  arguing instead for eco-impartiality, thus not valuing members of one species over those of another simply on the basis of species membership, and noting that evaluative impartiality with respect to species does not entail their equal value. More generally, Sylvan (1985) argues that under the strong West Coast US influence deep ecology commits to an assortment of dubious metaphysical and psychological themes—often leading to an anthropocentric “person- and consciousness-oriented soufflé”. And links to religion, in particular pantheism and nature mysticism, threaten to “convert deep ecology into a new religion”. What results is a “deep ecology” that is “conceptually murky” and subject to “degeneration”. As noted in Section 1, laying out these points of difference with deep ecologists in uncompromising style earned him the title ‘the bad boy of deep ecology’ (Orton 2005, Other Internet Resources). For responses, see Fox (1986) and Attfield (1993).