Andrew McLaughlin's "The Heart of Deep Ecology"

Deep Ecology refers to the belief that all nature has value. Deep Ecology does not just say that pollution is bad. This would be shallow ecology. Rather Deep Ecology looks at the greater web of social issues that can stem from the poor relationship that humans have with the environment. Andrew McLaughlin lays out a platform of eight claims about the relationship of humans to the rest of nature. Nauture in this instance is not just living creatures and plants but extends to the soil, rivers, and oceans etc. The platforms promote non anthropocentrism and "entail radical social change." The platform is as follows:

1.) human and non-human life is important. It has value apart from the way it can be used by humans.
2.) Life forms are different, but we should cherish the diversity not see some forms of life as higher or lower than others.
3.)Humans have no right to be excessive in their use of diverse natural beings. We must use nature to sustain ourselves, but we must not indulge in wants and consumerism.
4.) A gradual depopulation of people will save cultures and make lives better. As it is now, the lives of many people are not fully satisfied because there are not enough resources for everyone.
5.) humans excessively interfere with the non-human world: if we stop doing this we can even help save diverse indigenous cultures that can live off the lands we destroy sustainably.
6.)policies must change: what exactly should be sustained? We must sustain the diversity of life form.
7.)We need to appreciate life quality rather than always wanting a greater standard of living. in this way, humans will be happier.
8.)We have either an indirect or direct duty to make the changes necessary to implement the other 7 claims.

I personally think that I like this "deep ecology" platform because it shows that there are greater social implications to why we need to stop pollution and why we need to not clearcut forests. I do have some questions about the movement.

1.) McLaughlin talks about how if we save wilderness from industry we can in fact be saving diverse indigenous cultures. While I do not thin kits wrong to save these places or these people I'm not sure about whether or not McLaughlin is discrediting his and our unique culture. He talks abut how important this diversity is and I'm not sure he gives enough credit to how diverse a people we are apart from indigenous cultures.
2.) On a similar note, McLaughlin is solely thinking about saving these indigenous cultures from "us" the big bad people who are ruining the planet and all its diversity. He does not think about what these cultures may want. His view is from our perspective and we have no way of knowing what is best for these cultures or if they want to exist completely separate from us.

I think McLaughlin gets a lot of things right especially when he talks about how we must appreciate our life and appreciate the quality of the things we have and not always want a constant replacement of consumer goods. His idea about the population being far too large is pretty spot on but I cannot fathom enough social change to happen to stop population from growing and rather decrease.