Interview with Arne Naess

Part 4 - LET THE RIVER LIVE

Tvergastein, Hardangervidda, Norway, June 1995
Interviewer: Jan van Boeckel, ReRun Producies
This interview was made for the documentary film The Call of the Mountain.

Arne, can you go back to the year 1973, when you first coined the term 'deep ecology'? What did you mean by that?

Well, I started this terminology in 1970 and the first, the third edition of a little book was in '73, with a deep ecology terminology. It's... the term 'deep ecology', or better, 'to be a supporter of the deep ecology movement', that is a long term, but is more basic. That is: to join in activism, to get rid of the ecological crisis. To join on the basis of your life-philosophy or religion, that is to say: Your motivation comes from your total view or your philosophical, religious opinions, so that you feel, when you are working in favour of free nature, you are working for something within your self, that demands that, demands changes. So you are motivated from what I call 'deeper premises'. You go all the way back. If we ask you: 'Why do you do this, why?', the supporters of the deep ecology movement do not stop with for instance: 'It is bad for the health if you have such pollution, it is bad for this, bad for that.'
You do not talk so much about pragmatic what you call pragmatic goals, as that. It cannot be done, we cannot live as we do. It is against my deepest concern for myself, as well as for nature itself, and these supporters then have a job to do, together with the others, which we call then, mostly, the reformist people, who say: 'This is what's going on. In order to overcome the crisis has to do with practical things, technology and other things and you need not go back to your own philosophy or your own religion. That is unnecessary.’ So it is... those who go all the way back to what I call the ultimate premises, they are generally in favour of very harsh policies that seem to make a lot of trouble for you. But they say: 'Hah, if it is necessary: no car. If it is necessary, I will not go by airplane in my vacations, I will not so-and-so. And I need not such-and-such products, which require a lot of energy to be made.' So it's... it flows from their inclination to live in a way that is universalisable.

Doesn't it restrict your possibilities?

Sure it will restrict your possibilities, but not what I would call your Self-realization. You cannot do anything you would like. But you may have of course some bad habits ecologically, but clearly, the rich countries have to go down in material consumption. That's one point we have said since 1970. We have to go down, and of course in the Third World, they would have to go up. And we cannot continue this lifestyle, average lifestyle, and say that we shall have that lifestyle, but of course in China they don't, must not have that, because if China starts on this way, then there it has catastrophic consequences.

I think that one of the major differences between the two groups is that one group sees nature as a resource, and the supporters of the deep ecology movement see nature as having value in itself.

Yes, that's a good way of saying it, that people, some people look at nature only as resource, where we say: it makes sense to do something for nature in itself and the first point in what I call the eight points of deep ecology, says that every living being has inherent or intrinsic value. It makes sense to do something for this living being and a very important point is that humans don't have the right to reduce the richness and diversity of life on this planet, except to satisfy vital needs.
And every word in such a formulation, of course, is open to different interpretations. But in the deep ecology movement we feel that we do not have the right to reduce the life on earth. And the more people we are, if we are going to be ten-thousand million people, what we can do, each of us, in disturb... disturbing ecosystems is of course very much smaller, what we can do, without ruining something.

Who says that we don't have the right? Where does this come from?

It comes from the inner life of the supporters. And it's not a juridical term; it is a term mothers use to... for instance saying to Tom: 'Don't! You have not the right to eat the dessert of your little sister. You do not have the right.' It is a little different from saying: 'No, you haven't... you should not', or something. Calling it: 'You don't have right to eat all this which is supposed to be for your sister.' So this... in ordinary language, completely ordinary language, you use the term 'right', and this is the way I use it in the third point of the eight points.

Can you tell a bit more about value in itself? Like a plant having value in itself, what is that?

Well, I made a questionnaire about whether people knew or used the term 'intrinsic value' or 'inherent value', the Norwegian term, in the beginning. And they did, they... I think they understood that. So it is also... it is not far from ordinary language to talk about: 'It has value in itself. It makes meaning to do something for it and so on.' So, this is a... these are terms from ordinary language and not technical ones. In philosophy, you may then try to make it more precise this term, and in different directions. But... and that is done, with little consequence for the deep ecology movement.

Does every living being have an equal value?

No, it's... No, that's a completely different thing, according to this terminology. The best formulation is to say that there is something which every living has in common with every other living being. It is a value we call intrinsic value. And then, question: Is there more or less intrinsic value? I say: 'That's up to you to find, that's up to you whether you consider that intrinsic value.' I find that it is not for me... according to my intuition, you shouldn't grade intrinsic value in more and less intrinsic value. But you must grade very much your obligations towards different kinds of living beings. So that your moral obligations towards your fellow beings, fellow humans of course, have a very high priority. And your obligations towards your children and your own children even more. So it is a term.... I use the term 'differences in obligation', towards the different living beings.

But if, for instance, penguins in Antarctica, how can you identify with them or feel obligations, you never saw them.

That is a thing we asked a lot of people about, penguins. And it was so interesting to see that. The general opinion was: 'Oh, they have to be there, they belong there and we like them to be there.' And if you would like to go to that: 'No, no, no, thank you, no, no, no, no, no.' It had nothing to do with having them around you. But it has a status there of a very special kind. They have value in themselves so obviously! Obviously, they have value in themselves.

But when you walk around the hut, it is unavoidable to step on plants. You must make a decision on which plants you step and on which ones you don't step.

Yeah, and there it is up to you, on the whole. For instance flowers, I make more effort not to put my feet on flowers. Or even after the blooming, I know this is a plant which will give such-and-such flower, and there are flowers such as Gentiana Nevalis, that has a special treatment. Feelings like that, I think, there is no use for trying to make universal rules about how to behave in particular cases like that. It's... we have to make rules to be different in different societies, of course. And, there should be no kind of priesthood, deep ecology priesthood, saying: 'No, no, not that, but that', and so on. That's... it's not a sect, the deep ecology movement, it is not a sect.

Can you explain that the deep ecology movement is group already existing, and that it is in many countries, not only Norway, and it doesn't have a building like Greenpeace for example?

But you should not think of it as a party, or anything like that, or an organization. It is a movement; you have similar things in the movement, for instance in what you are eating. Some years you should eat that, and not that, and there is a movement for this... It is a movement in that kind of... and there is thousands and thousands in many, many countries and in many cultures, and there are very few theoreticians. By theoreticians, I mean those who try to verbalize more or less general value statements and hypotheses. Those are between fifteen and twenty at the moment, who I would consider theoreticians of the deep ecology movement. And they have very many things in common, of course. For instance, democracy. Very strong kind of democracy, but not necessarily anarchism or not necessarily so-and-so. But they have nobody who thinks that dictatorship of any kind would be useful, or would be justifiable.

But you also say, there are people in the deep ecology movement who have never heard the term...

Yes, most people. Only few of them have heard the term. But it's very... if you talk to people in, for instance in an ecological direct action, environmental direct action; if you talk to them and about things, and you mention something like eight points and so on, so many will say: 'Well, that's how... that is how I felt a long time! I mean, that's how I feel, that's... yes!' And some will say: 'Yes! I need... it is not bad to have a word for this, but I felt like that, always.'

There are also people in India, who act from inclination already...

Oh, yes! Yes. And you have the Chipko movement. That is in part reformist and in part deep ecology oriented. But there, and in other cases in the Third World, if they stand up to protect something in nature, they stand out in a very strong way, risking their lives, very much risking their lives. Hugging trees and risking their lives and livelihood.

Can you maybe give an example of a deep ecology action, like the one at the Alta dam?

Alta. Hydro-electric power stations are all over Norway. And then they built big dams. But in arctic Norway, far north, there was a plan to make a big dam that would also... that also would injure the Sami people. And Norway has two cultures, two people, kind of people. You have the Norwegians and the Sami people, these arctic people you have in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Soviet Union. And some of us then thought that here, this must not be done. We couldn't make a thing that is harming the Sami people, that is impossible! So, there was a direct action. We stopped the building a road, which was necessary to start, And it was summertime and we didn't reach our goal. And then it was wintertime, it was very cold, and that made an impression, because we were more than thousand people and it was a very harsh time, and to stay there made an impression. But they sent... the government sent a big steamer with six-hundred police, to stop us. And according to the deep ecology attitude, you have to be very polite and very nice to people who oppose you. There were people then, up there, who were in favour of the dam, especially those who said: 'We need electricity. There would be a lot of... the unemployment will go down when we make this dam', and so on. They were very angry.
So, according to the Gandhian principles, and the Gandhian principles are adopted by the deep ecology direct actions. When they come like this to our camp, you see [grins], very angry: 'Hwrrrhhgg...' 'Please sit down, have some coffee' [grins], and they couldn't resist that temptation. And they set down, had coffee and they didn't turn round to opposition, but they were not opposing us in a violent way or anything like that, you see. So, so on the whole, it was unfortunately, the people with higher education who were against. And in schools for instance, you saw when I made a speech, invited to make a speech in the school, nobody stood up for the dam. Because it was 'in' to be against it. So you see it is very difficult class questions, also. Questions of...

But were you sitting on the ground, when the police came?

Yes.

Can you describe what happened, then?

Well, some of us had a very great privilege to be fastened with very, very strong iron things, here, to the ground. And one of the most active there, Sigmund Kvaløy, he was sure they have no technology to unfasten us from the rock. Ha-ha. And I said: 'Oh yes, modern technology... this is a symbol, it is a symbol. It has nothing to do with...' And of course they had things made so that they were able to not harm us at all.

And did you get punished?

Oh yes, we got punished. And, of course, it is a rule in deep ecology, you ask for prison, to get prison instead of money, to get in prison. That is important to message. All this has to do with communication to the Norwegian people. And if you gladly go into prison, and foresee going to be taken prison, that is much better than that you foresee that have to get some thousands of crowns.

Did you go to prison yourself?

Yes, of course, I asked for it, but you see they wouldn't let me have... To let professor Arne Naess in prison that's not good, ha-ha. So they didn't... practically nobody went into prison. Most, some, because some would, after being carried away, they went back again. A second time and third time. And then they get very harsh...
I mean, in a Green society we would have police also, and police have no choice. You can... Police who are against this dam, they couldn't say: 'No, thank you, I will not go there and carry them away.'
Carrying is also interesting. As a fairly old man, I would talk to the police, asking for what training they had in order to carry so many people and so on. I mean, having a good chat with the police.

What was the slogan of the activists?

The slogan seemed to be very well chosen, it was: Let the river live! La Elva leve. In Norwegian: La Elva leve. Let the river live. Marvellous! I don't know who made that slogan but whooo, like fire, that was the thing! Let the river live. Not: We need not electricity, we can have electricity from other places here in Alta. It's... we had specialists showing that that was an alternative. Getting from further south and not disturbing anything Sami. But: Let the river live. And that is typical deep ecology, you see.

But people would say: the river is still living, when there is a dam. It is still going on, after the dam...

No, it is dammed up and it's... the life of it is harmed, according to the feelings of the population. And it is also clear that the river, the term 'the river' also includes people living around there, the river. And using the river for fishing. Using the river for everything, so letting the river live includes of course what you call the ecosystem. In ordinary people's mind, they have an idea of ecosystem, so...

Isn't it a form of nature mysticism?

I think that is a too strong term. But certainly some of the theoreticians have a kind of nature mysticism. If you use the term 'mysticism' and 'unity', that you feel a unity with nature, many people will say 'Yes, I feel a unity with nature. I feel I am part of nature', they say, in a way and, 'Well, but don't you see there are relations that distinguish... distinction between culture and nature.' And they say: 'Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. There is something there.' If you are a Sami, you might say: 'This place is part of myself.' Saying that it... You may use the term 'mysticism', but it's unfortunate I think, to use it, because so many people think of religion in a sense that is not appropriate.

Can you maybe tell again... You told it already yesterday outside, but that the Sami people saw the river as some part of themselves?

The Sami, where he was staying, that was part of himself. And river, river is part of his self. And he is part of the river. And he is part of the river and the river is part of his self.
He was staying at the riverside, where they were going to have the road. And he was not supposed to stay there, and the police asked: 'Why do you stay here? It is not... Why do you stay here?' And he said: 'This is part of myself. I cannot leave a part of myself. And this is said completely spontaneously by Sami people without any kind of formal education. So it is a spontaneous reaction. 'You hurt me, you hurt me if you do something to this place.'

Some people will say: 'To talk about the sacredness of the soil, for instance, reminds us of Himmler. What is you response to that?

Haah! Himmler had a sense of archaeology and certain other things. But to make a kind of argument, saying that... to somebody who is eating: 'Well there are people who eat other people, how can you eat, thinking of those people who are eating other people?' It is just like if you don't have a good relation to your old mother: 'Goebbels had a good relation to his old mother, so how can you have a good relation to your old mother. Goebbels had that. Hitler talked in favour of nature, how can you talk in favour of nature?' And so on, you see. It is so stupid. But it is interesting that Hitler of course liked nature, because of these what he called 'eternal laws of nature', which is struggle and violence, and physical strongest and mentally strongest would kill the weakly. Now, that is very... looking down upon weakness is one of the important, very important ingredients of both National Socialism and fascism. And then to have a kind of... every human being has intrinsic value, that is absolutely poisonous for fascists and National Socialists, that every human being as such has intrinsic value, ha! Tigers, maybe, but not humans.

You yourself have had quite some experience with the Fascist occupation of Norway.

Five years, so we learned a lot. And of course, I was in Oslo and in 1934, '35, when the students started being Nazified [sigh]. And the daughter of my psycho-analyst had to jump out of the window. First floor, but... because somebody... There was kind of excitement among the students and they would be violent, go getting violent. And so the violent... the strategy of violent solution of conflict is also the second ingredient. There is no plus to have a non-violent solution of a deep conflict. The real thing is to get a violent solution.

You were active in the Resistance movement too.

Yes, and I was active in an organization that was violent. Spying, I mean, secret... what you call it, secret service. So I sometimes carried a lot of weapons in my rucksack [grins]. But I wouldn't use weapons of any kind, and, but I didn't look down upon those who were fighting with weapons during... against Hitler, against the Nazis, no.

Did you also spend time here, in the hut when Norway was occupied?

Yes, some when... especially when the university was shut. I was here for a long time and the head of the Gestapo in Geilo heard about this hut, and thought: 'Aahh! It better be burned.' But they didn't find it! Ha-ha.
But then when I was here with two of my most darling students, somebody came and said: '[making sound of gasping for breath] Gestapo insists that you come down to the headquarters of Gestapo at Geilo.' And I decided: of course we do that, we do not try to evade it and with my two darling students we went down to headquarter and those two students were pacifists and absolutely passive during the war. And they were very good in German. I had already written a book in German, so we were all very good in German. And the sense of humour of those students are just unbelievable. So, from the very start, there was some kind of strangeness about us, you see. And this chief of Gestapo there gradually gets a more mellow, especially when I was... They were... had... got hold of a big, big tank of milk, eight litres, and they all drank it and they left it on the road. And the Gestapo then thought maybe this is for the sabotage... saboteurs on the Hardangervidda, the 'heavy water people' and so on. I didn't... they didn't tell me that they really drank all the eight litres, those two, two students drinking all... so I then started telling them: 'What? Did you drink all that? And it is war now, I mean; so many people don't have any kind of... any kind like that! How could you drink eight litres?' You see, and I scolded my students, and the Gestapo chief, you see. There a professor was scolding. He simply couldn't resist... he didn't smile, but he was mollified, totally. And that day... 'Well, you are not supposed to go back to the cottage. You two students. But from the police you will get two tickets to get this train back to Oslo.' And leaving the place, they said: 'Thank you for this being able to get the ticket', you see. And then: 'No, no, don't thank them!’ that was going too far with the Gestapo! [grins]. I said: 'No, no.' But it was such... it was a fantastic event for all three, and for the head of this Gestapo thing, this situation.

Did you spend time during the war looking out of the window to see if they were coming for you?

No, I didn't really, because I didn't know at the time that they were looking. I only knew that later, after Geilo and people saying: 'Oh, they try to...' and so on. So I was not looking. I was completely relaxed here, not knowing that it may be burnt down, ha-ha.

Above the turmoil in the rest of Norway, so to speak.

What do you think of people who say that the deep ecology viewpoint is: 'Nature is more important than humans'?

To say something like that, 'Nature is more important than humans', is so nonsensical from a deep ecology point of view, because human are fantastic beings, with each of them having intrinsic value, and to think that we should kill some of them, or anything like that But the more people we are, the more difficult it is to keep up the richness and diversity of nature.
So, one of points, the eight points is: 'It would be better for humans if there were fewer, and much better for non-humans.' We have also formulations saying that an increase... eh, decrease of human population is necessary to have the non-humans realize their potentialities. But the term decrease - then people think in terms of one generation. And even if it is said again and again and again, this is questions of hundreds of years, it would be strange if we were able to do it within 400 years, and against... and down-scaling the population, it is enough, if there is half... among 400 babies, there is one less, every year. Or 200 babies were placed where there really produce 200 babies... if they're produced 199: that's enough, in the rich countries. So, you wouldn't really feel the change that is necessary in the production of babies. And if ten percent of un... of babies who are not really produced because of the parents really want them - there are so many unwanted babies - if you could reduce that to ten percent, that would be fabulous in the rich population.
And in the non-rich, of course, they are not disturbing nature yet, but the next century, there is a problem there, also in the Third World.

It is not imperialist of us to say this to the Third World?

No, we just see that you cannot be imperialist because there are no new continents. You are very unfortunate. We have exploited new continents in order to get rich. You cannot get rich because there are no more continents. But we have to go down in material standard of living; we have to go down, so far enough, that when we stop going down, what... how we live is universalisable. That's to say: the others could also live on that level, without catastrophic consequences. And we have to go down, as... so far, far enough that eight or ten thousand million people could live on that level without seriously, and very seriously destroy much of what I call the 'free nature', non-dominated by humans. 'Free nature' is the term for pieces of nature not dominated by humans, like the area here.

Why is it so important to respect the richness and diversity, to not reduce it?

Well, I think this is... people who have had the opportunity to live as children in free nature, they will not... to them it is very important for their quality of life. And it's important also, because if you have had free nature, access to free nature, you are inclined to keep up the richness and diversity, and you will see that it is meaningful to do something for other beings than just humans. If you get depressed, the only thing to have a little nature is good for you, yourself, and you get this notion that they are, in a very deep sense, similar to us, in having interests. They are interested in not being trampled on, they are interested in water. You see, the plants, going down for lack of water and you have joy from helping them.
So, that's the... when people get sufficient opportunity to live as they wish to live, most people will be in favour of the richness and diversity of life on this fantastic planet. I mean, there may be only one in our galaxy among more than hundred-thousand million stars, there would be a planet, and we... And this is for my philosophy very important, that I am in a galaxy here, and there are hundreds of millions of years behind me, before I was made. And I couldn't sit here and talk without this happenings hundreds of millions years ago. So I feel I have one second of life now in this fantastic development that is infinitely greater than me. And that's a good feeling.

Is it not, in a way, necessary for real human fulfilment to have this access to free nature?

Well, I think that the people never had access to free nature. They could just as high level of Self-fulfilment and Self-realization. But, if you talk about... what we have in German, the saying, or in Norwegian: alsider, that is to say: all-sidedness of maturity. Then one aspect of your maturity would be a mature way of looking at other life forms than humans. So, I think that Self-realization, as I call it... if that is supposed to be all-sided or many-sided, then the relation, the more or less deep ecology relations, to nature is one of the things you would have to have in this all-sided maturity of human beings. But some people are so tremendously mature in their family life, in their community life, and so on. So I wouldn't say there is something lacking there in Self-realization. I wouldn't say that at all. But if you take all sides together, then: I say what I say. So then, there is no arrogance necessary in deep ecology movement, no. whhpp.

Can you maybe tell a bit more about this idea of richness? What richness is, for instance here, you might say it is only snow and rock, still...

Well, there are some animals, for instance foxes, who live around here, and one of them, I looked through this window, seeing the fox staying and looking at me. And that's a tremendous experience, a wild animal living here all year. All year! I do not do that. Staying there and looking into my eyes and I looked into his eyes - I don't know whether it is a female or not -; And I tried to give some food, I don't know, we always wish to give some food of something and... but he didn't quite like when I was throwing something. It... but then it went about three metres further away, and was listening. Because they are able to listen through the snow, for lemmings or mice, you see. They can hear, they can hear some... Trusting me! Not being interested in me any longer, but trusting me. And the more you have of animals around here, the... the greater you feel your life here. So I am very sorry that it is not much to be seen [coughing], it's... you have some marvellous birds, of course, the eagle, and so on.

There is a difference between abundance and richness.

No. I use richness, and abundance would be a better, a more precise term. But somehow, 'abundance': you think just about the number. Whereas, the term 'richness', I like that because it is a little more than just counting.
And it's very different from biodiversity, of biodiversity, we say. It is very different from biodiversity, because, there may be biodiversity, but only as tourists you can see if... you see practically no wild animals. But they're all, they're all, yes, we have enough, but there is a surplus of whales, we eat those, the surplus, we need not be afraid of extinction. So bio... biodiversity has to do with the limit of extinction. And: If people of other planets come here, they may tell... say to us: 'We have... Don't, worry, don't worry, don't worry. We are not interested in the limit of extinction. But we will cut down some of the population of you and our method of killing, our method of reducing the number is so much superior to your.

Go to Part 5