Naess Quotes

Of course, there is no 'going back' in general, but it is important to remember that global unsustainability is something very new and that for a wide variety of stable cultures, our planet was a tremendously big, rish, eminently hospitable, and benign world.

The remedy (or psychotherapy) against sadness caused by the world's misery is to do something about it.

The structure of the ideal novel. It's an idea by Thure Erik Lund, an untranslated (as of 2016)Norwegian author. It is mentioned in at least two interviews with Karl-Ove Knausgaard: Among the writers he’d like to see translated are Kristine Naess, Cathrine Knudsen, and Thure Erik Lund. Of Lund, Knausgaard says, “his literature is wild, megalomanic, dystopic, and breathtakingly original. I once interviewed him, and he revealed his idea of the perfect novel, which should start in the familiar and gradually lead the reader into more and more unfamiliar areas, until the end, which should be in Chinese, in such a way that the reader doesn’t notice that she had learned it during the reading.” And: You wouldn’t have read him, there’s a Norwegian writer, Thure Erik Lund, he’s the greatest prose writer in my generation. He’s ten years older than me. He’s very wild. His novels start in one place and end up somewhere completely different. His dream novel, he told me, was a novel that starts here and ends up in Chinese, and the readers should have learned Chinese by the time they got to the end. He’s untranslatable. In one of his books, there’s no people in it, it’s completely empty, but it still works, it’s just great. In Norway, Lund was the only expansive writer I knew of. And there was the example of Marcel Proust — his are books that just grow.

If people are relocated or, rather, transplanted from a steep, mountainous place to a plain, they also realize, but too late, that their home-place has been part of themselves - that they have identified with features of the place. And the way of life in the tiny locality, the density of social relations, has formed their persons. Again, they are not the same as they were.

Most recently, Naess articulated the platform principles as the following eight points: 1. All living beings have intrinsic value. 2. The richness and diversity of life has intrinsic value. 3. Except to satisfy vital needs, humans do not have the right to reduce this diversity and richness. 4. It would be better for humans if there were fewer of them, and much better for other living creatures. 5. Today the extent and nature of human interference in the various ecosystems is not sustainable, and the lack of sustainability is rising. 6. Decisive improvement requires considerable changes: social, economic, technological, and ideological. 7. An ideological change would essentially entail seeking a better quality of life rather than a raised standard of living. 8. Those who accept the aforementioned points are responsible for trying to contribute directly or indirectly to the necessary changes.26

There is another way in which Arne Naess characterized deep ecology. “The essence of deep ecology,” he wrote, “is to ask deeper questions” (quoted by Devall and Sessions, 1985, p. 74). This is also the essence of a paradigm shift. We need to be prepared to question every single aspect of the old paradigm. Eventually, we will not need to abandon all our old concepts and ideas, but before we know that, we need to be willing to question everything. So, deep ecology asks profound questions about the very foundations of our modern, scientific, industrial, growth-oriented, materialistic worldview and way of life. It questions this entire paradigm from an ecological perspective: from the perspective of our relationships to one another, to future generations, and to the web of life of which we are part.

Opponents often argue that we defend nature in our rich, industrial society in order to secure beauty, recreation, sport, and other nonvital interests for outselves. It makes us strong if, after honest reflection, we find that we feel threatened in our innermost self. If so, we more convincingly defend a vital interest, not only something out there. We are engaged in self-defense. And to defend fundamental human rights is vital self-defense.

Encironmentalists sometimes succumb to a joyless life that belies their concern for a better environment. This cult of dissatisfaction is apt to add to the already fairly advanced joylessness we find among socially responsible, successful people and to undermine one of the chief presuppositions of the ecological movement: that joy is related to the environment and to nature.

The fifth principle [of Arne Naess's principles of deep ecology] states that the flourishing of both human and non-human life requires a substantial decrease of human population. As I said, we are a plague, and our population is out of control. And we don't want to die.