Deep ecology vs social ecology

[Skyhilist]

I've been thinking recently about the debate between social ecologists and deep ecologists. One of the main points of conflict between these two ideas is as follows: deep ecologists say "society can be completely egalitarian but still be harmful towards the environment", while social ecologists say "society can be perfectly sustainable but still not be egalitarian". After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that their both wrong. Any society that is fully sustainable (treats the earth with equal consideration) will be necessarily egalitarian and any society that is egalitarian will be necessarily sustainable. Due to the inherently interwoven nature of all systems of oppression and discrimination, it is impossible to fully eliminate one part of oppression as a whole without eliminating all systems of oppression. This is because systems of oppression and discrimination feed off of each other. You can't have equal rights for the biosphere without equal rights for all people. Why? Because the existence of certain systems of oppression ALWAYS exacerbates other ones. Therefore the idea that not all people are equal necessarily validates (in a false sense of course) the notion that the biosphere in and of itself doesn't deserve equal consideration.

We should look at the systems of oppression and discrimination as a giant matrix. Either that matrix exists or it doesn't. Now, there may be times where certain elements of that matrix are more pronounced than others, but there will never be a time where parts of that matrix cease to exist but not others. Either the matrix of oppression exists or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, disclaimer: Yes, I'm coming at this from an eco-centrist viewpoint... I'd prefer if it didn't turn into a debate centered around that. If someone would like to debate the merits of ecocentrism, biocentrism, anthropocentrism, etc. then start a new thread and I'll gladly join in.

[Skyhilist]

Welp no one cares -- figured.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I generally agree with this.
I think, in a free society, you'd have a hell of a time convincing anyone to, for example, mine bauxite for aluminum (poisoning their communities in the process), or to clearcut forests without the obvious economic incentive/coercion.
Sorry for not having much to contribute in terms of a debate.
Would it be baiting if I were to suggest that technological priorities in an egalitarian society would necessarily shift wildly, since shit like new cellphones (who wants a pile of thorium sitting in their backyard?) would basically become impossible?

[Five Year Plan]

The biosphere has rights? I am generally skeptical of the value of rights-talk in general, since it is typically functions to bolster capitalism by bonding different groups to it as equal participants. Revolution requires moving beyond rights talk.

What would a socialist revolution mean for the environment? I think it will mean that humans will begin to plan to interact rationally with their environment. Obviously this means not destroying it to the point of making it uninhabitable.

[Skyhilist]

Would it be baiting if I were to suggest that technological priorities in an egalitarian society would necessarily shift wildly, since shit like new cellphones (who wants a pile of thorium sitting in their backyard?) would basically become impossible?

No I think that makes sense. Although we should keep in mind that technology is always innovating and finding a new way to do something so maybe we'll sometime have a cellphone that can actually be sustainable. I could see that becoming a priority as well.

[Skyhilist]

The biosphere has rights? I am generally skeptical of the value of rights-talk in general, since it is typically functions to bolster capitalism by bonding different groups to it as equal participants. Revolution requires moving beyond rights talk.

Well, in general yes I think the environment should be afforded rights -- perhaps a better way of looking at it would be that non-human environments like forests for example deserve equal protection. I mean obviously it's not going to be like "the biosphere can vote" or something that clearly doesn't make sense, but certainly all life within the biosphere should have the right to be protected from human harm that isn't necessary to begin with. Even anthropocentrists should agree with this -- after all, in order for the environment to benefit our own species it ought to be working as well as it possibly can. Or in other words, the environment is like a machine that we rely on that has billions of parts. In order for it to work most optimally we want as many of those parts to be functioning properly. I also have moral considerations of course in that I think that we have a duty to right any unnecessary wrongs that we've done to all species, but I wont go into that in detail.


What would a socialist revolution mean for the environment? I think it will mean that humans will begin to plan to interact rationally with their environment. Obviously this means not destroying it to the point of making it uninhabitable.

Yes, that sounds right. It makes me glad that the majority of leftists are at least somewhat environmentally conscious, given that if there is a revolution doing our best to salvage life on this planet (what's left of it after devastating human impacts under capitalism likely) will need to be one of the biggest priorities.