I like that Naess looked further into problems which included views which extended past human economics and their personal interest towards other life forms. I agree with the fact that shallow efforts are being made to protect the environment in lieu of human interest. The idea of setting the bar high for ecological goals is necessary in the comparison with the monumental economic and development goals. Moreover, I agree with the points of deep ecology listed, especially the eighth which describes the obligation to be a part of an environmental movement. Therefore, if it is true that the planet is letting us do away with each other like it allows everything else to do, then it would be my responsibility to try to preserve humanity. This poses a contradictory obligation on me to protect the humanity of which I am a part of and then also speak on the behalf of the Earth and its natural processes being what is necessary. Earth is a closed system in that it preserves matter and therefore natural resources. I conclude then that the only way to save humanity is to save the Earth that we live in. Right now, if I subscribe to Naess’ view, I must spread knowledge and help in the creation of sustainable lifestyle products. The planet has been consumed from and needs replenishment, but I hope the future proves that it will not be with detrimental costs to human existence. However, the notion of earth killing humans intentionally seems bizarre. http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Meteorologist-weeps-as- Earth-prepares-to-kill-off-4860258.php, this link poses the idea that climate change is the means of killing humanity. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that climate change had a positive effect on humans by driving evolution. Check this video out, start at 11:46 http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVo8CXdL5w8.