Deep Ecology

What is the distinction between shallow and deep ecology and in what sense is Deep Ecology “deep” according to the theory itself?
So called 'shallow' ecology taken to be conservative and superficial. It fails to take into account spiritual considerations, thinks firmly within the bounds of capitalism and only in terms of instrumental value. It is anthropocentric: considering the natural world valuable only in the context of human concerns. Deep Ecology tries to take a 'spiritual perspective', which is more reflective, less anthropocentric, and more apt to consider long term implications. Importantly, it aims to present a comprehensive religious and philosophical world view: not just a set of prescriptions about how to interact with the environment.

What are the three main versions of deep ecology?
The three main versions of deep ecology differ primarily according to the entities to which they ascribe moral standing.

Bio-centric: places value upon every living organism. [e.g. Arnie Naess, Bill Deval and George Sessions]

Eco-centric: places value on ecosystems (a biological community of interacting organisms and their environment) (e.g. Leopold)

Land-centric: places value on land, that is, to non-animate matter, it being the origin of everything animate. (e.g. Leopold, Saitlo)

State and explain the two ultimate norms of Deep Ecology.
The two basic norms of Deep Ecology are (1) Self-realization and (2) Bio-centric equality. These norms were apparently arrived at by Naess after a 'deep questioning process', they are 'underivable'. 

The first refers to the 'realization of self in Self', which is to say, the realisation of the individual self in the context of the whole, the overcoming of the individual ego in favour of a broader ecological consciousness in which one is recognised as part of an all-encompassing unity. This is a familiar idea - I recognise it in Hegel and in (my limited comprehension of) Buddhism.

The second norm argues that all entites in the biosphere have an equal right to live and flourish. As part of the whole, all organisms are equal in intrinsic worth. If we harm anything, we harm ourselves - we are the unity. The logic of the second norm is easily reduced to absurdity: can we seriously ascribe equal importance to every living organism, including pests and virusses such as AIDS?

If bio-centric equality tries to overcome anthropocentrisim, why not stop there? Why is bio-centricism any better? What about inanimate matter?

What are the eight basic principles of Deep Ecology?
As outlined by Naess, the eight basic principles of Deep Ecology are pretty vague. They can be read as a hodge-podge of platitudes or as a series of highly controversial, perhaps even ludicrous, claims. It's a shame I read the extract by Deval and Session (1985) so early on because its outrageous pseudo-scholarship completely discredited the label 'deep ecology' for me, leading me to initially disregard some of the more interesting thinkers associated with the movement. I remain, nevertheless, uneasy about the label; the extract from their book read more like a proselytising quasi-religious pamphlet than an academic piece, and the shameless use of 'spiritual' and 'deep' to give a sense of profundity to the ideas was really surpising. On first reading, I couldn't believe the article was included in an academic anthology. I then remembered that this is a course in applied philosophy, and that perhaps it was included as a 'primary source' - e.g. an indication of the kind of thinking/writing found in real world environmental movements.

       1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have intrinsic value. [bio-centric equality]
       2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
       3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human 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 higher 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 the necessary changes.

References:
Devall, B. & Sessions, G. (1985) Deep Ecology (Salt Lake: Peregrine Smith)