Page 193 - Contribution To Phenomenology

186 ULLRICH MELLE

history, and Bahro's anthropological revolution does not seem to be a
very practical proposition if we recognize the need for quick and decisive
action to save the planet. But so far all the practical and pragmatic
propositions have had only very limited success. They seem to have dealt
only with the symptoms of the disease, which does not mean that they
are not urgently needed. The scale of the crisis in the global human
household requires a deeper inquiry into the ultimate causes and roots
of the ecological crisis. A major part of this inquiry will consist in a
comprehensive analysis of the industrial-capitalist system, its elements, its
structure, its logic, its ideological and religious legitimations and of the
modern mind, the modern subject and its motivations. But the inquiry
cannot stop here. Further questions have to be raised about the course
of human history as a whole, about the logic of cultural development as
such, about such great transformations in human history as the agricul-
tural and the industrial revolution, about the nature of man/woman and
the possible change and transformation of this nature in the course of
human history. It is only against the background of such a fundamental
inquiry that we will be able to develop a more radical and more
far-reaching perspective beyond a mere technocratic management of the
crisis.
One of the most promising and elaborated proposals for such a
far-reaching perspective we find in the school of eco-philosophical thought
which was founded by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and which
is known under the name of Deep Ecology. Similar to Bahro, Deep
Ecology tries to re-think what it means to be truly human. Its main
target of critical attack is anthropocentrism. But it bases its radical
critique of anthropocentrism not primarily on axiological and moral
grounds but on ontological and psychological insights. Ecological
moralizing criticizes our individual and collective selfishness, our ruthless-
ness in the exploitation and domination of nature, our materialism etc.
We are exhorted to preserve nature, to restrain our greed, to reduce our
material consumption etc. These moraUzing arguments, however, are often
hypocritical, their persuasive appeal is rather limited, they are often futile
and even counter-productive. Deep Ecology claims that an ecological
life-style would follow naturally from a new, ecological understanding of
the self. According to Naess, "the requisite care flows naturally if the