Gelareh Darabi is attending a lively party at a temporary camp in Haiti’s Cite Soleil.

The reason for the celebration – the unveiling of a new, environmentally-friendly toilet, which will also be used to create much-needed compost for the adjacent community garden.

In many of Haiti’s camps, hundreds of residents are obliged to share a single toilet, so it is no wonder that this new innovation is welcomed.

The slums and camps of Haiti, as is the case in most developing countries, have woefully inadequate sewage systems which means that human waste spills onto the streets and into the water system.

As well as being a sanitation problem, it is also a huge environmental problem. If not properly treated, human sewage can play havoc with ecosystems, destroying lakes and rivers by depleting oxygen.

This is the case in Haiti, where rivers and canals are full of algae.

SOIL, a Haiti-based charity, is addressing the problem at its root by building eco-friendly toilets that are easy to maintain.

Since the 2010 earthquake they have set up more than 200 of these toilets in communities and camps and around Haiti, serving 20,000 people.

SOIL’s dedicated team takes the waste to be composted at their waste treatment facility, the first ever in Haiti. Not only does this process get rid of the harmful pathogens, but it also creates vital fertiliser for Haiti’s overused and barren agricultural land.

The colourful new community garden, ‘Jaden Tap Tap’, is now thriving and beginning to produce food for camp residents.

Gelareh Darabi pitches in with the toilet-to-garden process, and finds out how these simple but effective eco-loos are turning waste into a resource.

Watch: Natural World – A Farm for the Future

“Never doubt that a few committed people can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
–Margaret Mead

The Earth is not dying, it is being killed. You see it everyday, everywhere you look, and you can’t just sit back and watch it. Direct action is vital to stopping environmental destruction and confronting corporate control. Direct action is taking personal action to directly improve your life, taking personal responsibility and living deliberately. Think of direct action as self-defense: defending yourself and the Earth against the forces that are destroying nature and wildness. Remember, you are a powerful person.

For members of the Church of Deep Ecology, direct action is a form of worship. Whether you’re blocking bulldozers, pulling biotech crops, teaching organic gardening to kids, or biking rather than driving, you need to fill your days, and your nights, with direct action. Direct action to save the Earth is deliberately working toward a vision of species in balance on a healthy, living Earth.

Gather your own food. Walk to work. Eat local, organic food. Turn off the lights. Read by candlelight. Plant a fruit tree. Barter instead of buy. Identify the edible plants in your yard. Wake up with the sun. Sleep when you’re tired. Eat when you’re hungry. Meet your neighbors. Form a community. Compost. Take someone to your favorite wild place. Watch the squirrels. Watch the wasps. Watch the blue jays. Learn from them all.

You can host a straw bale construction workshop or start a bio-diesel cooperative. The more you can do for yourself, by yourself, the less negative impact you will have on the Earth. You can learn the ways of the Earth, and teach these to others. By learning the ways of the Earth, you will learn what’s best for you, and for the Earth. Together we will destroy the class of experts who tell us that they know best, and instead listen to our natural instincts, taking our clues from our surroundings. Define the terms of your own survival, and then take action.

“Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.” –Edward Abbey

Where does your home come from? Most of us live in houses which are barriers against nature. From our windows we may be able to watch the birds, but we can’t feel the flutter of their wings in the air, we can’t feel the chill of winter, can’t smell the rain. It doesn’t have to be this way. Our homes could be inspired by the homes of other animals, allowing us to dwell in the natural world again.

Look at the animals around you. Where do they live? Do they own the land? What are their shelters made of? Can you even see their shelters, or do they blend in so well with their surroundings that you can’t find them? Are the animals’ homes larger than they require? Does the animal build its home in a place that threatens the animal’s very existence? How does your home compare with these?

An animal’s home is utilitarian, not excessive. Animals’ homes are made of natural materials: mud, sticks, sod, bamboo, straw. Animals’ homes will degrade, once abandoned, or they will be taken over and maintained by another animal. Animals live in homes that breathe, that don’t poison them. When you see an animal shelter, you see it as part of nature, not an impenetrable barrier between that animal and the natural world.

Our shelters should be constantly changing, growing, degrading, according to our needs. Shelter is transient, malleable, something that we can abandon from season to season, if our needs dictate.

Are you actually sustaining yourself, or are you slowly killing yourself and the world around you? When you look at the natural world, do you see other animals passing up their basic nutritional needs for poison?

When do you think that the humanimal evolved? What foods do you think were available to that animal? Do you think that you are evolved to eat the diet you are currently eating?

Investigate the impact that your food choices have on the natural world. How much energy is expended to produce your food? Is it less damaging to the natural world if you grow a radish, or if you get it from the market? Ask yourself, “What kind of ecological damage is connected to an organic apple from the other side of the Earth?” Is processed vegan food any better for you or the planet than raising chickens in the city?

How many of your food needs can you actually meet for yourself? Can you find it locally? Where does it grow? Before eating that piece of fruit, ask yourself, where does this come from? Can you find something similar growing wild in your neighborhood or bioregion?

As we think about our food, let’s think about what makes sense, and why it makes sense.
Eat deliberately.

To learn more about growing food with nature in mind discover Permaculture.

Permaculture is a method of gardening, and living, that looks to nature for guidance, emulating the patterns found in natural ecosystems. The word Permaculture is a combination of permanent and agriculture, and stresses the importance of low maintainance perennial crops, natural water catchment, and low energy inputs. Permaculture is, in many ways, acting out our commitment to Deep Ecology.

Below you will find link to a pdf file containing the complete text of 15 pamphlets based on the 1981 Permaculture Design Course given by Bill Mollison (the father of Permaculture) at The Rural Education Center, Wilton, New Hampshire, USA.

In deference to the monumental tasks of love in this work, often painstaking, always careful and caring, and with Bill Mollison’s consent, these documents have been placed in the public domain. Their reproduction is free to all and encouraged. Credit, above all to Bill Mollison and secondly to Yankee Permaculture, is proper and appreciated.

Permaculture Design Course Series (pdf) (155 pages)

Watch: Permaculture With Bill Mollison

Survey your life. Are you spending your life striving for the things that an animal does, or are you toiling for things outside of those natural needs? Try to see the human place within nature. What changes can you make as you strive to live within that natural place? Strive to find your animal niche. Look at your life and make a decision to avoid the things that are not part of your natural animal. Live each moment with purpose, as does the squirrel or the dragonfly.

As you observe the natural world ask yourself, “Do animals take more than they need?” And ask yourself, “How many animals destroy for reasons other than self-preservation?”

All life, all around the Earth, is now subject to the whims of the dominant culture: a culture repressed, disconnected completely from the wildness of the Earth and the wildness in itself. Only through this alienation could anyone commit such atrocities as the captains of industry and government do daily.

We strive to find ways of healing our selves and the land, letting the land heal us, and living in place. A place will only reveal itself if we are there long enough to see the seasons change, to sit very quietly, very still for a long time. This is the process of re-wilding ourselves, becoming feral. Re-wilding the Earth, defending wildness where it remains, and stewarding injured land onto the healing path of re-wilding, is our way. Learning the ways of nature–this is the path of Deep Ecology.

By Alan Drengson

During the last thirty years philosophers in the West have critiqued the underlying assumptions of Modern philosophy in relation to the natural world. This development has been part of an ongoing expansion of philosophical work involving cross cultural studies of world views or ultimate philosophies. Since philosophical studies in the West have often ignored the natural world, and since most studies in ethics have focused on human values, those approaches which emphasize ecocentric values have been referred to as ecophilosophy. Just as the aim of traditional philosophy is sophia or wisdom, so the aim of ecophilosophy is ecosophy or ecological wisdom. The Practice of ecophilosophy is an ongoing, comprehensive, deep inquiry into values, the nature of the world and the self.

The mission of ecophilosophy is to explore a diversity of perspectives on human-Nature contexts and interrelationships. It fosters deeper and more harmonious relationships between place, self, community and the natural world. This aim is furthered by comparing the diversity of ecosophies from which people support the platform principles of the global, long range, deep ecology movement.

Here is Arne Naess’s original definition of ecosophy: “By an ecosophy I mean a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy as a kind of sofia (or) wisdom, is openly normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and hypotheses concerning the state of affairs in our universe. Wisdom is policy wisdom, prescription, not only scientific description and prediction. The details of an ecosophy will show many variations due to significant differences concerning not only the ‘facts’ of pollution, resources, population, etc. but also value priorities.” (See A. Drengson and Y. Inoue, 1995, page 8.)

In 1973 (Inquiry 16, pp. 95-100) the name “deep ecology movement” was introduced into environmental literature by Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Professor Arne Naess. (For a reprint of the article see Drengson and Inoue 1995.) Environmentalism emerged as a popular grass roots political movement in the 1960′s with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. Those already involved in conservation/preservation efforts were joined by many others concerned about the detrimental environmental impacts of modern industrial technology. The longer range, older elements of the movement included writers and activists like Thoreau and Muir, whereas the newer mainstream awareness was closer to the wise conservation philosophy of people like Gifford Pinchot.

Naess’s article was based on a talk he gave in Bucharest in 1972 at the Third World Future Research Conference. In his talk Naess discussed the longer-range background of the ecology movement and its connection with respect for Nature and the inherent worth of other beings. As a mountaineer who had climbed all over the world, Naess enjoyed the opportunity to observe political and social action in diverse cultures. Both historically and in the contemporary movement Naess saw two different forms of environmentalism, not necessarily incompatible with one another. One he called the “long-range deep ecology movement” and the other, the “shallow ecology movement.” The word “deep” in part referred to the level of questioning of our purposes and values, when arguing in environmental conflicts. The “deep” movement involves deep questioning, right down to fundamentals. The shallow stops before the ultimate level.

In his ecophilosophy framework for cross cultural analysis of grass roots social-political movements, Naess distinguishes between four levels of discourse (see the chart below). In forming cross cultural global movements some general consensus develops that focuses the movement through platform principles (as is the case for many movements–literary, philosophical, social, political, etc.), such as the principles of social justice, or the principles of peace and nonviolence, or the principles for the deep ecology movement (DEM). Movements so described have their principles emerge from the bottom up and are thus called grass roots movements (as in the Gandhian tradition), not top down power over hierarchies .

The aim of ecophilosophy is a total or comprehensive view of our human and individual situation. Comprehensive includes the whole global context with us in it, sharing a world with diverse cultures and beings. We move toward a total view via deep questioning–always asking why–to ultimate norms and premises, and via articulation  (or application) to policies and practices. Much cross cultural work is done at the level of platform principles, and we can have a high level of agreement at this level that Naess calls Level II. From Level II we can engage in deep questioning and pursue articulating our own ecosophy, which might be grounded in some major worldview or religion, such as Pantheism or Christianity. This level of ultimate philosophies is called Level I. There is considerable diversity at this level. From Level II principles we can develop specific policy recommendations and formulations, or Level III. From Level III application leads us to practical actions, Level IV. There is considerable diversity at the level of policies, but even more at the level of practical actions.

Table Showing Levels of Questioning and Articulation

[The above chart is a simplification of Naess's Apron Diagram. See Drengson and Inoue, 1995, pp. 10-12.]

In deep questioning we move toward ultimate premises and norms. In the process of derivation and application we move toward platform support and developing policies and practical actions. This is a continuous back and forth process which keeps our understanding and practices in harmony with a changing world. The deep approach, then, becomes evolutionary, changing with natural conditions. (For example, the “new corporation” [or community] has to engage in this back and forth movement and so requires full employee participation, diverse leaders and initiative takers.) In the three grassroots movements mentioned above the principles are individual and international.  It is important to note that there is great diversity at the level of ultimate philosophies. We do not all have to subscribe to the same ultimate ecological philosophy in order to work cooperatively for the benefit of the planet and its communities of beings. The front is very long and we each have values to contribute to realizing higher qualities in life as a whole. We must work on many different levels.

Naess has much first-hand experience in the world peace and social justice movements, and he is a committed practitioner of the way of nonviolence taught by Gandhi (Naess 1974). He also is a philosopher of science and logic who has done innovative work on language and communication.  His studies and travels have given him deep cross-cultural knowledge and perspectives. (For more details on his philosophy of communication see Naess (1953). This work will be reissued in the Selected Works of Arne Naess to be published in English by Klewer in 2000.) Naess is well placed to identify the main features of the emerging grass-roots environmental movement, which is supported by social activists from all parts of the political spectrum. The shallow-deep spectrum he describes is not the same as the old right-left split. It cuts across many conventional distinctions.

In his talk and paper Naess explained the difference between the short-term, shallow and the long-range deep ecology movements in broad terms. He explained that the distinctive aspects of the deep ecology movement is its recognition of the inherent value of all other living beings, and of the inherent worth of diversity of all kinds. This awareness is used to shape environmental policies and actions. Those who work for social changes based on this recognition are motivated by love of Nature as well as for humans. They try to be caring in all their dealings. They recognize that we cannot go on with industrial culture’s business as usual. We must make fundamental changes in basic values and practices or we will destroy the diversity and beauty of the world, and its ability to support diverse human cultures.

In 1972, not many people appreciated that Naess was characterizing a grass-roots social movement, not stating his personal ultimate philosophy. Since then, he has articulated a set of platform principles to clarify matters. Grass-roots political movements often join people with diverse ultimate beliefs and backgrounds. In order to state the shared objectives of the movement a platform is usually put forth. The platform presents the more general principles that unite the group in terms of shared projects, aims and values.

Naess and others have proposed a set of eight principles to characterize the deep ecology movement as part of the general ecology movement. These principles are endorsed by people from a diversity of backgrounds who share common concerns for the planet, its many beings and ecological communities. In many Western nations supporters of the platform principles stated below come from different religious and philosophical backgrounds. Their political affiliations differ considerably. What unites them is a long-range vision of what is necessary to protect the integrity of the Earth’s ecological communities and values. Supporters of the principles have a diversity of ultimate beliefs. “Ultimate beliefs” here refers to their own basic metaphysical, personal and religious grounds for their values, actions and support for the deep ecology movement. Different people and cultures have different mythologies and stories. Nonetheless, they can support the platform and work for solutions to our shared environmental crisis. A diversity of practices is emerging, but there is considerable overlap, as can be seen in hundreds of environmental conflicts all over the world.

Supporters of the platform principles stated below come from all walks of life, and a wide variety of cultures and places. Because they live in different places, the courses of practical action that follow from commitment to the platform are also diverse. Each person has something unique to contribute by living their own ecosophies.