Deep Ecology - a new paradigm

I had never come across the concept of deep ecology before reading Capra's chapter in The Web of Life (1996) just now.  It has a pretty impressive first sentence "this is about a new scientific understanding of life at all levels of living systems" which would get any biologist jumpy, and it goes back to the part that particularly stuck a chord with me in the previous reading "The more we study the major problems of our time, the more we come to realize that they cannot be understood in isolation.  They are systemic problems, which means that they are interconnected and interdependent...these problems must be seen as just different facets of one single crisis, which is largely a crisis of perception...there are solutions to the major problems of our time...but they require a radical shift in our perceptions, our thinking, our values... From the systemic point of view, the only viable solutions are those that are sustainable... This, in a nutshell is the great challenge of our time: to create sustainable communities, i.e. social and cultural environments in which we can satisfy our needs and aspirations without diminishing the chances of future generations."

So first of all, Capra describes how physicists reached a point with their accumulated knowledge early in the 20th century where they had to adapt to a new way of thinking, i.e. underwent a paradigm shift.  To then extrapolate it to the larger social arena:  "The paradigm that is now receding...has shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world.  This paradigm consists of a number of entrenched ideas and values, among them the view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks, the view of the human body as a machine, the view of life in society as a competitive struggle for existence, the belief in unlimited material progress to be achieved through economic and technological growth, and the belief that a society in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male is one that follows a basic law of nature.  All of these assumptions have been fatefully challenged by recent events...and a radical revision of them is now occurring.".  Now, I agree with the overall message so far; I agree there is a paradigm shift that is coming in human perception - although still in its infancy numbers-wise, but at least I get what he's referring to, it has happened to me.  However,  I still see the universe as a system made up of building blocks, and whilst there is more to our body than being a machine it does react very similarly to one in many ways (more information needed), life in a biological context is a struggle for survival but if referring to it in a societal context then I agree it doesn't have to be (currently we are too competitive; some is good but the time is ripe for more cooperation for survival again).  I agree we do need to get away from our broken economic model which drives everything, and put our post in the ground in regards to where we stand on valuing females.  In some animal species they are dominant, others subordinate, what's ours? Our primate cousins have all sorts of set ups so there's little to conform with.  As far as we know, we are the only species that gets to have a meeting about the issue and I'm pretty confident based on our current standing that equality would get the most votes, so lets work towards that.  

So this new paradigm...which the author calls deep ecology refers to (spiritual) "awareness that recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all embedded in and ultimately dependent on the cyclical processes of nature" or in other words "It is a woldview that acknowledges the inherent value of non-human life.  All living beings are members of ecological communities bound together in a network of interdependencies"  as opposed to what could be called the current shallow ecology which is "human-centred.  It views humans as above or outside of nature, as the source of all value, and ascribes only instrumental, or 'use', value to nature."  This makes a lot of sense to me, both in mind of the discussion on how our economic model can't account for nature and societal measures and the points raised in the empathic civilization.

Capra claims that "When this deep ecological perception becomes part of our daily awareness, a radically new system of ethics emerges" and really hammers into how this will affect where we spend our dollars when it comes to doing science.  I find that really interesting, because like many young researchers I have struggled with the idea of whether all the waste generated or especially the animals sacrificed for research are ethically acceptable for answering various of scientific questions.  I decided to take it case by case in my situation at the time, but I agree with Capra "it seems most urgent to introduce 'eco-ethical' standards into science" and his next points really helped further my thinking: "values are not peripheral to science but constitute their very basis and driving force.  During the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century, values were separated from facts...in reality, scientific facts emerge out of an entire constellation of human perceptions, values, and actions - in one word, out of a paradigm - from which they cannot be separated.  Although much of the detailed research may not depend explicitly on the scientist's value system, the larger paradigm within which this research is pursued will never be value-free.  Scientists, therefore, are responsible for their research not only intellectually but also morally".  I couldn't agree more.

He said something else that really resonated: 'If we have deep ecological awareness, or experience, of being part of the web of life, then we will (as opposed to should) be inclined to care for all of living nature".  I think this is the driving force in us, our understanding plus our instinct for survival, to strive for goodness.  

My favourite part was the end though, where Capra points out that physics is the centre of the old paradigm (funny admission from a physicist), and life sciences are at the core of the new paradigm - no wonder I studied biology!   Here's his closing statements for you to ponder: "Even though the paradigm shift in physics is still of special interest because it was the first to occur in modern science, physics has now lost its role as the science providing the most fundamental description of reality.  However, this is not generally recognized today.  Scientists as well as non-scientists frequently retain the popular belief that 'if you really want to know the ultimate explanation; you have to ask a physicist', which is clearly a Cartesian fallacy.  Today, the paradigm shift in science, at its deepest level, implies a shift from physics to the life sciences."