Naess' Deep Ecology May Be Too Deep

Arne Naess is pushing for a movement that goes beyond The Shallow Ecology movement which consists mostly of putting a stop to pollution and resource misuse/depletion. These things are more focused on the idea of benefitting mankind and generally ignore other important and more complex issues that affect ecosystems on a multitude of levels. He has founded the theory of Deep Ecology or ecosophy. Naess explains ecosophy as "a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium" (218). While he outlined seven basic policies (or a seven point-survey)of his ecosophy, even he realizes ambiguity is present in his descriptions, noting that, "[it] will show many variations due to significant differences concerning not only 'facts' of pollution, resources, population, etc., but also value priorities", and admits many of the points are "rather vague generalizations" (218). In knowing this, and reading his piece, I find it difficult to persuade an audience and or critic to fully join the Deep Ecology movement. While the text appeared to have some sort of order or style applied, I found a sense of disorder in his thoughts.
Despite fumbling over his words, I generally agree with his notions of simplifying lifestyles and looking further into environmental concerns that are below the surface we usually find ourselves peering at (where there are obvious social and economic connections to us). He calls for us to act unselfishly, such as when "striving to preserve in oneself or one's being...[where] it is not a mere urge to survive, but to increase the level of acting out one's own nature or essence" (223). This infers a requirement to "widen" our identification...though the majority of us may not be at a mature identification stage yet and more in a stage of alientation. It is key we find ourselves in (identify with) organisms and various aspects of nature and are successfully "identifying", but the wider identification becomes, the more difficult assignment of priorities and values becomes-it is subjective to each individual really, based upon experiences and "acquaintances" with systems and beings and places.
Naess' incorporation of objectivism in finding intrinsic value, and emphasizing simplification and identification are all very good and should be taken note of, but I find that it is all generally unrealistic for this to reach a global point. He recognizes that a "global approach is essential, but regional differences must largely determine policies in the coming years" (219)...but will the amount of differences between individuals within regions within the world prove to be too much to cause change in time?