The most radical strand: ecocentrism, intrinsic value, strong sustainability and a transformation of human consciousness. Named thinkers: Leopold (the Land Ethic), with Schumacher on the economy and Merchant on the mechanistic critique.
Deep green ecology strongly holds the ecocentric view. Humans are one species among many, no more important than any other; anthropocentrism is rejected completely (Leopold's Land Ethic). Value lies in the whole biotic community, not in humanity.
Deep greens strongly hold that nature has intrinsic value. Leopold's Land Ethic extends the moral community to soil, water, plants and animals: an action is right when it preserves the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.
Deep green ecology holds limits to growth in their strongest form. Ecological capacity is fixed, technology cannot substitute for lost ecosystems, and material throughput must shrink. This is strong sustainability pushed to zero growth or degrowth.
Deep greens reject the capitalist growth economy. Schumacher's Buddhist economics, maximum wellbeing with minimum consumption, points to a steady-state economy of zero growth or degrowth; all production is destruction. Strong sustainability outside capitalism.
Environmental consciousness is the heart of deep ecology. Ending the crisis needs a radical inner transformation: a sense of self realised through deep identification with the non-human world, away from materialism toward humility before nature.
Deep green ecology rejects the social-ecology reframing. For deep greens the crisis is about humanity's relationship with nature, not human-on-human hierarchy. Leopold frames it as humans recognising their place in the biotic community, not as fixing social domination.
The reformist strand: enlightened anthropocentrism, weak sustainability and green capitalism, reforming consumer society from within. Named thinker: Carson (Silent Spring; nature seen holistically).
Shallow green ecology rejects ecocentrism. It keeps an enlightened anthropocentrism: humans are part of nature and must be its stewards, but human flourishing remains a legitimate goal. Carson's argument in Silent Spring was that pollution harms humans, so we must change.
Shallow greens reject intrinsic value. Nature has instrumental value: it matters because it serves human wellbeing now and for future generations. Carson protects nature because humans depend on it, not for its own sake.
Shallow green ecology accepts that limits exist but treats them as soft. Weak sustainability trusts technology and substitution to offset ecological losses, so growth can continue if managed carefully (Carson). It accepts the shared base but pulls it the least far.
Shallow greens reject the anti-capitalist line. Capitalism is compatible with ecologism: smarter, slower, greener growth, with market mechanisms and technology doing the work (Carson). Weak sustainability and green capitalism, not the abolition of the market.
Shallow green ecology rejects the need for a change in consciousness. Better policy, cleaner technology and market incentives can deliver greener outcomes without a radical change in how humans understand themselves. Environmental consciousness is deep-green territory.
Shallow green ecology rejects the social-ecology reframing. The problem is managing humanity's impact on nature through reform of the existing state and market, not dismantling human-on-human hierarchy. It works within liberal-democratic structures.
The structural strand: the crisis comes from human-on-human hierarchy, not humanity versus nature. Umbrella over eco-socialism, eco-anarchism and ecofeminism. Named thinkers: Bookchin, with Merchant (ecofeminist) and Schumacher (small-scale economy).
Social ecology sits between the two. It rejects the mainstream anthropocentric, exploitative view, but it does not simply adopt deep-green ecocentrism either: it reads ecology socially, arguing the human relationship with nature follows from how humans relate to each other (Bookchin).
Social ecology is mixed on intrinsic value. It rejects treating nature as a mere commodity, but it locates the wrong in social structures: the death of nature is linked to human oppression (Merchant), and ecological standing is tied to ending domination between humans (Bookchin).
Social ecology strongly holds limits to growth. It rejects the materialist, consumerist way of life and accepts that endless accumulation cannot continue, favouring small-scale local production based on common ownership and mutual aid (Bookchin, Schumacher).
Social ecology rejects the capitalist growth economy. Capitalism, the drive for profit and endless accumulation, is the engine of degradation; the answer is small-scale local production based on common ownership and mutual aid (Bookchin, Schumacher). Strong sustainability outside capitalism.
Social ecology ties consciousness to structure. A change in values is needed, but it follows from transforming the hierarchical social order rather than from a purely inner spiritual shift: fix how humans dominate each other and the relationship with nature follows (Bookchin).
This is social ecology's defining claim. The root of the crisis is human-on-human hierarchy and domination, not humanity versus nature (Bookchin). Eco-socialism traces it to capitalism, eco-anarchism to the state and hierarchy, ecofeminism to patriarchy (Merchant).