In Memory of Arne Naess, Deep Ecologist

One of the reasons it’s so hard to acknowledge the rights of animals is that we are all complicit in their abuse and exploitation. If we acknowledge our culpability, we’ll feel obligated to do something about it.

But what are we supposed to do? This was the fundamental question that occurred to the Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess who died in his sleep last week at age 96. He was the founder of the Deep Ecology movement.

According to Naess, there is no absolute answer. Each person must develop her own “ecosophy. ”

Naess thought that once we recognized a truly non-anthropocentric ecology, wisdom would follow. The paradigm would change.

According to Naess, no creature has privileged value in the ecosystem; we are all equal.

Living with Shanti as an equal does shift the paradigm for me. I’m obliged to figure out how a person can live without exploiting a parrot or a pig or a cow or a dolphin. It’s not easy because our civilization is predicated on the notion that human beings are superior to all other beings.

There have been previous human attempts to live without exploiting animals, but in practical terms, such a utopia is impossible.

Jainism, an inspiring Indian religion with 10,000,000 adherents, is based on the principle that all living beings have souls and that all souls are equal. Nonviolence (Ahimsa) is a foundational principle, and Jain compassion extends even to microscopic organisms.

Jains notwithstanding, however, our spiritual concerns for animals are trumped by our perceived anthrosupremacy and our massively invasive technology.

There is no way to take a Hippocratic animal-rights oath to do no harm. Human technology harms animals. Period. We are big, smart superpredators and we’ve developed immense power over the rest of life on Earth.

How then can we reduce the harm we do— the overpopulation, destruction of habitats, depletion of resources, extinction of species, global warming, pollution of air and sea?

Although our concern for animals is different from our human concerns, it must still be guided by humility, austerity and compassion. It makes sense for humans to end world hunger among our fellow humans, but it is scientifically incoherent to advocate the eradication of animal hunger. Some species’ gratification of hunger comes at the expense and demise of other animals. And we, one way or another, are in charge. We will always be making enormous decisions for other species. Some will result in death.

We have a special role in protecting animals not from all harm, but at the very least from the deliberate and unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering.

The first step, I believe, is to take other beings seriously. That's what shifts the paradigm. We must realize we are not superior, and we are not alone.

Photos: South American parrots and a Jain temple complex in India.