Social ecology concentrates on the relationship between people and the environment. What we do to it, what it does to us.

Deep Ecology removes human interests from the question and looks at it more from a Darwinian perspective. There are local and global ecosystems which follow a genetic design to fill a niche in the nutrition cycle. Deep Ecology looks at the environment as a system society is but a small part of, not the other way around.

Shallow Ecology looks at the environment from an economic perspective. They genuinely what to establish a value for the environment, but it is impossible while money only represents human labour, it is similar in some ways to Social Ecology.

My preference is Deep Ecology (or Deep Ecosocial Egalitarianism as I like to call it). To me the premise is we should realize it is better for society to support our life support system than to blindly expect it to support a society intent on damaging it.

Some overlap here, but I believe Deep Ecology is more all-encompassing. The phrase "Deep Ecology" was introduced by Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne Naess in 1973. The word "deep" refers in part to the level of questioning of our purposes and values when arguing in environmental conflicts, going all the way down to fundamental root causes. The long-range, deep approach involves redesigning whole systems based on values and methods that preserve the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems.

Social Ecology is based on the recognition of the often overlooked fact that nearly all our present ecological problems arise from deep-seated social problems. Issues like deforestation and oil spills remind us that the real battleground on which the ecological future of the planet will be decided is clearly a social one. The first public statements to advance the ideas of social ecology date back to 1965, and may possibly have helped provide the underpinnings for the Deep Ecology movement.