Precis, The Shallow and the Deep

"The Shallow and the Deep", a summary of Deep Ecology by Arne Naess, reveals a watershed moment for ecologists during the early 1970s. A chasm was forming in the ecological movement: On the one hand, the "shallow but presently rather powerful movement" and the other hand, "a deep, but less influential movement".
The Deep Ecology Movement is, for Naess, the only appropriate way to create ecologically-sound policies, for the shallow movement not only fails to provide effective solutions for the existing problems, but leads to the creation of more problems. Naess argues that the ecological movement should not be limited to the discussion of pollution and resource depletion. Scaring people with environmental catastrophe doesn't provide the necessary means to what Naess believes to be the end of "Deep Ecology". The Deep movement has great political potentials that go beyond the mere reduction of environmental degradation, and what Naess strives is to expand the capability of the ecology movement.
Although Naess derives his authority from the science of ecology, and the facts associate with it, the Deep Ecology movement is not derived from ecology by logic, but mainly from ecological knowledge. He takes a moment to differentiate between the ecological and philosophical elements of deep ecology, using ecosophy to describe this harmony. Naess explains the nature of the system of the argument he presents: "The basic relation is that between subsets of premises and subsets of conclusions, that is, the relation of drivability." Ecosophy will take many forms due to the variation of "facts" about ecology and value priorities. However, his seven points is an attempt to create a unified framework.
The first ecology movement, the Shallow, the author simply defines as a movement by those who struggle for protecting resources and addressing pollution in order to maintain the affluent and healthy lifestyle of people in developed countries.
Naess breaks the Deep movement into seven sections. The first point argues for a way to conceive human's place in nature. Instead of understanding human an isolated entity in an environment, Deep ecology understands humans, and other organisms to have intrinsic relations, and that our understanding of organisms is directly dependent on these relations.
The second argument addresses "biospherical egalitarianism", claiming that all organisms have the equal right to live and while opposing the notion of restricting this right to humans. Naess argues that anthropocentrism creates detrimental effects on the human living standards by saying that ignoring human's dependency on the environment, leads to "alienation of man from himself". Since Anthropocentrism is a polemical topic, the author employs idiosyncratic ecological definitions to provide a tone of scientific legitimacy when he discusses the future research variable of "level of crowding" and its behavior effects on that species.
In his third argument, Naess addresses the significance of diversity and symbiosis. He uses the concept "survival of the fittest" in its most paradoxical understanding when he argues that the survival of humans depends on their ability to maintain natural diversity through "the ability to coexist and cooperate". The traditional view of survival as competitive killing and exploitation destroys other species and communities within a species, and greatly decreases diversity and therefore survival.
In his next argument, Naess expands on the exploitation and suppression of groups within a community. Through this exploitation, a hierarchy is formed that benefits no one. This addresses the growing stratification among nations and societies.
The fifth argument refers to the most supported aspect of the ecological movement: "the fight against pollution and resources depletion". This dogmatic and unenlightened support leads to a band-aide approach that can generate more problems, instead of a holistic one. For this reason Naess argues that there is an ethical responsibility for ecologists to support the Deep movement.
Then he clarifies the distinction between complexity and complication. Ecologists acknowledge the "profound human ignorance of biosphereical relationships" and demonstrate the ecosystem’s complexity. Division of labor, not fragmentation of labor, is analogous to this ecological argument. By taking the complexity of ecosystemic into account and accounting for our ignorance, future research should produce clarifications of possibilities and less prognosis.
Lastly, Naess argues for local autonomy and decentralization. The significance of this policy is due to "the vulnerability of a form of life is roughly proportional to the weight of influences from afar". Accordingly self-governance and self-sufficiency is critical.