Summing up, then, it should first of all, be borne in mind that the norms and tendencies of the Deep Ecology movement are not derived from ecology or logic or induction. Ecological knowledge and the life style of the ecological field worker have suggested, inspired and fortified the perspectives of Deep Ecology movements.

Secondly, it should be fully appreciated that the significant tenets of the Deep Ecology movement are clearly and forcefully normative. They express a value priority system only in part based on result (or law of results) of scientific research. Today, ecologists try to influence policy-making bodies largely through threats, through predictions concerning pollutants and resource depletion, knowing that policy makers accept at least certain minimum norms concerning health and just distribution. There are political potentials in this movement which have little to do with pollution and resource depletion.

Thirdly, in so far as ecology movements deserve our attention, they are ecophilosophical rather than ecological. Ecology is a limited science which makes use of scientific methods. Philosophy is the most general forum of debate on fundamentals, descriptive as well as prescriptive, and political philosophy one of its subsections. By an ecosophy, I mean a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy as a kind of Sofia wisdom, is openly normative; it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and hypotheses concerning the state of affairs in our universe. An ecosophy is more like a system of the kind constructed by Aristotle or Spinoza. The basic relation is that between subsets of premises and subsets of conclusions, that is, the relation of derivability. Under the name of ecologism, various deviations from the deep movement have been championed with a one sided stress on pollution and resource depletion.