Off-Road Vehicles and Deep
Ecology
Cultural
Clash and Alienation from the
Natural World
David Orton
Summary
This article
examines the struggle over off-road vehicles from the perspective of
the philosophy of deep ecology.
Those for and those against their use have competing
visions of how
humans relate to each other and the natural
world. It is, at heart, a
clash between an industrial society-generated
lifestyle of human
self-centeredness and an
emerging Earth-centered, socially responsible
consciousness.
David Orton
was born in Portsmouth, England, in 1934, and moved to Canada in 1957.
He lives in Nova Scotia with his wife
and daughter
on an old hill
farm, which has reverted to a forest. Ecological issues and green
philosophy became his primary
focus in the
1970s. He is currently
involved with outlining a philosophical tendency within deep ecology,
called left biocentrism.
Deep Ecology is a philosophy that attempts to define
the relationship between humans and the natural world within the
context
of the
postindustrial society. An
exploration of its basic tenets can help us understand the conflict
between those who use and
advocate for
off-road vehicles (ORVs) and those who are
opposed to their expanded use as a clash between fundamental values,
values that
ultimately determine how our societies organize themselves in
relationship to the larger living Earth.
Deep ecology was first articulated by the Norwegian
philosopher Arne Naess in the early 1970s. In 1984, Naess and George
Sessions
spelled out the deep
ecology platform, considered by most followers to be “the heart of deep
ecology.”[i] Though fairly
abstract, it
clearly establishes that all nonhuman life
forms – including
landscapes, streams, and mountain –
have
intrinsic value
that is not
dependent on human purpose.
There is a tentativeness to deep ecology, an
openness, a lack of any set of doctrines or specific agendas. At the
same time, as
Naess
says, “Nearly all
supporters of the deep ecology movement are likely to believe they have
found some truths.”[ii] Deep
ecology sees
humanity as part of nature
and inseparable from it; if we ignore nature, we injure ourselves. Deep
ecology is also part
of the larger
international green movement, the first social
movement in history to advocate a lower material standard of living
from
the
perspective of industrial consumerism.[iii] This movement understands
that although social justice for all humans is important,
the struggle
to achieve it must defer to, or work in conjunction with, the
well-being of the
Earth and all her life forms.
The ethics that underpin how we act in this world
are based on and
informed by how we view and interpret reality, including our
concept of
self. Opposing sides in the conflict about ORV use appear to have quite
contrasting definitions of self. For supporters of
deep ecology,
the
personal self seeks to move
beyond anthropocentric consciousness until
it becomes the ecological
Self
(capitalized
here to convey the
expansion of personal self-consciousness to an ecological
Self-consciousness, which encompasses
the well-being
of the Earth),
which comes to include all other beings as well as the planet itself.
Within this context, in which the
land and the
creatures it supports
are seen and felt as an extension of that Self, the harassment of
wildlife or the scarring of bog
lands by
off-road vehicles is felt as a personal injury. Nature is not to
be mastered but rather adapted to. The
ecological Self is
often
experienced most readily by people who, although possibly
philosophically unaware, have a strong sense
of place,
people rooted
in, deeply intimate with, and fiercely protective of the local area
where they live.
For deep ecology supporters, the natural world is
very real, despite
the post-modernist critique of reality. The social world,
however,
which fundamentally impacts the natural world, as in the struggle over
ORV use, is socially
constructed, and rests on
unquestioned
assumptions. By referring to the debate over ORVs, we can begin to
highlight and challenge these assumptions and
offer a
different
viewpoint and ontology, and alternative definitions of self.
* * *
You have to stand with the trees and animals if you
want the
trees to stand and the animals to live. And although deep ecology
does
not map out political strategies or give practical lessons in
organizing, those who accept its basic concepts find it imperative
to
speak up for the Earth and defend her against all assaults. Consumer
society gives a sense of false self-identity through the
acquisition of
material goods, a helpful deception in an economy that needs to
continually expand and generally operates without
any sense of
ecological limits. When looked at from this perspective, the evident
alienation from nature so many ORV riders
exhibit with
their
belligerent embrace of speed and noise should come as no surprise.
As we examine the underlying assumptions at the core
of the debate over
the use of off-road vehicles on public or any other land,
the following
basic concepts from deep ecology may prove useful for framing the
deeper issues at stake:
Nonhuman-Centeredness.
Overwhelmingly, discussions
about
ORVs center around conflicts between humans. Although
important,
this
is only one aspect of the issue. According to deep ecology, humans do
not hold a privileged position on the planet.
As a species,
we are just
one member of a community of beings, each of which is the result of
billions of years of evolution. Deep
ecology
rejects the idea of a
hierarchy of organisms with humans on top and instead explores a new
and necessary relationship to
nature,
wherein all species of animals
and plants maintain their intrinsic values, not determined by humans.
The Western cosmology
of industrial
growth (equated with “progress”)
includes no defense of wild nature or animals. This industrial
cosmology, or
worldview,
would have difficulty understanding the
wonderful words of Calvin Martin, speaking about animistic
hunter/gatherer
societies:
“Only a fool would imagine himself as
somehow exclusively a human
being.”[iv] Industrial societies have
disenfranchised all other beings and the natural world itself at the
same time that human communication and mobility have
exploded.
Thus,
deep ecology enables us to see beyond the human focus of the debate.
Necessity for a
New Spiritual Relationship to Nature. In order for
industrial capitalism to commodify the Earth, it had to
undermine
the Earth’s animistic spirituality. A future Earth-centered society
will
need to be organized around an ecocentric
morality that
contains a
spiritual or sacred dimension and is not based on economics. Suiting or
gearing up for riding a
powerful and
noisy all-terrain vehicle (ATV) or
snowmobile and putting on a totally enclosing helmet removes a person
from any sense
of an interdependent relationship with wild nature and
with other people.
Placing the
Responsibility for the Contemporary Ecological Crisis on
the Industrial Capitalist Society. A society
oriented
toward continuous
economic and population growth – consumerism
without end – where
profit is the principal
determinant of
all value and where the economy
controls society, cannot be sustainable in the long term. There is, at
the very
least, a
thematic link between the robbing of the Earth’s
natural wealth and increased ORV use. Take, for example, industrial
forestry or
pulp mill clear-cut forestry. These activities have not
only destroyed the rich biodiversity of the Acadian forests in
the
Maritimes region of Canada, as elsewhere, but have, through the
expansion of road and trail networks and the clear-cuts
themselves,
facilitated and effectively promoted ORV use. Another example would be
the recently installed high pressure
natural gas
pipeline that snakes
across Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to United States markets; its
construction opened up
previously
inaccessible areas to ORV use.
Opposition to the
Idea of “Private Property” in Nature. As Arne Naess
has said: “The ideology of ownership of nature
has no place
in an
ecosophy.”[v] (Within the philosophy of deep ecology, the term ecosophy
is used to mean the personal
code of values
guiding one’s interaction
with the natural world.) No one can own the Earth, whether from a
state, individual,
indigenous, or
collective point of view. Actually,
the Earth owns us, we are its creatures. We are holders of a usufruct
rather
than private
owners of the natural world. This means that we may
have the right of use, but that the terms of that use are
ultimately
governed by and accountable to some form of ecocentric governance much
wider than human society. The concept
of private
property or ownership
is a social convention, arrogant in its assertion that humans can “own”
other species and the
land itself.
For example, deep ecology suggests that woodlot
owners should not have
the right to destroy their woodlots for economic
reasons. Even
the term
woodlot is human centered and
implies that the function of a forest is
to produce timber for human
consumption.
If responsibility to the Earth
and to future human generations is factored into ownership criteria,
woodlot owners
need to be
socially accountable for their treatment of
the woodlot. Such behavior cannot include allowing, for example,
destructive
forestry practices or the use of ORVs, which mutilates the
environment of the woodlot. Ownership should be seen
as a privilege
attached to a set of obligations. Those who destroy or degrade their
woodlots should suffer definite social and
criminal
sanctions. The
model to aim for, until ecocentric governance arrives, is that of
passing on the woodlot in better
condition than
it was in when one
received it, bearing in mind the well-being of all the plant and animal
species living there.
Deep Ecology as
Lived Philosophy. We have to live the philosophy of
deep ecology to the largest extent possible. This
means
voluntary
simplicity: leaving footprints instead of tire treads, minimizing
consumption, and maintaining a bioregional
focus, or
“living locally.”
The advertising industry creates illusory needs, which then become
erroneously defined as vital
needs that are
part of an unquestioned
lifestyle, in turn often taken for granted as necessary. For someone
influenced by deep
ecology,
overcoming material desires and taking
personal responsibility for one’s own actions is part of living as
simply as
possible. This
is also part of the personal, spiritual path
that prepares today’s eco-warrior to break from the seeming death
curse
of industrial society. It should also be noted that this deep ecology
view of personal responsibility is opposed to the
more
traditional
leftist view of explaining individual behaviors as mainly socially and
historically determined.
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum stands
the “Wise Use”
movement, a social response in North America to
the rise of
environmentalism, and one whose ranks are undoubtedly swelled with
recreational ORV users. The view this
movement
proposes is that nature
should not be “locked up” in parks or wilderness reserves and that
human access to what
they call resources must always have
priority. In
this context, if riding a powerful machine is a deep and integral part
of an
ORV user’s
individual and cultural sense of self, then all of
nature can be viewed as a resource to satisfy what has come to
be
misleadingly felt as a basic and vital need.
Conflicting Visions, Conflicting Strategies
Deep ecology can arm those who seek a deeper
alternative to
the industrial status quo by raising alternative
visions when it
comes
to discussing specific environmental issues, such as off-road vehicle
use. Unfortunately, mainstream environmentalists
sometimes view
these
deeper ecological visions as counterproductive to achieving immediate
goals and may seek to exclude
them from
public discussions. For
example, when mainstream environmentalists are trying to impose a
regulatory regime on
ORV users
rather than fundamentally challenge
their right to ride, they do not particularly welcome those more
radical voices,
perhaps
informed by deep ecology, who publicly raise
questions about the destructive, economic-growth trajectory of
industrial
consumer
capitalism, increasing human populations, and the
coming end of the fossil fuel economy.
Must we accept, as one mainstream environmentalist
put it, that good or
bad, ORVs are here to stay? If so, then the focus on
regulations
becomes all-consuming. More regulations will not bring the ORV
situation under control. For although a regulatory
focus can, to
some
extent, minimize the costs to nature or to human society arising from
the current explosion of recreational
ORV use, it
does not call into
question the actual industrial capitalist system itself and its
cultural assumptions. Fundamental
assumptions,
so clearly reflected in
this use, remain unquestioned, such as issues of private property
rights and the emerging
concept of
ecocentric governance, where animals
and plants are our relatives, our brothers and sisters, and where the
Earth
itself cannot
be “owned” by humans.
Deep ecology supporters believe that, despite the
good intentions of
those who seek to regulate and limit the escalating use
of ORVs, the
destruction they cause will not end until there is a basic shift in
values within our society. The work of contributing
to such a
shift
aims to foster alternative visions of the “good” society so that such
visions become part of the public discourse
and result in
fundamental
changes in behavior. Some have dubbed this the work of “paradigm
warriors.” And although the
needed
paradigm shifts are not within our
individual grasp, our incremental work in critiquing the dominant
paradigm of values
and proposing
an alternative does contribute to such
shifts. To end or severely restrict ORV use is ultimately an issue of
instigating a
paradigm shift, not establishing a new set of regulations.
All of that said, however, it is important to
distinguish between those
who use ORVs for recreation, and those, like many of
my neighbors
in
rural Nova Scotia, who own ATVs and snowmobiles to assist them in
domestic or farm chores. We must
consider the
possibility that there
could be a limited and carefully circumscribed role for ORVs in a
work-related capacity, even
when there
should be no role for them as
recreational vehicles. It is important that activists try to socially
isolate the large
numbers of
recreational riders who use such vehicles
for hunting, fishing, trapping, general joy riding, and communal
outings.
They
constitute the main problem, and it can be
counterproductive to oppose the rural residents who uses an ATV or
snowmobile to
assist with essential chores –
like bringing in the
winter wood – and
who themselves often suffer from the
“organized”
recreational ORV use of others.
Shifting Paradigms, Changing
Consciousness
In order to achieve a fundamental change in popular
consciousness, we must move our definitions of self away from the
acquisition of
consumer goods and open people’s eyes to the damage done
by such machines to the natural world. We
need a
fundamental change in
what we could call our ecopsychology,
a move to what Naess has called
the ecological Self.
The discussion
about ORVs can be one more means of
bringing about such a change in human consciousness. And this
change
could start by realizing that putting a down payment on an ORV (a
high-end ATV can cost more than $12,000
per unit; a
snowmobile can
retail for over $10,000) does not give one the right of entry to
nature, let alone the right to aid
in her
destruction; that to enter
the outdoors does not require a motorized vehicle. All we really need
to bring to the
outdoors is a
humble and nonintrusive attitude, a sense
of responsibility for one’s own safety, and the goal of returning to
the point of
entry.
Arne Naess asserts that our lifestyles (in North
America and Western
Europe) should be a model for the rest of the
world’s
population, not
something impossible and undesirable for them to attain. In that light,
we need to look at ORVs
as well as all
the other taken-for-granted
consumer goodies. Rudolf Bahro, the German green philosopher and
activist,
said in the
1980s that “development” was finished and that
industrialized nations needed to reduce their impact upon the
Earth to
one-tenth of what it then was.[vi] These are the kinds of ideas that
should become part of the off-road vehicle
debate.
How does one change the right-to-ride mindset of
many ORV riders? When
one sees the hostility expressed toward
the “tree
hugger,” it can seem
a hopeless task. The ORV debate is a cultural clash between an
industrial, consumeristic,
human-centered
selfishness that essentially
disregards other social and ecological interests, and a new
Earth-centered
consciousness,
informed by deep ecology and
considerations of social justice and equality. This new consciousness
was
spawned in the
radical environmental movement and is now entering
society at large. Contributing to this cultural tipping
point is the
importance of paradigm warrior work: to force an ecocentric alternative
into the public consciousness. The
ORV debate is
such an arena for
cultural change work, a step on the path to ending our alienation from
nature and from
each other.
Endnotes
[i] Bill
Devall and George Sessions, Deep
Ecology: Living As If Nature
Mattered (Layton, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc.,
1985), 70.
[ii] Arne
Naess, “Response to Peder Anker,” in Philosophical
Dialogues:
Arne Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy,
eds. Nina
Witoszek and
Andrew Brennan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999),
446.
[iii] Saral
Sarkar, Eco-Socialism or
Eco-Capitalism? A Critical
Analysis of Humanity’s Fundamental Choices (London and
New York: Zed
Books, 1999), 227.
[iv] Calvin
Luther Martin, In the Spirit of the
Earth: Rethinking
History and Time (London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University
Press, 1992), 18.
[v] Arne
Naess, Ecology, Community and
Lifestyle: Outline of an
Ecosophy, trans. and ed. David Rothenberg (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1989), 175.
[vi] Rudolf
Bahro, Avoiding Social &
Ecological Disaster: The
Politics of World Transformation, rev. ed., trans. David Clarke
(Bath,
England: Gateway Books, 1994).
This article appeared in
Thrillcraft: The
Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation, editor
George Wuerthner,
published by
Foundation for
Deep Ecology, distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2007.
To obtain any of the Green
Web
publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back
to
The Green Web
A Taste of Green Web Writings and Left Biocentrism
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Off-Road_Vehicles_and_Deep_Ecology.html
Last updated: January 14, 2008