The Trumpeter - Journal of Ecosophy (Athabasca University)

Naess, Arne

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 4 
 
Local Grounds and  
Personal Mythologies 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Volume 21, Number 2 37
The Trumpeter  
ISSN: 0832-6193 
Volume 21, Number 2 (2005) 
 
 
The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology 
1993AT 
Arne Naess 
 
 
 
 
This paper was originally published in Nature: The True Home of Culture, 
edited by Børge Dahle, 1994, Oslo: Norges Idrettschøgskole, pp. 15–18. 
Has Norway anything to tell the world—something that is more or less 
specific for Norway and that should be appreciated by the world—
before our little nation disappears, becomes just a tiny province among 
societies of the future superclass? I don't know anything other than the 
classic Norwegian friluftsliv: free-air-life. Norwegians walk, run, creep 
into nature to get rid of whatever represses them and contaminates the 
air, not only the atmosphere. They don't talk about going out, but in and 
into nature. There they find themselves, who they are, what they stand 
for. And then they come back more whole, more sure of themselves, 
more ready to face the problems that will inevitably confront them in 
cities, towns, even in their old local communities. 
  
A sort of escapism? No. A sort of finding oneself, standing up, not like 
Peer Gynt “going round” and “avoiding.” And also, of course, drinking 
of the beauty, majesty, and generosity of nature. 
  
The above is an idealization, but judging from what people from other 
countries say, it is still a living tradition. People seeking companions 
through small personal advertisements in newspapers write remarkably 
often, something like this: “I love to walk in the woods and among the 
mountains.” This ensures that very, very many readers think: “Well, at 
least one good character trait.”  
  
I do not at all maintain that we have been wise in our environmental 
policy. We have been thoughtless and greedy for money, and have 
destroyed a lot. But we have our contradictory traits like most others, I 
assume. 
  
The Trumpeter 38 
 
 
I cannot resist the temptation to mention one very special friluftsmann, 
free-air-person. 
  
In 1991, King Olav the Fifth of Norway died. His popularity was 
overwhelming. But here I shall only dwell on a subject I haven't seen 
others focus on, the pictures accompanying his New Year’s television 
speeches to the people of Norway. During the speech we see one 
mountain landscape after the other, some with mountain flowers, others 
with nothing but snow, ice, and rock. Rarely do we see any people: 
there are no cities, and the houses, or better, homes, of humans, are 
inconspicuous. King Olav showed something that, at the time, was 
called an underdeveloped country. Now the term “developed country” 
has been discredited because it always refers to the rich industrial 
countries. Their obvious and increasing consumption should not be 
characterized by a plus-word like “development.” The worst that can 
happen is for the so-called developing countries to “develop” the 
consumerism of the rich. 
  
Olav the Fifth was a remarkable king who, in a unique way, illustrated 
the first words of our national anthem: “Yes, we do love this country  
. . .” It is not conceived as our country, in the sense of a country 
belonging to humans, it belongs to itself. About 50 per cent of its area is 
along, about, or above the timberline. But from the pictures shown 
during the New Year’s speech, one might think that practically all of it 
consists of mountains and only at rare places are there the modest 
homes of humans. 
  
What to me is most remarkable is the absence of comments about the 
pictures. I have never heard anybody utter any comment. It is as if 
everybody thinks “Of course, the King shows the land as it is in its 
grand beauty; the King expresses the population's love of the majestic 
land in his humility and love. No talk about its constitution, its 
democracy, the country's material progress.” 
  
Sometimes we are reminded of a streak of antidevelopment visions. 
Ibsen contrasts love and development. The tragic figure of John Gabriel 
Borkman, the central figure of the play with his name as the title, 
illustrates the self-destructive, self-centred illusion of a grandiose 
exploitation of nature, making nature into merely a resource. Borkman 
says he hears music in the mines. It is heard when the miners work to 
get at the mineral wealth. “. . . the metal sings, in its own way, out of 
joy,” anticipating to “serve mankind!” And to serve him in his way to 
“power and glory.” He loves the metal: “I love you, I love you . . .!” 
Nevertheless, a “metal hand” grasps him and he dies. After five years in 
Volume 21, Number 2 39
prison for malpractice, his dream of being a great developer kills him 
and his relation to his nearest. 
  
There is another play of Ibsen, the only classical play focusing on toxic 
pollution and how vested interests may obstruct the efforts to warn the 
population about threats to their health: The Enemy of the People. “The 
whole of our flourishing municipal life derives its sustenance from a 
lie!” (that there is no threat from heavily polluted water). The 
representative of “the people” responds: “The man who can throw out 
such offensive insinuations about his town must be an enemy of our 
community.” Ibsen warns that when there is a conflict between 
economic interests and health, people will generally support what gives 
them employment and income. 
  
I have been asked to speak about the Norwegian roots of deep ecology. 
What I have so far said refers to separate points of interest, but I must 
now try to outline what is called the deep ecology movement as a 
movement within environmentalism in a broad sense. The supporters of 
the deep ecology movement try to contribute to the protection of the 
abundance and diversity of life on Earth. This they have in common 
with all active environmentalists. What is special for them may be said 
this way: Their efforts are supported by their life philosophy or 
religious views. They tend to explain their eagerness to protect referring 
to their most basic views and attitudes, their value priorities, their 
understanding of what makes life meaningful.  
  
Seen from a fairly narrow logical point of view which I like, the 
supporters of the deep ecology movement might be said to try to derive 
their relevant practical decisions in concrete situations from their 
ultimate premises in life. This gives them a particular strength, but may 
also result in undue reliance on particular philosophical or religious 
doctrines. But combined with a non-violent ethics of love and respect as 
part of their fundamental views, they are inoculated against fanaticism. 
What they have in common is difficult to formulate in a few sentences. 
My own proposal is as follows: 
 
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on 
Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, 
inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness 
of the nonhuman world for human purposes. 
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization 
of these values and are also values in themselves. 
The Trumpeter 40 
 
 
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity 
except to satisfy vital needs. 
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a 
substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of 
nonhuman life requires such a decrease. 
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is 
excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic 
economic, technological, and ideological structures. The 
resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the 
present. 
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality 
(dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to 
an increasingly high standard of living. There will be a profound 
awareness of the difference between big and great. 
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation 
directly or indirectly to try to implement necessary changes. 
 
  
It is not difficult for people who have the responsibility for Norwegian 
environmental policy to subscribe to these principles. Actually, 
practically all those whom I have asked in a long letter, subscribe 
without any substantial reservations. So they talk about priorities, the 
question of producing “clean” hydroelectric power, the need for roads 
to reach every beautiful spot, and so on. But the basic attitude is there, 
and it is the Norwegian root of deep ecology.  
 
Editor’s note: a full account of this research may be found in SWAN 
Volume 10, section 2, no. 6. 
 
Volume 21, Number 2 41


The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology

The Trumpeter  
ISSN: 0832-6193 
Volume 21, Number 1 (2005) 
 
 
Accelerating Population Pressure or 
Overpopulation? 
1997K 
Arne Naess 
 
It was for a long time my hypothesis that nearly everybody who 
supports the deep ecology movement would accept point 4 of the 8 
points. Many were enthusiastic that such a dangerous point of view was 
stated explicitly. Others said that the 8 points should not contain an 
opinion about the main cause of the ecological crisis, or the main 
process to get the crisis reduced as soon as possible. They said that to 
mention the population issue as it is done in Point 4 inevitably makes 
people think that overpopulation is sorted out both to specify main 
cause and main remedy. To specify this was not my intention in 1973, 
when I pointed to unsustainable ways of production and consumption. 
The ecofeminist and social ecologist movements specialize in definite 
causes and remedies. (Mostly too narrowly, I feel. History is very 
complex and realistic remedies will be complex, the frontier is long.) 
  
In Europe something extremely unfortunate happened. People who 
looked upon activists in the ecological movements as members of a 
self-seeking pressure group or a group of sheer terrorists, unfortunately 
found quotations, and alleged quotations, from Dave Foreman that 
easily could be used to blackpaint the movement. The movement was 
widely declared to be compatible with fascism: Dave Foreman is a 
prominent supporter and could be perceived to entertain fascist 
opinions. To actively decrease the human population is easily 
interpreted as a fascist undertaking.  
  
When the French writer Luc Ferry made that point in a book on the 
deep ecology movement, it was widely read and was immediately 
translated into other languages. Even the Norwegian edition was 
occasionally taken seriously as a fair description of the movement.   
 
Unfortunately I have not succeeded in pointing to forceful quotations 
from recent publications by Dave Foreman that might once and for all 
The Trumpeter 90 
 
 
undermine the suspicion of latent fascism. The suspicion of fascism is 
very much alive today. However, nobody should accuse me of being a 
fascist. 
  
Instead of using the expression “overpopulation” I use expressions like 
“accelerating population pressure,” referring to pressures among groups 
of people and pressures against animals, vegetation, and landscapes. 
Very few seem to relate such pressures to fascism.  
  
In the USA, we may rejoice that Dave Foreman will gleefully light his 
campfire beneath the varied crowd that refuses to recognize the 
overpopulation crisis (Wild Earth, population issue memo 3-97), but 
those who try to protect the dwindling patches of free nature in Europe 
and in the Third World (for example Vandana Shiva) seem to have to 
avoid the overpopulation terminology in favour of a rather complex 
vocabulary which includes the expression “population pressures,” but 
not overpopulation. And I am sorry to say, to invoke the help of Dave 
Foreman would be counterproductive. I hope this situation will change.  
 
Volume 21, Number 1 91


Accelerating Population Pressure or Overpopulation?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 1 
 
Total Views, Forms of Life,  
and Open Inquiry 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Trumpeter 48 
 
 
The Trumpeter  
ISSN: 0832-6193 
Volume 21, Number 1 (2005) 
 
 
Does Humanity Have a Cosmic Role? 
Protecting and Restoring the Planet 
1996J 
Arne Naess 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I
w
b
a
p
m
 
W
c
p
h
s
f
C
w
t
 
I
b
t
h
t
c
d
b
l
VThis article is a based on the transcription of an address given at the University
of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on April 4, 1996. The transcription 
became an article that was published in Environmental Network News, 
May/June 1996, pages 19–20.  am practically overwhelmed by this reception and I don’t understand 
hy so many people would come to listen to something that seems to 
e one of the last questions you would ask, namely, does humanity have 
 cosmic role in protecting and, maybe to some extent, restoring the 
lanet. I’ll say that we might have a cosmic role. And that means it is 
ore than a planetary role. Let me explain what I mean. 
 
e are on a planet that is a tiny, tiny speck in an enormous galaxy we 
all the Milky Way. It is nearly impossible to think that with so many 
lanets and stars, there are not other planets resembling the planet we 
ave the honour to inhabit. So I think we are not alone. But there are 
uch distances that we are, practically speaking, completely alone, so 
ar as I can see. It might take 50,000 years to get an answer to a 
hristmas card, and while I feel sure there are some bodies out there 
ho would like to get a Christmas card, we will never get in touch with 
hese people if relativity theory is correct. 
 
f we have on this planet a role that could be called cosmic, I think it is 
ecause we are the only creatures within enormous distances, creatures 
hat can consciously feel and understand life, what’s going on, what it 
as cost, and how long a time it has taken to have people here. Three 
housand million years, this miracle of evolution has taken! When 
reatures moved out of the water and onto the land, they were 
emonstrating what the French have called an “élan vitale.” This means 
reaking the limitations, getting into new worlds and new ways of 
iving, transcending any kind of goal you have so far, any kind of style. 
olume 21, Number 1 49
So you crawl up out of the water: I think there are still possibilities that 
humanity could crawl up to somewhat more dignified behaviour. It 
sounds unlikely but it could happen that within a very short time, say 
five hundred years, we could reach a level of consciousness about 
where we are and what we are able to do, such that we would say “We 
cannot treat this planet as we do.” And in a manner that is completely 
ethically justifiable, we will try to be fewer instead of being more and 
more. Wherever you are, you should live on the land in a way that does 
not destroy it. 
  
This seems very unlikely, but so many unlikely things have happened 
this century. There have been some very bad things, such as wars, but 
there were other, more cheerful things that were absolutely 
unpredictable. So, I am an optimist, for the 22nd Century, that we will 
be on the way to achieving more ecological sustainability. But in the 
21st Century, I think we will have a much worse time before we have 
the courage and enough motivation to change our behaviour to enjoy 
the planet without destroying it. In the long run, we will manage, but 
we need to have a long-term perspective. The Earth has fantastic 
resources, and if we can just reduce the number of our bad habits, 
things will go all right. 
  
But then what about restoration? Many people think that we have 
destroyed, or standardized (which is a much better word for it) the 
landscapes. Not only have we reduced biodiversity but we have reduced 
differences of every kind. Restoration is very difficult, and I do not 
think we can restore very much. Rather, we can limit what we do of the 
bad things in areas still not dominated by humans. Instead of 
wilderness, I use the term “free nature.” One great goal is that every 
little child should have access to free nature, because it will help them 
understand very easily that other living beings, like themselves, like to 
live, they are wonderful to look at, and to be together with.  
  
I started being together with certain small animals in the water when I 
was about four. When I was walking in the water, tiny fish and 
crustaceans would run away, then circle back under my foot; because 
they like to have places to hide, they hid from me under my foot. I felt 
this tremendous power that we have as human beings compared to those 
tiny crabs, but also I felt the nearness of these creatures at the same 
time. Most children don’t have this opportunity any longer and that is 
bad. So we have to go back again and give every small child the 
opportunity to experience nonhuman dominated areas. That is the great 
goal, I think. It makes me optimistic to hear about offering teenage 
criminals in big cities opportunities to get into the national parks to 
The Trumpeter 50 
 
 
experience, often for the first time, free nature. After a couple of weeks, 
they see the same as I see, even though I have had all these 
opportunities already early in my life. 
  
On the other hand, we know that we have a system of economic growth 
with a tendency to say “yes” to bigger and bigger markets. In this way, 
countries such as Japan, the United States, and Europe can agree to 
collaborate, so that we get ten times as much trade, ten times as much 
transport, and so on into the future. At the same time that the ecology 
movement, especially the more radical deep ecology movement, is 
getting stronger, the opponents are also gaining in strength. These are 
not people who lack sensitivity, but people who are just part of the 
system. The so-called green backlash, the forces against taking ecology 
seriously, are rapidly gaining in power. This will limit efforts to restore 
and the possibility for political forces to implement new policies. In 
Norway, as in many other countries, we talk about politicians in a rather 
negative way, but then we vote for exactly the same kind of people next 
year. My reaction is that we should not talk this way because we are the 
ones who vote for these people. If somebody is really courageous, 
saying that we must reduce our material standard of living and retain 
our quality of life, then we are mostly silent. We criticize when they say 
something we don’t like, but we don’t say much when we like what 
they say. It is my impression that it is still the “ordinary people,” those 
who feel they have no power, who do have the power to change. 
  
In terms of the cosmic role, I think it means that we should try to 
internalize the feeling of the millions of years behind us. You cannot 
neglect who you really are and where you are. It is so important for us 
sometimes to truly feel what fantastic creatures we are; to recognize 
that the difference between Einstein and Leonardo de Vinci and you is 
small compared with the difference between you and any other creature 
on this planet. We are such fantastic beings in our capacities. It is 
inconceivable that we could neglect who we are, neglect thinking how 
great we are compared with anything else within any distance. We are 
able to think and to imagine an immense number of kinds of words and 
worlds, which nobody else on this planet can do. Couldn’t we, more 
often, do things and teach things that are relevant to the deepest 
knowledge and deepest feelings we have on this planet? 
  
This is my answer, and it is only formulated as a question because what 
I am saying here, and what I am hoping (and what I am hoping not), is 
that nobody is competent in these questions, nobody. We should better 
reflect on who we are, and feel that the choices we have as humans are 
not the same choices as for a pig, although a pig is a wonderful 
Volume 21, Number 1 51
creature. We have the feeling, I think correctly, that the variety of 
choices open to a pig compared with us is tiny. The choices we have are 
large because of our brains, which we use mostly for no good. One of 
my speeches, which has been repeated many times over the radio, asks, 
“How can you undirect yourself, as you seem to do, when you have so 
much creativity?” Our needs are so immensely fewer in number than 
we seem to believe, looking at how much we consume. I think it has to 
do with a fundamental uncertainty inside; if you are a little uncertain of 
yourself, it is easier to follow the system, to follow what others do. 
  
Not all people are content doing the same as others, listening the same, 
looking the same, telling the same stories. Sometimes people want to go 
in a different or uncommon direction. In my life, I have had a certain 
amount of independence. I listen to what others have written and said, 
and I am glad to get the instruction, but in matters outside mathematics, 
I also can identify things I like or don’t like. 
  
I will end with a proposal: Think of yourself as having a cosmic role, 
and then contribute to perfecting that role. And if I come back next 
year, I would ask how people are doing with their cosmic role. How 
conspicuous consumption might be less and yet businesses are still 
thriving. The changes will not lower quality of life. And I end with that 
term “quality of life”; if it is measured according to how you feel about 
your world and your existence and not by how much you have, then 
you will feel greater, not bigger, but greater in your cosmic role. 
 
 
The Trumpeter 52 


Does Humanity Have a Cosmic Role? Protecting and Restoring the Planet?

The Basics of Deep Ecology

Ecosophy, Population, and Sustainable Development

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 2 
 
Values, Systems,  
and Communication Research 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Trumpeter 96 
 
 
The Trumpeter  
ISSN: 0832-6193 
Volume 21, Number 1 (2005) 
 
 
Quality of Life Research 
1998K 
Arne Naess 
 
What is high quality of life? Security against hunger and deprivation? 
No. But the feeling of security against hunger and deprivation must 
count. Good health? No. But the feeling of being in good health must 
count. Being often together with good friends? No. But enjoying being 
often together with good friends must count. Sufficient money and 
decent income? No. But the feeling of having sufficient money and 
decent income must count. Access to art? No. But enjoyment and felt 
positive appreciation of what one classes as art must count. Access to 
higher education? No. But absence of frustration and ill feelings about 
lack of access must count. Extreme fatigue? Not necessarily. If victory 
in a sport seems close at hand, extreme fatigue may be there, but not 
felt. 
 
Two people may seem to be in exactly the same lamentable situation, 
but life quality may be astonishingly different: 
 
Jack and Mac both have cancer and undergo unpleasant, at times 
painful, treatment. Jack is depressed, feels helpless, dispirited, 
cheerless, sullen, discouraged. Mac is on the whole cheerful, has his 
mind at ease and full of spirit. The difference is one of life quality, not 
that of a so-called objective state. 
 
The term “life quality” is in and therefore some conflicting usages 
appear. Most important is a usage that makes the concept, in its 
applications, rather similar to those of standard of living. In this 
situation one has to choose and, evidently, there is a need for a concept 
that fairly consistently traces how one feels rather than what one has or 
what one ought to feel, or what state of feelings might be expected, or 
should be expected, and so on. This leads to the usage I conform to. It is 
a usage of many researchers. But inconsistencies are common and to 
some extent unavoidable. Also, one has to take into account the 
unavoidable vagueness and ambiguity, and last, but not least, the 
Volume 21, Number 1 97
unavoidable search for testability that depends more or less upon 
operational definitions, or sometimes even of one's own feelings, more 
or less indirect means cannot be avoided. 
 
If a person is at ease and feels well it might induce complacency, laxity, 
negligence, unawareness of danger, of consequences of action or 
inaction. Because “life quality” is a plus term, it is natural to get into 
inconsistencies in these cases and start saying the person does not really 
have a high quality of life. The proposed concept is not such that what a 
person should feel is relevant, or what calamities somehow are related 
to joyfulness. A couple of examples will help. 
 
All through 1988 and 1989 Mr. Jones had a good feeling contemplating 
what he called his “excellent health.” The feeling added to his life 
quality. Then he got the information that he had been having a growing 
ulcer all that time. So he had been in error. His feeling of being in good 
health was an illusion, he concluded. Perhaps we should say: He felt he 
had a high quality of life, but not that he had a high quality of life. But 
was his feeling an illusion or was his belief that his health was good an 
illusion? But why should life quality be isolated from feelings? In many 
cases, we may say that a certain positive or negative feeling would not 
occur if we had better knowledge. We need a concept like life quality 
which registers how people actually feel. 
 
Another example: The day after a period of feeling of security in spite 
of the war, Mr. Bernstein, a Norwegian of Jewish faith, woke up on the 
9th of April 1940 in Norway and discovered that the country was being 
occupied by the German Nazis. He felt no security any longer; he felt a 
grave concern as to how to get out of Norway, was afraid of being 
arrested and sent to a concentration camp. Is it the right conclusion to 
draw that, because Mr. Bernstein in reality was not secure in Norway in 
1940, his feeling of security could not add to his quality of life? The 
answer should be: The feeling did add, or to be more specific: The most 
fruitful concept of life quality is such that one should say that Mr. 
Bernstein's feeling of security added to his quality of life. But his 
implicit or explicit assumption of security against Nazi occupation 
turned out to be wrong. His feeling was not wrong and it added to his 
life quality, but the assumption was dangerous and unfortunate. It added 
to his reluctance to follow the advice of people urging him to get out of 
Norway. Some Norwegian Jews in Norway in 1940 and even in 1941 
felt secure but nevertheless followed the advice of their older or more 
authoritative family members to leave Norway. Their feeling of security 
added to their life quality as long as it lasted. In this sense, no adverse 
The Trumpeter 98 
 
 
consequence followed from the false assumption on which the feeling 
rested. 
If we note that Mr. X, a cheerful person, has been put in prison in a hot 
country, with great discomfort relative to the standard he used to enjoy, 
is this so-called objective condition sufficient to note a decrease of life 
quality? To Mahatma Gandhi, and thousands of others, it was a great 
relief to be put in prison. 
 
It is of great methodological and, ultimately, political and philosophical 
interest to clarify the conceptual relations between standard of living 
and quality of life. Roughly, standard of living tells what you possess in 
life, quality of life tells how life feels to you. 
 
After this introductory discourse it is time to step down to facts: What 
has actually been done in life quality research as a strictly empirical 
social science discipline? I shall mainly make use of an excellent 
empirical survey.1 It ends with a list of references to about 100 books 
and articles, a very small percentage, of course, of the total research 
literature, but a good guide for further reading. 
 
Let me start with obviously useful research of a rather limited character. 
For years there had been a controversial issue of whether the very 
unpleasant radiation therapy or the also very unpleasant chemical 
therapy was the worst to endure for the people suffering from 
inoperable lung cancer. For these people the question was of great 
importance and also for their nearest who daily were aware of their 
suffering. The nagging doubt was always present: “Perhaps the other 
kind of therapy is less disagreeable? Why can't the doctors tell?” 
 
A life quality study was started. Through long periods of time the 
researchers reported both the somatic situation and the answers from 
the patients as to how they felt. They focussed on variables such as 
depression, courage to live on, self-respect, confidence, and loneliness. 
The actual wording was standardized, most questions were indirect, that 
is, not of the kind “Do you feel depressed?” The answer to the basic 
question turned out in this study to be rather simple: No clear 
statistically significant difference. The importance of the seemingly 
uninteresting conclusion was clear: There was no reason of a general 
kind to adopt the one or the other therapy, from the point of view of life 
quality. The conclusion simplified practical decisions to some extent. 
 
The concentration on feelings, in a wide sense, including sentiments, 
does not imply that terms which do not directly refer to how one feels 
should be avoided at all costs. “Courage to live on” is not a term used in 
Volume 21, Number 1 99
standard of living investigations, but it belongs to life quality research 
in spite of courage not being a feeling. Lack of courage to live on is 
taken to be symptomatic of depression, a negative basic state with an 
unavoidable negative emotional colour. Self-respect as felt self-respect, 
a feeling of respect for what one is, does likewise belong to the 
vocabulary of how one feels. The latter expression is useful because it 
covers more than just feelings. Confidence may be seen as a state of the 
mind which may be perfectly habitual and possibly devoid of feeling. 
For those less certain about themselves, occasional full confidence is a 
positive component of life quality. 
 
Closer analysis opens rich sources of reflection and may add to one's 
self-knowledge. 
 
The medical projects belong to a wide class of life quality evaluation of 
treatments. Thousands of therapeutic procedures are planned and 
implemented at great costs in our rich societies. Most often they admit 
alternatives, and this causes discussion about their future short term and 
long term effect increasing, maintaining or decreasing life quality of the 
persons affected. When a treatment involves considerable physical and 
mental interference, intense discussion occurs whether the desired 
effect has been obtained. One of the basic questions is “How does the 
patient feel now?” Different mutually incompatible estimates abound. 
In this situation, life quality research is an indispensable tool to bring 
more methodically collected empirical data into the discussion. 
Sometimes the result is seemingly uninteresting: People affected neither 
feel significantly better, nor worse. A new procedure or a reform of the 
old could have been dispensed with. But sometimes a clear difference is 
confirmed, and practice is adapted to life quality research findings. 
 
Some amusing research projects concern the influence of substantial 
increases of income. At least some time after an increase took place 
people were negatively affected. They felt worse! Possible factors: 
separation and divorce, more stress in general or more stressful job, 
change of home, more complicated life, loss of old friends. 
 
A great number of research projects concern the feelings resulting from 
differences of level of income. To be clearly ahead of the Joneses is a 
source of satisfaction. That is, to be ahead of those in the social 
environment with which one compares, whatever the general level of 
material standard of living. In Norway, there were significant increases 
within the five periods 1960–65, 1965–70, . . . 1980–85. There were at 
least five successive steps of increased standards of living. People 
significantly ahead of the Joneses in 1960 would, if they retained their 
The Trumpeter 100
 
 
life quality at that level, be well below the standard of life of the 
Joneses when these moved on to level 3 or 4 or 5. People in 1985 
significantly below the Joneses and feeling badly about it, would live 
on a much higher material standard of living than those in 1965 or even 
1975 who were satisfied being ahead of the Joneses. The bad feelings, 
the low life quality, may therefore persist in spite of great gain in the 
so-called objective standards. 
 
In short, life quality research concerning income levels confirms that it 
is the socially relative level that counts for most people in rich 
countries, not the absolute level; that is, what counts is what people 
have in relation to people in their social environment, not simply what 
they have. 
 
The vast increase of private consumption in rich Western countries, at 
least since 1960, has been a major source of pollution and of declining 
global life conditions in general. Conclusion: The establishment of a 
level of a standard of living significantly below the present in the rich 
countries may not reduce the quality of life. But there will be a period 
of transition in which the prospect of decrease of standard, or the 
decrease itself, would be a source of decrease of quality. Old cherished 
habits, however bad, are changed only with some difficulty. 
 
I assume that there is a serious wish in the rich countries to create 
general conditions favourable to high life quality. Therefore, the need to 
know as clearly as possible what causes increase in life quality as 
distinct from mere standard of living, and economic progress as distinct 
from mere economic growth per capita. 
 
If one per cent of one per cent of the money used to find out about 
human preferences as revealed in markets was put into life quality 
research, it would make people more aware of the possibility of more 
ecologically responsible policies without decreasing what they 
obviously cherish: high quality of life. 
 
Adult education is central and requires the mobilization of universities. 
The outlook for a decrease of material standard of living in the rich 
countries is better if we can persuade a sizeable minority that life 
quality is different from, and more important for, their, and especially 
for their children's, life on Earth than mere high material standard. One 
of the things to be done is to inform the public that the talk about 
quality of life is not mere talk by romantics and idealists, but the subject 
of serious research. 
 
Volume 21, Number 1 101
The rich now tend to reject getting less affluent out of solidarity, and 
the poor tend to think they might all be rich. But what is a rich person, a 
rich community, and a rich country? Something eminently worth 
pursuing (richness) is largely, but not totally, independent of material 
standard, and largely, but not totally, dependent on life quality. 
 
Endnote 
                                                 
1Arne Nastekaasa a.o., Livskvalitetsforskning, Rapport 88:6, Institutt for 
samfunnsforskning, Oslo 1988. 
The Trumpeter 102


Quality of Life Research

 
 
The Trumpeter  
ISSN: 0832-6193 
Volume 21, Number 2 (2005) 
 
 
Mountains 
1992Q Unpublished 
Arne Naess 
 
Are not the mountains, waves and skies a part  
Of me and of my soul, as I of them?      
           Byron1
 
 
In the 1960s, in the West, several ideas rather suddenly gained strength. 
Respect for unindustrialized societies increased. The strange fact was 
acknowledged that people in some stone-aged communities feasted 
much more and worked much less than in our “rich” countries. They 
worked less than half the hours we consider normal. Missionaries told 
about the abysmal poverty, about the abominable things these people 
were forced to eat, such as roots of trees and heads of insects. In the 
1960s, students who learned their languages found that they had a 
richer and more nourishing diet than we have. They enjoyed talking at 
length about what they should have for dinner; they sometimes could 
choose between as many as 80 possibilities. Of course, there were also 
stone age communities in severe poverty, but what was important was 
the new way of looking at the rich countries: from the outside and well 
aware of their weaknesses. 
  
At the same time of this new way of looking at our own “richness,” the 
long range, international deep ecology movement gained momentum. 
When people talked about the resources of the Earth, supporters of the 
deep ecology movement would ask: “Do you mean resources for 
wolves, for eagles, or just for humans?” When people deplored the 
excessive population increases in the “undeveloped” countries, the 
supporters would remind them that a baby born in the richest country 
heralded more damage to nature than 100 babies born in Bangladesh. 
But the unfortunate distinction of “undeveloped/developed,” and the 
later distinction of “developing/developed,” established itself and 
installed the horrible idea that through economic growth all over the 
world, the non-industrial cultures could and should reach the material 
Volume 21, Number 2 51
standard of living, including the level of consumerism, waste, and crime 
rates, of the richest countries. Here again a minority fought the 
dominant, catastrophic notions, but even today the notion of universal 
economic growth, not that of economic-ecological progress is accepted 
by a majority in the rich countries. 
  
An offshoot of the critical attitudes toward the arrogance and 
provinciality of the West concerned Western mountaineering. 
Thousands of small and big expeditions visited mountains in non-
industrial countries and found in many communities a totally different 
attitude towards mountains than the dominant, or at least culturally 
accepted, attitude in the industrial society. I read about the Sherpa tribes 
of the Himalaya in the 1960s that I planned to see for myself. It resulted 
in a series of small expeditions, starting in 1971, with good friends, 
centred around the Sherpa community of Beding in Rolwaling 
Himalaya. Straight up from Beding there are three mountains, the 
“three gods” (Tridevas) about 20,000 feet high and there is a colossal 
one, Gauri Shankar. That mountain, in spite of causing great storms, 
avalanches, and dangers, was venerated even more than the others. 
  
At the frequent great feasts, people would throw a little beer towards 
Gauri Shankar, called locally Tseringma, “The Mother of the Good 
Long Life.” I found an attitude that reminded me of my own attitude 
held towards Hallingskarvet, a great Norwegian mountain, since I was 
about ten. [Where Naess now has his mountain cabin Tvergastein.] 
  
When I started climbing, I felt that the walls and ridges invited me 
cordially, saying “Come on, little speck of dust, come and partake in the 
greatness of both of us together. I have cracks and many more holds 
than you can see from where you stand. Trust me! I shall warn you 
when storms are near. I shall warn you when my snow or ice is ready to 
move down. I shall warn you of any so-called danger! But focus on me, 
not on achievement!” When bad things happened, it was by ignoring 
warnings, by not lovingly having the mountain itself in focus, but some 
silly question relating to our own success. 
  
In the literature of Western (and Japanese) climbers, the features of 
superb mountains and glaciers have been characterized in ways that are 
not those of love and respect: as threatening, menacing, repulsive, 
revolting, insecure, untrustworthy, unreliable, treacherous, hostile, and 
malevolent. The mountain is attacked, assaulted, besieged. It retaliates, 
resists, sends down avalanches . . . 
  
The Trumpeter 52 
 
 
There are enough conflicts in society and the lives of all of us. It is not 
necessary to experience mountains in the same way. 
  
A strong reaction against the idea of the hostility of grand nature started 
in the 1960s. But large expeditions cost a lot of money, and in order to 
get that money, expedition leaders often must let journalists dwell on 
the horrible. And as a jargon, and only a jargon, climbers may persist in 
talking about a mountain as an enemy. 
  
Impressed by the high cultural level of the Sherpas of Beding, we asked 
the people whether they would like expeditions to come and “conquer” 
Gauri Shankar, leaving a lot of money in the village, or see to it that no 
humans should walk on the sacred mountain, in the way they conceived 
sacredness. The leader of the little democracy assembled the 46 families 
and asked that question. Result: 46 voted for saving their Mother of the 
Good Long Life from being degraded by expeditions. Never mind the 
money. Their leader, Gonden, and I walked seven days to the 
government palace with a strong appeal to the King not to permit an 
assault. There were more than 30 applications for expeditions, and it 
was high time to prevent the government from opening up the 
politically sensitive region along the Tibetan border. No answer was 
received, but there was still hope: That alpine clubs would give up their 
requests to attack the sacred mountain. To no avail. To most of the 
climbers, it did not at that time make sense to “save” a mountain. The 
respect of the wishes of the local population was not yet deep enough. 
Today the attitude has changed. Mountains are treated with love and 
respect by a sharply increasing number of climbers. Even the status of 
conscious, serious risk-taking is decreasing. 
  
But, some climbers may retort, if you do not take serious risks, you are 
not going to try the most difficult climbs. Wrong again. Often whether 
on Mount Everest or other mountains, the less risky are often the more 
difficult. For instance, fantastic long and difficult ridges with lots of 
pinnacles. Superbly safe from avalanches and many other so-called 
dangers, but as difficult as anybody can wish. The challenges are there 
as before. 
  
Did my mountain Hallingskarvet always warn? One of my best friends 
fell down the precipice near my cottage and was killed. There was no 
warning. But we had behaved utterly foolishly for several days: 
building a small hut on a ledge that was not horizontal but had an angle 
such that a false step meant certain death within three or four seconds. 
We were irresponsible towards our nearest. He did not suffer, but his 
parents did, the rest of their lives. In the dark autumn evenings, seeing 
Volume 21, Number 2 53
the precipice, what I saw was something cold, dark, and indifferent. But 
not any longer. The accident reminds me that something may always 
happen which makes us see a kind of darkness everywhere. 
  
It is curious how, within a short time, new ideas can get powerful 
enough to change basic attitudes, or at least, contribute significantly to 
the rapid change that other forces of history have prepared. To “fight 
nature” was a largely accepted metaphor in the 1950s. To fight 
“imperialism and nature” was even used in political programs. Still, the 
Antarctic is generally called hostile, but not mountains any longer. Now 
we need to be done with all forms of imperialism, including language 
use, and to actively care for nature and cultural and individual richness. 
  
Here are some books that I feel are worthwhile on these subjects: 
Tobias, Michael C., & H. Drasdo. 1979. The Mountain Spirit. New 
York: Overlook Press. 
LaChapelle, Dolores. 1970. Earth Wisdom. Los Angeles: Guild of 
Tutors Press. 
Nicolson, Marjorie H.1959. Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The 
Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite. Ithaca NY: Cornell 
University Press. 
  
Note 
                                                 
1 From George Gordon Lord Byron (1788-1824) Childe Harold's Pilgrimage: Canto 
the Third. 
 
The Trumpeter 54 


Not a member yet

The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology

Accelerating Population Pressure or Overpopulation?

Does Humanity Have a Cosmic Role? Protecting and Restoring the Planet?

The Basics of Deep Ecology

Ecosophy, Population, and Sustainable Development

Quality of Life Research

Mountains

Western Meadowlark and Toward the Chrysalis

A review of The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology by Frederic L. Bender

Humanity's Relation to Gaia: Part of the Whole, or Member of the Community?

741

1,267