What do I mean by “no more ‘people’ “?

The phrase could mean “no more people than we have now” — limiting our population for the sake of other species — or it even could mean “zero people.” There’s a group called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement with the slogan, “May we live long and die out.”

What I really mean by “no more ‘people’ “ is something that both of these ideas exemplify: no more putting people first. Just as scientific discoveries prompted a shift in paradigms from a geocentric to a heliocentric solar system, discoveries about human relatedness with other species call for a shift in priorities from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism.

This is the heart of a philosophy I like very much: deep ecology. Its tenets include:

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth have value in themselves.

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.

Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

How would putting the earth first make things different?

Instead of weighing the costs and benefits of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we never would have considered it.

No more clear-cutting. Though it’s loggers’ preferred method of harvesting trees, it also causes the most damage to forest wildlife and soil.

Don’t develop any more undeveloped land. Instead, “un-develop” land. The Great Plains Restoration Council is working to create the Buffalo Commons, a restored corridor from Mexico to Canada where buffalo can migrate freely.

To take the principle even further, individuals could put the earth’s interest even ahead of their own. Many people talk about helping the world by doing what they love, but it’s rare to hear of people making sacrifices for the biosphere the way they would for families and friends. Yet there are plenty of sacrifices that would help, such as choosing not to have children.

I think putting the earth first ironically can help us deal with some of the hardships of not being first anymore ourselves.

While there might not be a god taking care of us, we can take solace in having an earth that takes care of us.

Some people find it depressing to think that “humans are just animals.” But if we appreciated the intelligence and importance of other animal species, the view could be, not “Oh, humans are just animals,” but rather “Wow! Humans are animals!”

I can think of nothing that would increase my peace of mind more than knowing my species was living sustainably and equitably in the world. It’s the difference between being in orbit in a space station, and hurtling toward the ground in a crashing plane.

Many people diagnose our culture with narcissism (e.g. Christopher Lasch). It’s not hard to see why individuals would be narcissistic, when our species as a whole is among the most narcissistic in terms of its dealings with the ecosystem. If our species respected the interests of other species, maybe we’d respect the interests of other humans.

We might no longer believe in life in the traditional sense, but when we see ourselves as part of the world, and food for other species just as they are food for us, death isn’t as daunting.

Deep ecology can be a general return to eastern and earth-based religious practices. I personally don’t believe in “God,” but I certainly believe in the earth (I can see it, feel it, no one asks me whether I believe in it, etc.) and I have good reason to be grateful for it, since it provides for my needs and so forth. Lately, there’s been discussion (e.g. in “The God Gene”) — about our need to worship something. Why not “worship” the earth and the biosphere? Deep ecology is starting to sound like tribal religion.

There’s yet another meaning to the call for “no more ‘people.’ “ Maybe it would be good if we ceased to see “people” as non-animals and “people” as owners of the earth and went back to being more like “humans” as the diverse, intelligent species that lived more or less in equilibrium with the earth for thousands of years. In that sense of the phrase, too, I advocate no more people: not too many people, not people first and not people as pariahs of the ecosystem. But “humans” as Homo sapiens, putting the earth they depend on ahead of themselves, I advocate whole-heartedly.

Andrea Runyan is a junior in Mathematical and Computational Science. Her e-mail address is arunyan@stanford.edu.