Arne Naess's "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecological Movement" is a largely different view of ecological egalitarianism than what we've seen so far. I must commend him on the specifics of his "Seven points" for the fact that he directly focuses on what needs to be done from a large-scale, but also acute view of the world to institute this ecological egalitarianism. He delves into the societal factors that contribute to a "human-dominating-nature" stance and focuses on the fundamental changes needed to institute an overhaul of this idea.

The first part of the reading that struck me as insightful was the second section of the Deep Ecology: Biospherical egalitarianism. He speaks about how those ecologists who view life from a "bottom up" perspective gain a different respect for the way the world works. "He reaches...a kind of understanding that others reserve for men...The equal right to live and blossom." This is a fundamentally distinct view that is absent (at least from my experiences) from the majority of the human population. Yet, if it were to be instituted , it would wholly change the respect that is given to nature as well as other human beings. He sums this view up with the statement "The attempt to ignore our dependence and to establish a master-slave role has contributed to the alienation of man from himself." I believe this to be one of the most important themes in his "Deep Ecology", that in order for humans to adequately respect each other, a basis of respect for all life around us first needs to be established.

Moving on, I was intrigued by his challenge of worldwide institutions such as class-based society. His idea, and one that I personally agree with, is that a class-oriented societal structure only leads to a fragmented world-view, where an established world community is never recgonized by the individual, resulting in "adverse affects...of self-realization." He points out the idea that decentralization of government and institutions would benefit humanity in that large-scale centralized establishments fail to adequately yield to all local interests. This all ties in with the view that changing certain world policies such as fighting pollution and resource depletion should only be implemented if it benefits ALL of humanity, not just the populations of modern countries.

Overall I thought that Naess's views are fresh in the sense that in order for ecological egalitarianism to become established, large-scale societal structures have to be challenged and dissolved. Harmony among all aspects of human-life, including our respect for each other and the environment is a strong point that he follows throughout the article.