Guha is Mad, but Might Be Taking it Out on the Wrong People

In his piece, Guha lays out a somewhat harsh critique of deep ecology, arguing that it is not a legitimate environmental movement since it embraces American ideas of consumerism of nature. He argues that the fundamental debate of deep ecology, anthropocentric versus biocentrism, is a dangerous distraction from the real environmental crises we face globally. I agree with his critiques against things like the valuation of wilderness preservation over human livelihoods, but he seems to be against deep ecology in practice rather than in theory.

In theory, deep ecologists acknowledge that the overconsumption of natural resources is a fundamental and serious problem that needs to be addressed. They also advocate that changes in political and economic structures are paramount to fixing environmental problems. Deep ecology in theory addresses the very issues that Guha argues must be dealt with in order to "fix" the environment, reducing consumption (by also reducing population, according to Sessions) and the political endeavors like development that create social inequality and ecological disaster.

Guha is right in that favoring biocentric attitudes over anthropocentric attitudes will not save the planet. As long as there are problems like the constant drive for capital accumulation, resources will continue to be exploited beyond repair. He is also correct in his apparent disdain for the wilderness preservation movement, which seems to favor leaving land "untouched" for the likes of first world tourists after thieving it from third world peasants. However, these problems are not inherent to deep ecology. Deep ecology supports wilderness preservation, but not at the cost of vital needs of any organisms. It also acknowledges that a shift to biocentric views must accompany a shift in the political, social, and economic systems that presently shape the world.