Linkola is based as an essayist. The added ideology is a little shaky but I really enjoyed reading him.
My problem with deep ecology is that it makes a huge and dubious assumption: a holistic conception of nature. That in and of itself is anthropocentric in my opinion. I feel this way because it fails to take into the notion of geological time or evolutionary time. Sure, everything from our eyes seems in harmony in its natural state, but if Darwin is remotely correct, things are constantly in long term flux, battle, and tension. Hell, not even from a long scale perspective. There have been studies different fast producing insect populations that wiped their own local populations out within a few years depending on where they were living. There is not harmony in nature or whole.
Of course, I'm not saying that nature is without any cohesion. I'm not mad. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater as the nihilist might: 'there is not holistic nature, therefore any intervention in nature cannot be disruptive to it.' That's specious reasoning. There was probably a point at which a fairly cohesive ecosystem existed, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find this in most places. I think the most pressing remainder is in the Amazon, which by the way builds off this:
>>1657896>nature is actively self healingOnce the rainforest is past a certain point, most believe it's done for. The inner rain cycles will not continue and the rainforest will turn to desert.
Most of nature is long gone. THis is what Zizek means when he says "nature does not exist." Everything left is either already affected by humanity or only remains as a relational concept that only operates in relation to humanity.
The irony, I think, is that Linkola would probably agree with me, that nature is already far gone. What can we do now?
