What do you think?
Rate this book
Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered
Practicing is simple. Nothing forced, nothing violent, just settling into our place. "Deep ecology," a term originated in 1972 by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, is emerging as a way to develop harmony between individuals, communities and nature. DEEP ECOLOGY--the term and the book--unfolds the path to living a simple, rich life and shows how to participate in major environmental issues in a positive and creative manner.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
25 people are currently reading
1198 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
July 21, 2009
You know, I kind of feel bad giving a book on deep ecology only three stars, especially where deep ecology is really central to my politics. But, one, I think this book would have been much more meaningful to me years ago - the principles of deep ecology are second nature to me at this point. And two, there's a lot of racism in this book, mainly referring to indigenous peoples of the Americas as "primal peoples" and viewing them as all the same, and massive, massive creepy appropriation and romanticisation of several Asian cultures.
If you aren't already well-versed in deep ecology, and you're up enough on anti-racism to know that this book is really racist (and, yes, portraying POC as special magical harmonious with the rest of Nature people and not involving actual current POC voices is hella racist), this will give you a clear intro to deep ecology. But especially given the racism that is part of some sections of the radical environmental movement, I'm looking for a better introduction to direct people to.
If you aren't already well-versed in deep ecology, and you're up enough on anti-racism to know that this book is really racist (and, yes, portraying POC as special magical harmonious with the rest of Nature people and not involving actual current POC voices is hella racist), this will give you a clear intro to deep ecology. But especially given the racism that is part of some sections of the radical environmental movement, I'm looking for a better introduction to direct people to.
November 17, 2024
This is my favorite book I've read all year.
dddddd´…´…´……´…e; <---- my 21 month old son added his review.
dddddd´…´…´……´…e; <---- my 21 month old son added his review.
September 18, 2017
It takes this book 200 pages to say that people need to refocus their conception of the world away from being human-centered and toward a conception that places humans, other life, and even natural environments on the same level.
I consider myself to an environmental advocate, but I'm not really willing to go as far as Deep Ecology wants to me to go. It may be possible for humans to live deeply satisfying lives with much reduced technological convenience but I don't think the vast majority of humans are seriously interested in trying this out. There is just very little grappling with the details of what the philosophical changes the authors want us to embrace would mean in actual effect. Instead, there are lots of sweeping statements and generalizations. Some of it is compelling; some of it not.
The authors also intersperse lots of snippets of other books, essays, and poems throughout the text, aiming for a general introduction to other thinkers and writers on the topic. In some ways, this is useful for those of us who are new to the topic, but in other ways it seems to prevent the authors from fully fleshing out their own thoughts. They introduce a topic, and insert the appropriate quote from another writer, then leave the topic. For a book that seems to want to be a comprehensive treatment of Deep Ecology, there is surprisingly little meat on the bones.
Rather, there is a lot of spiritual flim flam about the importance of nature and how mountains or rivers are living things that deserve to be valued intrinsically, even at the expense of humans. Nature is of course extremely important and by preserving nature, we greatly increase the odds of preserving the human race as well, but the fact of the matter is that mountains and rivers themselves are not living, and that humans will need to make informed, thoughtful, far-reaching judgments about development. To say that development is unacceptable in the vast majority of circumstances doesn't seem like a tenable position in the debate to me.
One other detail that seems strange, but has to do with when Deep Ecology was published in 1985. There is no mention at all of climate change in the book. Climate change was not understood of course in 1985 the way it is now, but it feels odd to read a book on environmentalism that doesn't speak at all to what has become the pressing environmental issue of our time.
I've been pretty hard on this book in this review, but there were several parts I greatly enjoyed, and I'm not even closing myself off entirely from the position advocated by the authors. The fact is that we are coming to a point in human development where we have greatly jeopardized our position on the planet through mindlessly burning fossil fuels, even decades after it became incontrovertible that doing so was causing serious harm. In the discussion of what it is that we can do now to try to stave off disaster, there is a place for someone to make the Deep Ecology argument. But I hope they can do it more effectively than this book does.
I consider myself to an environmental advocate, but I'm not really willing to go as far as Deep Ecology wants to me to go. It may be possible for humans to live deeply satisfying lives with much reduced technological convenience but I don't think the vast majority of humans are seriously interested in trying this out. There is just very little grappling with the details of what the philosophical changes the authors want us to embrace would mean in actual effect. Instead, there are lots of sweeping statements and generalizations. Some of it is compelling; some of it not.
The authors also intersperse lots of snippets of other books, essays, and poems throughout the text, aiming for a general introduction to other thinkers and writers on the topic. In some ways, this is useful for those of us who are new to the topic, but in other ways it seems to prevent the authors from fully fleshing out their own thoughts. They introduce a topic, and insert the appropriate quote from another writer, then leave the topic. For a book that seems to want to be a comprehensive treatment of Deep Ecology, there is surprisingly little meat on the bones.
Rather, there is a lot of spiritual flim flam about the importance of nature and how mountains or rivers are living things that deserve to be valued intrinsically, even at the expense of humans. Nature is of course extremely important and by preserving nature, we greatly increase the odds of preserving the human race as well, but the fact of the matter is that mountains and rivers themselves are not living, and that humans will need to make informed, thoughtful, far-reaching judgments about development. To say that development is unacceptable in the vast majority of circumstances doesn't seem like a tenable position in the debate to me.
One other detail that seems strange, but has to do with when Deep Ecology was published in 1985. There is no mention at all of climate change in the book. Climate change was not understood of course in 1985 the way it is now, but it feels odd to read a book on environmentalism that doesn't speak at all to what has become the pressing environmental issue of our time.
I've been pretty hard on this book in this review, but there were several parts I greatly enjoyed, and I'm not even closing myself off entirely from the position advocated by the authors. The fact is that we are coming to a point in human development where we have greatly jeopardized our position on the planet through mindlessly burning fossil fuels, even decades after it became incontrovertible that doing so was causing serious harm. In the discussion of what it is that we can do now to try to stave off disaster, there is a place for someone to make the Deep Ecology argument. But I hope they can do it more effectively than this book does.
January 4, 2020
At its core, this book is quite simple; everything present within it is, more or less, an accompaniment to the principles of Deep Ecology that it outlines. I would consider this to be more of a handbook than an actual book, and really it resonates with me more as a piece of aphoristic literature than anything else. There are a plethora of good quotations and sources and interesting bits of related artistry (Snyder's Smokey the Bear Sutra stood out for me, quite a wonderful piece), but in terms of the actual message the book is better suited as an introductory work. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't expect a "deep" reading from it. Still, it is good to consult and look over every now and again, as it is a pretty good introduction and does encompass a lot of important talking points.
Read
July 9, 2009This is a good overview of the philosophical underpinnings of Deep Ecology. It does a better (more polished) sales job than Naess's books, says something deep (better than Berry's book), and at least attempts a synthesis (unlike Milbraith). I particularly enjoyed the discussion of different types of ecotopias that have been proposed/presented.
This would make a good starter book to get someone interested in DE. Once they are hooked, then point them to Devall's "Simple in Means, Rich in Ends" for some practical advice.
This would make a good starter book to get someone interested in DE. Once they are hooked, then point them to Devall's "Simple in Means, Rich in Ends" for some practical advice.
February 6, 2008
lots of good quotes and standpoints regarding environmental philosophy. examining the myriad ways of looking at current issues, through the lenseseseses of poets and scientists alike.
check it out on the toilet.
check it out on the toilet.
July 12, 2024
A VERY INFLUENTIAL BOOK OF EARTH-CENTERED SPIRITUALITY
Bill Devall (d. 2009) was Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University, and the author of other books such as 'Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry,' 'Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology,' and 'Living Richly in an Age of Limits.' George Sessions is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Sierra College, and edited 'Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century.'
They wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "Many philosophers and theologians are calling for a new ecological philosophy for our time. We believe, however, that we may not need something new, but need to reawaken something very old, to reawaken our understanding of Earth wisdom... the themes in 'Deep Ecology' alternate between personal, individual options and public policy and collective options... the book offers an examination of the dominant worldview in our society, which has led directly to the continuing crisis of culture. We then present an ecological, philosophical, spiritual approach for dealing with the crisis."
They suggest that the major contribution of the science of ecology to deep ecology has been "the rediscovery within the modern scientific context that everything is connected to everything else." Ecology thus provided a view of Nature that was lacking in the "discrete, reductionistic approach to Nature" of the other sciences. (Pg. 85)
They observe that even in our highly technical society, "there are many who share these deep intuitions and the experience of the ritual journey into wilderness as 'sacred space.'" (Pg. 112)
They contrast deep ecology with the Christian notion of "stewardship" and with James Lovelock's position (Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth) by asserting that the "narrowly utilitarian view" of natural resources still views natural resources as primarily for human use, and "fails to distinguish vital human needs from mere desires, egoistic arrogance and adventurism in technology." (Pg. 125)
This book is one of the foundational documents of the Deep Ecology movement, and will be of considerable interest to those interested in environmentalism, and earth spirituality.
Bill Devall (d. 2009) was Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University, and the author of other books such as 'Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry,' 'Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology,' and 'Living Richly in an Age of Limits.' George Sessions is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Sierra College, and edited 'Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century.'
They wrote in the Preface to this 1985 book, "Many philosophers and theologians are calling for a new ecological philosophy for our time. We believe, however, that we may not need something new, but need to reawaken something very old, to reawaken our understanding of Earth wisdom... the themes in 'Deep Ecology' alternate between personal, individual options and public policy and collective options... the book offers an examination of the dominant worldview in our society, which has led directly to the continuing crisis of culture. We then present an ecological, philosophical, spiritual approach for dealing with the crisis."
They suggest that the major contribution of the science of ecology to deep ecology has been "the rediscovery within the modern scientific context that everything is connected to everything else." Ecology thus provided a view of Nature that was lacking in the "discrete, reductionistic approach to Nature" of the other sciences. (Pg. 85)
They observe that even in our highly technical society, "there are many who share these deep intuitions and the experience of the ritual journey into wilderness as 'sacred space.'" (Pg. 112)
They contrast deep ecology with the Christian notion of "stewardship" and with James Lovelock's position (Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth) by asserting that the "narrowly utilitarian view" of natural resources still views natural resources as primarily for human use, and "fails to distinguish vital human needs from mere desires, egoistic arrogance and adventurism in technology." (Pg. 125)
This book is one of the foundational documents of the Deep Ecology movement, and will be of considerable interest to those interested in environmentalism, and earth spirituality.
August 3, 2020
I don't know who this was written for, but it wasn't for me. I got 2/3rds of the way through before throwing in the towel. I wanted to learn what deep ecology meant/stood for, but I walked away having learned little to nothing.
The organization and structure is terrible. The book is a hodgepodge of jumbled together thoughts with little rational order or flow, frequently interspersed with bulleted asides or excerpts that detract from any sort of cohesive argumentation.
The ideas presented are so vague and immaterial that they don't offer any real insight into what deep ecology means. Perhaps in the last 3rd of the book they actually lay out and develop this idea. The first 2/3rds of the book consisted of supremely self-sanctimonious finger wagging at every other section of society except the authors and indigenous peoples. And indigenous peoples are treated as a monolithic mystical nature cult who all live in complete harmony with the natural world and had solutions to all of life's problems - i.e. the authors are spouting the same racist 'noble savage' bullshit that Rousseau was spewing 200 years ago, only dressed up in new wave garb.
Relatedly, the authors never develop an argument that convinces the reader of the soundness of their position or the demerits of the so called 'professional ecologists', whom they depict as a bunch of number crunching nerds who don't understand the soul of nature. They frequently state that they are in the right and that corporations and foresters are in the wrong, but they never actually do the work of developing an argument and supporting it with evidence. This is lazy, self-righteous environmentalism at its worst and does nothing to actually promote conservation. The authors clearly weren't trying to convince anyone, so I suppose this book was intended to be a primer for people who already believed that a mystical ecology was the proper direction. Even in that though, it fails (b/c of the aforementioned vagueness).
I'm still interested in the concept of deep ecology, but won't be circling back to it for a while thanks to this drek.
The organization and structure is terrible. The book is a hodgepodge of jumbled together thoughts with little rational order or flow, frequently interspersed with bulleted asides or excerpts that detract from any sort of cohesive argumentation.
The ideas presented are so vague and immaterial that they don't offer any real insight into what deep ecology means. Perhaps in the last 3rd of the book they actually lay out and develop this idea. The first 2/3rds of the book consisted of supremely self-sanctimonious finger wagging at every other section of society except the authors and indigenous peoples. And indigenous peoples are treated as a monolithic mystical nature cult who all live in complete harmony with the natural world and had solutions to all of life's problems - i.e. the authors are spouting the same racist 'noble savage' bullshit that Rousseau was spewing 200 years ago, only dressed up in new wave garb.
Relatedly, the authors never develop an argument that convinces the reader of the soundness of their position or the demerits of the so called 'professional ecologists', whom they depict as a bunch of number crunching nerds who don't understand the soul of nature. They frequently state that they are in the right and that corporations and foresters are in the wrong, but they never actually do the work of developing an argument and supporting it with evidence. This is lazy, self-righteous environmentalism at its worst and does nothing to actually promote conservation. The authors clearly weren't trying to convince anyone, so I suppose this book was intended to be a primer for people who already believed that a mystical ecology was the proper direction. Even in that though, it fails (b/c of the aforementioned vagueness).
I'm still interested in the concept of deep ecology, but won't be circling back to it for a while thanks to this drek.
September 4, 2025
🐀 “Dated but not entirely rotten.” 🐀
I never thought I’d see the day where I’d give an ecology book 2 stars, but it’s finally happened.
This book, in my opinion, is not a deep ecology book I’d recommend to the modern reader. I hope future authors who want to write about deep ecology can glean some insight from this random review.
First of all; it’s not all terrible. You can get the basic gist of deep ecology from this book, don’t get me wrong. However, it has two GLARING issues that are impossible to ignore.
1. Formatting - This book is a collection of ideas strung together with duct tape and a prayer. It doesn’t flow well and even seems disjointed in some areas.
2. Rampant Orientalism - I get it. This book was written in the 80’s. But wow! Treating indigenous and south Asian cultures as both “primitive” and “magically advanced” at the same time was certainly a choice.
This is by far the most dangerous aspect of this book. The casual racism is shoehorned throughout the text and can give people VERY wrong ideas of what deep ecology is actually about. Not all deep ecology books are like this and I hope future titles continue to shy away from language like this.
I never thought I’d see the day where I’d give an ecology book 2 stars, but it’s finally happened.
This book, in my opinion, is not a deep ecology book I’d recommend to the modern reader. I hope future authors who want to write about deep ecology can glean some insight from this random review.
First of all; it’s not all terrible. You can get the basic gist of deep ecology from this book, don’t get me wrong. However, it has two GLARING issues that are impossible to ignore.
1. Formatting - This book is a collection of ideas strung together with duct tape and a prayer. It doesn’t flow well and even seems disjointed in some areas.
2. Rampant Orientalism - I get it. This book was written in the 80’s. But wow! Treating indigenous and south Asian cultures as both “primitive” and “magically advanced” at the same time was certainly a choice.
This is by far the most dangerous aspect of this book. The casual racism is shoehorned throughout the text and can give people VERY wrong ideas of what deep ecology is actually about. Not all deep ecology books are like this and I hope future titles continue to shy away from language like this.
November 17, 2023
this book is goofy–it has good moments but also some bad ones. it asks some good qs about technology. one of the more interesting points was about how the technological management of nature contributes to the issue of governments and corporations viewing humans as a resource to manage. the book is mostly compiled of other (white mostly lol) peoples ideas, but the thing is some ideas seem to be in tension with each other, esp around how to interact and intervene w nature or environment destruction or direct action. it wouldve been cool if the author wrestled w that, but they didn't even acknowledge it. the book brings up some criticisms of agriculture but it doesn’t really get into other paths (besides repeating that overconsumption is an issue and therefore overpopulation is a thing ugh) still i liked reading it. but it left me w more qs than answers about animal ethics
December 30, 2025
Deep ecology is about ecology as a way of life and a philosophy, rather than the science of ecology. It is truly of an interdisciplinary nature, combing life and social sciences philosophy and spirituality to formulate its fundamentals. Though this book was written in the 80’s the baseline philosophy remains extremely relevant today.
The book introduces us to incredible thinkers like Arne Naess, and spiritual texts from older religions, as well as shows us how life could be compared to how it is. It shows how the prevailing ecological views focused on resource management, even amongst many environmentalists, are just a bandage and will not lead to planetary health and self realisation. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many to hear and of course there will be a lot of resistance to this way of being.
I would say this book should be essential reading for everyone, but especially young adults, as the messages and ways to cultivate deep ecology thinking are likely to remain forever.
The book introduces us to incredible thinkers like Arne Naess, and spiritual texts from older religions, as well as shows us how life could be compared to how it is. It shows how the prevailing ecological views focused on resource management, even amongst many environmentalists, are just a bandage and will not lead to planetary health and self realisation. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many to hear and of course there will be a lot of resistance to this way of being.
I would say this book should be essential reading for everyone, but especially young adults, as the messages and ways to cultivate deep ecology thinking are likely to remain forever.
November 17, 2022
"Deep Ecology explores the philosophical, psychological, and sociological roots of today's environmental movement, examines the human-centered assumptions behind most approaches to nature, explores the possibilities of an expanded human consciousness, and offers specific direct action suggestions for individuals to practice. Widely read in its first printing, Deep Ecology has established itself as one of the most significant books on environmental thought to appear in this decade."
~~back cover
This book was much too scientific for my tastes -- more in the language it was written in than in its possibilities or direct action suggestions. It's more of a college textbook than it is a layman's read.
~~back cover
This book was much too scientific for my tastes -- more in the language it was written in than in its possibilities or direct action suggestions. It's more of a college textbook than it is a layman's read.
March 24, 2024
The workings here gave a really informative oversight on deep ecology philosophy, the multiple quotes and bits about other environmentalist instances and people also gave me more to read about. I would've rated this five stars if it weren't for the romanticization of the so called "primal people's" (who the author refers to indigenous Americans as) and the obsession with Buddhism
July 12, 2022
Great intro to deep ecology, providing a who’s who in the development of the worldview. This book doesn’t touch as much on the metaphysical side of DE, but rather the policy side.
Read
October 26, 2022lost interest. i know what it's getting at, but don't get the how.
April 29, 2025
In tears from the first page, which simply reads: LIVING AS IF NATURE MATTERED.
May 9, 2018
Indeed the book's terminology is dated, as is the formulation of some ideas, however it's of its time. I don't think that this should detract too much from the neat and accessible means of introduction Sessions provides into deep ecology thinking. It is fairly comprehensive, drawing together key contributors of the time, and providing impetus for further thought... It is interesting to consider the sense of urgency three decades prior, the predictions/fears for the future, and how, unfortunately, so little has changed by way of dominant ideology that parts could almost have been written today.
September 19, 2008
Great stuff. This book is a natural extension of the mass self-loathing we all deserve as destroyers of the otherwise perfect Earth. Well, it wasn't really that sort of book, but it does discuss the emotional implications of a nature-centered life. I think we could all benefit from a more thoroughly realized sense of community. Technology is a good thing, but what's the hurry? A more deliberate path would allow us to maintain the wisdoms of the past while integrating those of the future. Utopian? Of course, but why the hell not?
December 20, 2007
This is a great book. I originally read it to use in an environmental justice paper, and found that it provides a good basis for the environmental movement in general. Parts of it tend toward a self-righteous tree hugger mentality, but I liked it. It's inspiring. It's one of those books that I bought for school but have actually picked up since.
January 27, 2010
Parts of this book I really love—some keen insights on how we relate to our world, and to the non-humans (creatures, landscapes) that share it with us. But then other parts are intensely policy heavy and don't add much to the discussion, and then some parts a lil too new agey. So certain parts definitely 5 stars, and worth the read. But I have to give it a 3 stars overall.
December 1, 2014
I'm not sure why I picked this book up again after reading it sometime in the 90's. It's very cut-and-pasty and weirdly written with all these quotes and bullets. I think I liked the appendices the best, because they were actual reprints of articles and a little easier to read.
Read
August 16, 2008This book deeply (no pun intended) my understanding of our possible relationship with the Earth. I still try to live my life by it.
Want to read
July 2, 2009I just learned that he died, I had him for Sociology 101 in college.
November 9, 2010
As a philosophy, deep ecology is both compelling and perplexing: hence the necessity of reading this volume.
September 2, 2011
Great book. Why we should reduce human population and stop destroying the planet.
January 18, 2012
Part history of ecology and introduction to the philosophy of ecology ... ecosophy.
April 1, 2013
Seminal book on Deep Ecology and the spirituality of living within nature.
February 14, 2022
Deep Ecology is still our only, albeit tenuous, hope to survive the Anthropocene.
December 29, 2022
there are some ideas in this of worth to me, but a lot of it is new agey and kinda dumb
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews