Deep Ecology

I am not a big fan of Wikipedia. The online democratisation of knowledge, which presupposes that any idiot's view on a topic is worth as much as any expert's, is highly problematic from a scientific point of view, as it renders the scientific values of accountability and verifiability meaningless. That is, on Wikipedia, anyone can edit and change anyone's entries, regardless of expertise or agenda. As a result, false information and popular myths can spread easily, without anyone being held accountable. Critical method is usually absent. The entry on Shinto, for example, is ridiculously essentialist, ahistorical, and badly written. So is much other information on the internet, of course, but the problem is that Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, and that millions of people take its claims at face value.

That said, I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I do visit Wikipedia regularly myself. When I want basic information on, say, a tree species, a disease, exotic fruit, a tourist attraction, the politics of a particular country, the definition of a complex concept, or a philosopher whose work I am not familiar with, Wikipedia is my usual point of departure. In other words, if I want basic information on a topic or look for a particular fact, I have found that Wikipedia is quite useful - as long as you accept the possibility that you may be (partly) misinformed. What appeals to me most are the links to other entries, to entries on the same topic in other languages (very useful if you want to know the translation of the name of the fish you had for dinner, or the characters in which a particular Japanese name is written), as well as to external websites.

For some reason, I was looking at the Wikipedia entry on Norway. I learned some interesting things about the differences between Nynorsk and Bokmål, the makeup of the national parliament, and the natural landscape. Before long I was on another page, and read about different currents in environmentalism. Next, I was reading the entry on the late Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, founder of the Deep Ecology movement - a radically holistic philosophy with a strong ontological, rather than merely ethical, approach to environmentalism, which states that all beings are fundamentally and existentially interconnected, and that the ideological separation of humans from their natural surroundings causes widespread ecological problems and natural disasters, which affect humans as much as they affect other species. Drawing on the philosophies of Kant and Gandhi, Naess combined a deeply spiritual appreciation of natural reality with a deeply political and moral plea for radical changes in our approach to nature, and an end to the ongoing exploitation of nature and destruction of ecological systems.

The entry had an external link to a documentary on Arne Naess and his philosophy. It is a little gem. Even if you do not agree with all aspects of Deep Ecology, you will be touched by the worldview and personality of this 'seriously light' old man, who shares some of his wonder over the 'infinite complexity' of a small mountain stream. Meanwhile, the comments of his followers provide ample food for thought. So, after all, despite my criticism of Wikipedia, I do have to acknowledge that it sometimes helps us find relevant new sources of knowledge - and, in this case, inspiration.

Have a look.