and beyond comfort.

Do any of you believe that those who came before us felt that they were being deprived of something, albeit something they did not know of?

If someone from the ancient civilizations was granted a vision of the modern world, wouldn't they cringe at what we've become, out of touch with a deeper, more resonant spirtuality that can only be supported by the vibrance of a pristine landscape?

Realize that the modern lifestyle requires a great deal of habituation; this is the mechanism that multiculturalists employ, what citizens of a city must go through, what rules the human mind.

Tell a child that we will need to power the homes, neighborhoods, and cities through a method that results in a toxic goop that must be buried deep beneath the ground, never to be approached, and that it doesn't stop being poisonous for thousands of years. Now watch their brows darken with confusion and answer to them why this makes sense.

It doesn't.

When we erase from our minds any preconceptions of what must be, and opt to look at the world with a childlike innocence, we [I[question everything[/I], never settling for an answer until we've established its consistency over and over again.

I am amazed to find how many adults fail to understand concepts so easily grasped by the younger ones; when we have too many things that aren't good enough for us, what do we do? We stop buying, stop making, etc. Lastly, colonizing the universe is not only improbable, but downright impractical. There aren't enough resources left to make the technology possible.

[benedict]

...the world is over 13 times the carrying capacity.

Prove it.

adsfsadsdfsda

[Faustian Dreams]

Prove it.

adsfsadsdfsda

Actually, those estimates pertain to the carrying capacity of the Earth if everyone lived according to U.S. energy expenditure and standards for life.

The earth could support a population of 2 billion under "European" living standards:

Using available renewable energy technologies, such as biomass and wind power, an estimated 200 quads of renewable energy could be produced worldwide from 20% to 26% of the land area (Pimentel et al., 1994b; Yao Xlang-Jun, personal communication, Cornell University, 1998). A self-sustaining renewable energy system producing 200 quads of energy per year for about 2 billion people [see following section "Transition to an optimum population with appropriate technologies" for an explanation for the 2 billion figure] would provide each person with 5,000 liters of oil equivalents per year (half of America's current consumption per year but an increase for most people of the world) (Pimentel et al., 1998a). The appropriation of over 20% of the land area for renewable energy production will further limit the resilience of the vital ecosystem that humanity depends upon for its life support system (Daily, 1996).

...

Our suggested 2 billion population carrying capacity for the Earth is based on a European standard of living for everyone and sustainable use of natural resources. For land resources, we suggest 0.5 ha of cropland per capita with an intense agricultural production system (~8 million kcal/ha) and diverse plant and animal diet for the people. The 0.5 ha of cropland per capita is the level that existed in 1960. Since that time nearly one-third of the world's arable land has been lost due to urbanization, highways, soil erosion, salinization, and water-logging of the soil (WRI, 1994; Pimentel et al., 1998a). In addition, approximately 1.5 ha of land would be required per capita for a renewable energy system (discussed earlier, p. 15). At the same time, the goal would be approximately 1 ha each for forest and pasture production per capita. Of course, it would also be essential to stop all current land degradation associated with soil erosion and other factors (Pimentel et al., 1995). Technologies are currently available for soil conservation in agricultural and forest production; they only need to be implemented (Troeh and Thompson, 1993).

Worldwide, balancing the population-resource equation will be difficult because current overpopulation, poor distribution of resources, and environmental degradation are already causing serious malnourishment and poverty throughout the world, especially in developing countries (Gleick, 1993; WHO, 1995; Brown, 1997; Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996; Postel, 1997). Based on the estimate that 0.5 ha per capita is necessary for an adequate and diverse food supply, it would be possible to sustain a global population of approximately 3 billion humans. However, arable land is being degraded and lost at a rate of more than 12 million ha per year (Pimentel et al., 1995; Pimentel et al., 1997c). At this rate of loss, in just 42 years there will be sufficient arable land for a population of only 2 billion. It is critical to adopt soil and water conservation techniques to protect the soil resources that currently produce more than 99% of the world's food (Pimentel et al., 1995; Pimentel et al., 1997c).

A world population of 2 billion, in addition to having adequate food, renewable energy, and forest products, should also have adequate freshwater resources (Postel, 1997). For agricultural and industrial production as well as public needs, we suggest approximately 1.2 million liters per person each year. Water resources, as with soil, would have to be conserved and pollution controlled. Humans would need to cease the overdraft of ground-water resources, instead, using ground-water in a more sustainable manner. Again, technologies are currently available for the effective management and protection of water resources (Postel, 1997).

...

With a democratically determined population control policy that respects basic individual rights, with sound resource use policies, plus the support of science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment, an optimum population of 2 billion for the Earth can be achieved. With a concerted effort, fundamental obligations to ensure the well-being of future generations can be attained within the 21st century. Individuals will then be free from poverty and starvation and live in an environment capable of sustaining human life with dignity. We must avoid letting humans numbers continue to increase to the limit of the Earth's natural resources and forcing natural forces to control our numbers by disease, malnutrition, and violent conflicts over resources.


Source: WILL LIMITS OF THE EARTH'S RESOURCES CONTROL HUMAN NUMBERS? http://dieoff.org/page174.htm

by David Pimentel, O. Bailey, P. Kim, E. Mullaney, J. Calabrese, L. Walman, F. Nelson, and X. Yao, Cornell University

[Kodos]

This is with the assumption that the world needs to be able to support the current population.

A virus will eventually come along but don't assume that major economic catastrophe will spare you.

This is also limited to the question of providing energy for society, without regard for staple resources such as food, clean air, clean water, etc., none of which can be supported for much longer, considering that the world is over 13 times the carrying capacity. Why bicker over where you and your kids are getting the energy to power your microwave oven, your remote, your computer, and your station wagon? Why not come to terms with the fact that the current lifestyle is simply not sustainable, especially here in the U.S., and that we must readjust our values to reflect an awareness for something beyond human, beyond today, and beyond comfort.

Nuclear power is essentially limitless, and soil production while streched can support the current population en perpetua...


If someone from the ancient civilizations was granted a vision of the modern world, wouldn't they cringe at what we've become, out of touch with a deeper, more resonant spirtuality that can only be supported by the vibrance of a pristine landscape?

Your whole post reeks of effeminate sentimentality and emotionalism... the Romans weren't exactly enviromentalists.

[President Camacho]

I agree with Faustian Dreams-- there are already too many damn people in the world.

The US should give economic incentives to Turd World countries who can/will prove that they can reduce their population over time.

Weikel if we switched to nuclear en masse (it is not realistic but I'll go along with it), that would only encourage the world that this planet is not straining to support more human life than it can hold.... something's gotta give eventually, and it's better sooner rather than later.

Even if nuclear could magically provide literally limitless energy, you would still hit the brick wall of finding living space for everyone, and enough water and food to feed them.

[Kodos]

Weikel if we switched to nuclear en masse (it is not realistic but I'll go along with it), that would only encourage the world that this planet is not straining to support more human life than it can hold.... something's gotta give eventually, and it's better sooner rather than later.

No excuse to stay on oil.

Switching to nuclear is quite realistic if all opposition to it is ruthlessly crushed...

And if it makes you feel better germs are mother nature's immune system they'll be a plague that strikes(soon enough) and kills most of the worlds population( 3rd world will take a higher %).

[Faustian Dreams]

And if it makes you feel better germs are mother nature's immune system they'll be a plague that strikes(soon enough) and kills most of the worlds population( 3rd world will take a higher %).

My posts may "reek of effeminate sentimentality and emotionalism" (wherever you gather that from...), but at least I'm not banking on having a germ come along and do our dirty business for us.

The same technology you advocate for the sake of escape the impending energy crisis will be the same technology that will prevent any plague from being so devastating.

And say that there was such a virus or disease that could effectively kill "most of the worlds population." You know damn well who would be left--those overgorged, unworthy social climbers who happen to have enough pennies to afford it. The same people who engage in cronyism with the rest of the corporate lobbies (including pharmaceuticals), thus sparing them.

To be a little more effeminate: I also advocate the elimination of the pharmaceutical industry so that those who cannot exist without medical crutches will die off. But what about grandma, you say?

The Romans knew how to deal with such an issue more effectively. And, while they weren't environmentalists, they revered nature through their worldview and religion. Perhaps not enough? Rome fell too...

[infoterror]

It looks like anti-Christian Nazis like Alfred Rosenberg were plagued by the same hypocrisy that Klages found in Nietzsche - how even after violently tossing away God of the Bible (who made man as His own image), they wanted to entertain the illusion that they could be something more than mere animals without Him...

Yet do we need "Him," or simply a belief in life? Seems these ecofascists don't want to eliminate humanity, but keep its good parts. Interesting how the people around here are now as fearful and reactionary as those at vnnforum.com. Could it have to do with the expanding ethnic population, or maybe the paranoiac nature of "white nationalism"? Hmm. Ponder, ponder.

[infoterror]

The Romans knew how to deal with such an issue more effectively. And, while they weren't environmentalists, they revered nature through their worldview and religion. Perhaps not enough? Rome fell too...

Yeah, after they gave up on that worldview and sold out. Like Metallica, but worse.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the threads here. Most are bifurcation fallacies: "You revere nature? That means you want to kill all humans, because we all know there are only two choices, technology or love nature and kill all humans!"

What happened to this place? It used to be... much smarter. Luckily Fade's still sharp.

[Faustian Dreams]

Yeah, after they gave up on that worldview and sold out. Like Metallica, but worse.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the threads here. Most are bifurcation fallacies: "You revere nature? That means you want to kill all humans, because we all know there are only two choices, technology or love nature and kill all humans!"

What happened to this place? It used to be... much smarter. Luckily Fade's still sharp.

I'm not advocating a total elimination of technology, just that which cannot be sustained by local communities, as Kaczynski wrote in his Manifesto:



208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will
call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology.
Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale
communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent
technology is technology that depends on large-scale social
organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in
small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES
regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down.
Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale
technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,
for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by
Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were
never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The
Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather
recent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient
Rome.

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/uni/uni.txt

Do not read into this and assume that we do not need systems for cycling water and roads or other forms of transportation; clearly, there are some relative differences to what forms of technology are sustainable by today's standards, but in general I would go for a minimalist approach.

[Kodos]

LOL followers of the unibomber...

[Hannify]

LOL followers of the unibomber...

Meaningless adhominem. The only thing to do in the face of comments like this is strive for symmetry and say: I suspet you of being a damn dirty Liberal :D

Unless some huge technological advance is right around the corner that will eliminate our dependence on nature (something like cybernetic totalism perhaps) the issues here are pretty straightforward.

It is evident that if the environment craps out in a big way, that's pretty much it for our species. Extinction seems like something to avoid.

In order to really refute deep ecology and ecofascism, it needs to be shown that industrial technocratic society is not leading us towards this famed ELE.

The converse of course holds for supporting said movements.

There has been some data posted in favor of the thesis that the current population coupled with the current western standard of living is not sustainable. It would be great to see someone post evidence to the contrary, so that we might actually have a debate here instead of just throwing around feces and hypothesies

[infoterror]

The Unabomber was dead on, and like Pentti Linkola, is an environmentalist who is dead-set against immigration.

http://www.penttilinkola.com/

[Ahknaton]

I think of our environmental situation as analogous to a stunt car driver trying to jump over the Grand Canyon.

On one side of the canyon is our current economic world-system, based on unsustainable consumption of non-renewable resources, constrained by the Malthusian limits of the Earth's finite carrying capacity.

On the other side is some kind of high-tech utopia, where we have discovered cold fusion, can grow steaks by feeding banana peels to nanobots, and have solved all our major social problems.

Or may there isn't even another side, maybe it's just a mirage and we're driving towards a huge abyss. In which case, damn.

In any case, it's too late to back out now. We've passed the "point of no return" where we can slam the breaks on and skid to a halt without sliding over the precipice. Short of all out genocide, there are already too many people in the world to just "scale back" our level of consumption and avoid irreversible environmental damage. Which leaves the only option to press forward and hope for some miraculous breakthrough that will give us a significant increase in resource efficiency and keep the wolf from the door until the global human population plateaus (at about 12 billion, by some estimates). This is all or nothing, and we're probably only going to get one chance at it. If civilisation collapses, we've already consumed all the easily accesible resources that allowed us to climb the ladder to the advanced state of industrialisation we have achieved. The only thing for it is to put the pedal to the metal and hope for the best. We're committed.

Thelma, let's just keep awn goin'.

[Péter]

In any case, it's too late to back out now. We've passed the "point of no return" where we can slam the breaks on and skid to a halt without sliding over the precipice. Short of all out genocide, there are already too many people in the world to just "scale back" our level of consumption and avoid irreversible environmental damage. Which leaves the only option to press forward and hope for some miraculous breakthrough that will give us a significant increase in resource efficiency and keep the wolf from the door until the global human population plateaus (at about 12 billion, by some estimates). This is all or nothing, and we're probably only going to get one chance at it. If civilisation collapses, we've already consumed all the easily accesible resources that allowed us to climb the ladder to the advanced state of industrialisation we have achieved. The only thing for it is to put the pedal to the metal and hope for the best. We're committed.

Thelma, let's just keep awn goin'.

Haven't I posited this before: science has become a religious disease! With blind faith we drive on toward the abyss, with the car full of passengers, too egalitarian in our mindset to realize that if all would leap out of the car before it went over the ledge, though most would die, perhaps one passenger with a slightly more solid backbone would survive, and for this, humanity would be bettered.

[infoterror]

With blind faith we drive on toward the abyss, with the car full of passengers, too egalitarian in our mindset to realize that if all would leap out of the car before it went over the ledge, though most would die, perhaps one passenger with a slightly more solid backbone would survive, and for this, humanity would be bettered.

Ship of Fools (http://www.sacredfools.org/CrimeScene/CaseFiles/S2/ShipOfFoolsStory.htm), by Theodore Kaczynski

[Jogminas]

I would not advocate measures such as issuing government mandates restricting the number of children per family and deporting the excess children to remote locations to harvest crops and process natural resources. It seems more humane to encourage a general increase in conservation. But since a mere pro-environment endorsement would most likely prove ineffectual, I would suggest that each household be alloted a daily supply of power proportionate to the circumstances within the household (e.g. level of income, number of family members, size of house, etc.). Of course, this policy is intented to be enabled only under the extreme conditions of global disintegration. I admit that this is an aborted idea but I did not wish to come away from this topic having contributed nothing.

[Kodos]

If you're so eager that everyone else live in caves why don't you set a good example. But yet here you are posting on your computer.

[Dan Dare]

My biggest beef with the enviromental movement is they are so bigoted against nuclear power, which is essential to our economic survival now. We are going to need hundreds of new nuclear power plants in order to generate not just electricity but to get off oil to power our cars( and save the remaining oils for plastics to which we have no substitute)...

There's also the matter of adjusting the mindset of western consumers, particularly North Americans.

One way to initiate that process would be to increase taxes on gasoline to prevailing European levels.

[Kodos]

There's also the matter of adjusting the mindset of western consumers, particularly North Americans.

One way to initiate that process would be to increase taxes on gasoline to prevailing European levels.

Its just not going to happen until you either have a facist government willing to send all the mollycoddles in the anti nuclear movement and their local nimby allies( who crop up whenever a proposal to build one appears) to camps or the standard of living starts to take a serious nosedive( rather then a slow and steady one). Most likely the former will follow the latter.

[Faustian Dreams]

Primitive societies can't win wars dumbass, and war is what determines which societies survive

This makes perfect sense. I don't see how this was ever unclear to me.

LOL imperialist!1!!!1!!

Does this mean that all the countries that currently aren't engaged in war are in the process of failing as we speak?

What kind of paradigm are you applying? If the U.S. was to pull out of war with the dusbin nations and disarm its nuclear weapons, I do not think that China, North Korea, or whatever nation we're being told is the next big threat to our posterity will swoop down and nuke us. It is winning a war that once determined which societies survived, but that time has long since passed; war now pertains to the strength of your nation's monetary unit...and this has NOTHING to do with survival.

Your ideology reeks of modernism, if not merely the sentiment that drove the Cold War (i.e., compete through technological innovation lest ruination befall the State). And we are all familiar with how that story has turned out--neither nation emerged the better for it. It is continuing onward on a path that doesn't make sense...simply because that's how circumstances appear to work out. Continue dragging the tired dogs of war (or what-have-you) not because you want to, but because you just aren't certain what will happen if you didn't.

Ecofascism calls for nationalism, or more specifically ethnic and cultural solidarity, and if nations were to focus on becoming self-sufficient and strengthen their internal structure, then the question of war becomes obsolete.

It is interesting to see, that of all the practices of antiquity that we could choose to uphold, you choose war to be one of the few that are necessary (or "timeless"?).

P.S. M.A.D. isn't exactly a convincing argument for why we should keep our guard up.

[Kodos]

The american indians got pwn3d didn't they?

[Faustian Dreams]

I've always had a place in my heart for applied theory, and in my opinion, nothing aims to synthesize worldviews with practical knowledge better than "Deep Ecology."

We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our foundation's activities.

Without placing them into a hierarchy of lesser or greater importance, we believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.

The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.

Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.

Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

Both as philosophy and activism, deep ecology views the survival of natural systems and the capacity of the planet for self-renewal as crucial to all life (human and nonhuman) and not to be compromised.

We accept that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only for its commodity value; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.

The mission of the Foundation for Deep Ecology (FDE) is to support education, advocacy, and legal action on behalf of wild Nature and in opposition to the technologies and developments that are destroying the natural world. FDE carries out this mission through projects, publications, public programs, and grants to non-profit groups leading efforts to protect and restore big wilderness, making farming more compatible with biological diversity, and stop the homogenization of the world by the global industrial economy.

The Foundation is currently increasing its attention on land acquisition in South America as a leading form of wildlands conservation.


As taken from: http://www.deepecology.org/

[Blaphbee]

http://www.ecospherics.net/

Another perspective on the matter. I've only glanced through the site briefly, but they touch on many of the same issues as Deep Ecology seems to.