Guha - Third World - Culture - America
Guha is a strong critique to deep ecology, which is an environmentalism trend in the USA. He presents his argument from a Third World stand-point, specifically, India. He clearly insists that his critique is non-philosophical but rather focuses on the impediments of the society. Before beginning his argument, Guha splits deep ecology into four defining characteristics.
First is the insistence of deep ecology upon a shift from an anthropocentric notion to a bio centric one which Guha claims is very primitive. An anthropocentric perspective is the belief that the man's wellbeing is the pivotal purpose of the universe. The above-cited shift of bio-centric-anthropocentric distinction is the major defining characteristic of deep ecology and is the backbone of their discourse. The second characteristic is the deep concern for preservation of the "clean and untouched" wilderness and the restoration of degraded ones at the expense of other issues at hand. As Guha claims, this possession with the wilderness springs from three sources: the preservationist and utilitarian dichotomies vibrant in America and the biocentric perspective. The third characteristic is the belief that eastern spiritual cultures act as the pacesetters for deep ecology. This notion reflects that people in the "uncivilized" non-western settings practiced deep ecology unconsciously. The last classifying factor is the notion that deep ecologists are the best as in environmental conservation.
Guha begins his critique by disagreeing with the notion that nature preservation should be entailed by the suppression of human needs. He cites an example of the Indian cultural preservation system to disapprove it. In India, in spite of there being a billion plus human population, man coexists mutually with the natural environment. The wildlife conservation there is relatively top notch without any significant depravation of human wants towards this course. Preoccupation with the wilderness creates some dangers. For one, it compounds the neglect of other important issues of environmental conservation. Another ill effect is the provision of a yearning for imperialism for Western biologists and their financial sponsors.
[...] Another issue Guha addresses is the lack of deep ecology to see the big picture in environment conservation. It concentrates on militancy, useless philosophies and practical emphasis rather than negotiation and preservation of unspoilt nature. A conducive natural environment serves to provide a peaceful getaway from modern civilization. For example, the national park serves to offer contemplation, respite and contrast for those who live busy city lives. Deep ecologists seem to forget this fact when they repeatedly express humans as nature's enemy through strategies like resettlements. [...]
[...] Preoccupation with the wilderness creates some dangers. For one, it compounds the neglect of other important issues of environmental conservation. Another ill effect is the provision of a yearning for imperialism for Western biologists and their financial sponsors. Another complaint is the dictatorial nature with which deep ecologist carry out their conservation activities. They unwittingly justify their wilderness crusade with philosophical, scientific and moral arguments and claim complete and unquestionable representation over nature. Such actions include determination of landscape use and species resettlement to which they claim to have the best intellect. [...]
[...] Application of Guha's argument 1. The Arkansas oil spill The British Petroleum oil leak of 2008 is one the most environmentally harmful occurrence in human history. It released 157000 gallons of crude oil in 2008 alone, displaced families along the concerned coastlines and cost B.P. and other associated companies billions of dollars. Reports show that the spill was caused by corrosion and equipment failure. In line with Guha's criticism of deep ecology, there are various shortcomings in the way American ecologists handled the situation. [...]
[...] He presents his argument from a Third World stand-point, specifically, India. He clearly insists that his critique is non- philosophical but rather focuses on the impediments of the society. Before beginning his argument, Guha splits deep ecology into four defining characteristics. First is the insistence of deep ecology upon a shift from an anthropocentric notion to a bio centric one which Guha claims is very primitive. An anthropocentric perspective is the belief that the man's wellbeing is the pivotal purpose of the universe. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
