What do you think?
Rate this book
Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology
Preface 1. Regarding A Conceptual Introduction
2. Nature as Privately Capitalism
3. Nature as Owned by Socialism
4. Nature as Industrialism
5. The Ideology of Control
6. Nature as Science
7. Reactive versus Ecological Environmentalism
8. The Critique of Anthropocentrism
9. Beyond Ethics to Deep Ecology
10. For a Radical Ecocentrism Notes
Bibliography
Index
2. Nature as Privately Capitalism
3. Nature as Owned by Socialism
4. Nature as Industrialism
5. The Ideology of Control
6. Nature as Science
7. Reactive versus Ecological Environmentalism
8. The Critique of Anthropocentrism
9. Beyond Ethics to Deep Ecology
10. For a Radical Ecocentrism Notes
Bibliography
Index
- GenresPhilosophy
290 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1993
33 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 27, 2023
The debate between Deep Ecology, Social Ecology, and other schools of thought related to the relative places of humans in the environment took up a vast space in my life in the late 1980s. McLaughlin's book reads like a dissertation, but also has some passages that are worth the price of admission for a non-academic. While I can't say I was a non-participant in the polemics of the era, I occupied the familiar yet uncomfortable territory of being a skeptic of all, questioning everyone and defending those being attacked.
McLaughlin does an admirable job of laying out the Deep Ecology position and exposing that most of the Social Ecology attacks on their platform were based on a strawman and not the actual platform. McLaughlin helped reinforce my view that deep ecology is a way of life, not a political movement. Change must come from within before social and political change can be effective. It also convinced me that we need pluralism among ecological movements and we can learn from one another.
If we are too late—as is often argued by those proposing radical political solutions or those that involve greater state intervention within existing institutions—deep ecology has a response. The planet existed before human beings and their social, political, and economic institutions. It will likely go on after human beings are extinct.
McLaughlin does an admirable job of laying out the Deep Ecology position and exposing that most of the Social Ecology attacks on their platform were based on a strawman and not the actual platform. McLaughlin helped reinforce my view that deep ecology is a way of life, not a political movement. Change must come from within before social and political change can be effective. It also convinced me that we need pluralism among ecological movements and we can learn from one another.
If we are too late—as is often argued by those proposing radical political solutions or those that involve greater state intervention within existing institutions—deep ecology has a response. The planet existed before human beings and their social, political, and economic institutions. It will likely go on after human beings are extinct.
January 12, 2012
It's like someone put all the themes I was trying to cover in grad school together in one book (though perhaps with less attention to issues of gender and colonialism)...
His argument for deep ecology at the end of the book is fairly weak, but the analysis of the relationship between environmental and economic problems, and the necessity of developing simultaneous political and ethical solutions (as opposed to just doing environmentally focused ethical theory) is compelling. Though also, this is from the early '90s, and I'm not sure much of what I read in environmental ethics in 2005 had progressed much beyond this - a little sad to realize.
His argument for deep ecology at the end of the book is fairly weak, but the analysis of the relationship between environmental and economic problems, and the necessity of developing simultaneous political and ethical solutions (as opposed to just doing environmentally focused ethical theory) is compelling. Though also, this is from the early '90s, and I'm not sure much of what I read in environmental ethics in 2005 had progressed much beyond this - a little sad to realize.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews