Anthropocentrism and Nature - An Attempt at Reconciliation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Anthropocentrism and the Care of the Environment20190430 119103 1avet1b
Anthropocentrism and the Environment Humans and our ethical principles make us brilliant being compare to other realities, and this centrality of humans in the created cosmos is the very essence of anthropocentrism. Only humans have personalities, emotions and can communicate on a high level who are not controlled by instincts (Miklós, 2014). Our rationality enabled us to know what is right or wrong and made us greater over other existence. It is an undeniable fact that the capacity of humans made us flourished in the area of medicine and technology. The developments and discoveries in Science, which contributed to the body of knowledge, are all product of the rationality of humans. Anthropocentrism came from the Greek word, "Anthropos" that means "human", highlighting the centrality of human in the created cosmos originated in Western philosophy and religion. However, this claim of centrality destroys the social dependency of all existence and imbibes the supremacy one entity. Our inevitability to be connected with other realities seems now to be non-existent, thus, giving more value on humans. The creation of pyramidal structure among existent beings and putting humans on the top of it is a great perplexity. Our claim of being at the top of hierarchy of species led to the destruction of all those that are below us, an inevitable result of our egoistic claim. This taxonomic or biological privilege is used as an ideology, which supports the domination of nature. In the modern period, the humanistic view that human being is the center of all things enters the picture. In fact, this period is characterized as anthropocentric because it is the human who is the source of truth and not mythologies or religion or the Bible. The rise of rationalism considering humans as greater entities because of their rational faculty is the prevailing philosophy. In addition, the rise of scientific discoveries fuels the claim that human and the power of mind can define anything. There is a great detachment from the belief with gods and nature, from religion and just focuses on humans as the prime center. The dilemma is, if the measure of all things is human and his rational capacity, how about the other beings which do not have this faculty? Thus, anthropocentrism is an exclusionary view system whether or not it linked to any specific ideologies (Miklós, 2014). Furthermore, anthropocentrism intrinsically value humanity but intrinsically value nonhumanity [nature] (Burchett, 2018). This leads to the pure socioeconomic intention of looking at the nature as an instrument for monetary gain. This objectification of the earth is an ecological predicament caused by selfishness of people. This does not give an avenue of concern but purely economical intention. In addition, the rise of capitalism as a social system gave license to those who simply made profit from the nature. The technological prowess of human societies has enabled [us] to rapidly extract and exchange vast amounts of natural resources with one another in a feverish, never-ending stream (Varner, 2006). Social ecologists argues that the exploitation of nature just for self-interest is denial of inherent value of the nature. Our existential claim over the nature resulted not only its destruction but also extinction of other species and global climate change. "God said. 'Let's make man in our image, after our likeness.' Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in his own image" (Gen 1:26). This Bible passages elevates the role of human creating a hierarchy among creations. It highlights dominance and Godlike of human. Furthermore, this is a classical way of justifying the superiority of everything including animals, plants and the nature at large. The words "dominion" and "subdue" is a hermeneutical display of the positioning of human on the top of the levels of creation. Actually, man was even responsible of the naming of animals and plants (Gen. 2:20). Thus, the authority was vested to human uplifting him from brute animals and plants. This classical claim of
The Trouble with Anthropocentric Hubris, with Examples from Conservation
Conservation
Anthropocentrism in Western (modern industrial) society is dominant, goes back hundreds of years, and can rightly be called ‘hubris’. It removes almost all moral standing from the nonhuman world, seeing it purely as a resource. Here, we discuss the troubling components of anthropocentrism: worldview and ethics; dualisms, valuation and values; a psychology of fear and denial; and the idea of philosophical ‘ownership’. We also question whether it is a truly practical (or ethical) approach. We then discuss three troubling examples of anthropocentrism in conservation: ‘new’ conservation; ecosystem services; and the IPBES values assessment. We conclude that anthropocentrism is fuelling the environmental crisis and accelerating extinction, and urge academia to speak out instead for ecocentrism.
The Human-Nature Relationship in the Anthropocene: A Science-based Philosophical Perspective
Darwin’s Tangled Legacy. Evolutionary Perspectives in Contemporary Thought. Azimuth Philosophical Coordinates in Modern and Contemporary Age, 2022
In the face of the current climate and environmental crisis, not only pragmatic solutions but also a theoretical shift is needed. A philosophical and ethical reflection is most necessary to guide our actions by promoting a renewed relationship between human and non-human nature, providing the theoretical and ethical foundations to initiate a new path of coexistence on this Planet. In this paper, I will make the case for the relevance of evolutionary biology knowledge to current challenges in environmental ethics. I argue that by acknowledging biological evidence, philosophy can fruitfully reconsider the complex issue of the human-nature relationship from a non-anthropocentric perspective. Evolutionary biology approaches the human-nature relation problem from an ecological dimension and a deep-time perspective. Contra anthropocentric theories, scientific evidence shows (i) that there has never been any ontological separation between humans and the rest of the natural world, and (ii) that considering the profound evolutionary interdependence between these two spheres is essential to understand the ongoing climatic and environmental crises. In considering some specific cases-namely, the relational approach to ecosystems, the holobiont theory, and the niche construction theory-, I put into focus the fallacy of the anthropocentric vision that marks the current development model pursued by globalized Western societies, and contrast this with an approach of 'humanistic ecocentrism'. I argue that this approach is consistent with scientific evidence, and that overcoming the present crisis will require a profound transformation in societal and individual values, which can only be achieved through a scientifically and ethically based 'ecological education'.
In Defence of Environmental Anthropocentrism
Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 2024
The critique of anthropocentrism has accompanied environmental thinking since its inception. However, we lack a deeper analysis of anthropocentrism and its forms. The authors of this study concentrate on analysing selected forms of anthropocentrism that were prominent in different periods of the history of European culture. They offer a basic typology of anthropocentrism and characterize philosophical, religious, philosophical-theological and philosophical-scientific anthropocentrism. They also include a fifth form of anthropocentrism, which they call environmental anthropocentrism. The authors consider changes that are important from a philosophical, ethical and axiological perspective and analyse the potential of anthropocentrism in comparison with some of environmental anthropocentrism its alternative forms, such as biocentrism and cosmocentrism. They also attempt to assess the significance of environmental anthropocentrism and the potential for its implementation in human-environmental relations. The environmental anthropocentrism proposed here is a potential solution with applicability to the search for a moderate, humble, non-arrogant, respectful and responsible human approach to relations with nature.
Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene
Whilst there is widespread agreement in scientific and academic circles, and increasingly in the more radical reaches of a whole range of social and political spheres, that the existential challenges posed by the Anthropocene require nothing less than a wholesale re-fashioning of the human-environment paradigm; how this might be achieved remains, at best, highly debatable. The exploitative archetype of mastery over nature is deeply ingrained within our species' psyche and praxis, and it has, on balance, served us well for most of our evolutionary development. Where human behaviour has imposed costs on the natural world, the latter has, broadly speaking, long proved remarkably resilient in absorbing much of the impact of our excesses. Nonetheless, all indications are that this will not be the case in perpetuity and that, as we transgress an increasing number of crucial planetary boundaries, our habitual ways of thinking and behaviours represent an existential threat to at least our own species, if not the biosphere as a whole. Our increasing (if still woefully incomplete) knowledge how planetary systems function and the significance of the impacts of human activities upon them could, if acted upon swiftly, and with a thorough-going commitment that recognises the true position of humans within the biosphere and the consequent imperative to curb our own over-indulgence, represent our best chance to continue to flourish as a species in a viable global context. Achieving such a fundamental alteration in our ontological perspective would arguably represent a seismic shift in human affairs on a par with the Enlightenment. In the past we have enjoyed the luxury of experiencing such change as gradual evolution, but current conditions require our next perspectival shift to be achieved with an unprecedented degree of urgency. This chapter considers one area in which we might trial our ability to adopt reasoned behavioural change that short-circuits norms that have ultimately become counterproductive: our relationship to ecosystems. This is the area where the human-nature nexus and the implications of its current malignant pathology are arguably at their most immediate. A plethora of potential routes have been identified in order to recraft the terms of this aspect of our interconnection with nature in a more sustainable fashion. This chapter will look specifically at the voguish but vexed concept of ecosystems services, arguing that, as currently envisaged, rather than representing innovation, it pursues the paradigm of mastery to its logical and damning conclusion. The chapter will briefly consider the pros and cons of applying selected rights-based approaches (representative of an important strand in current thinking in this area) in the context of ecosystems services as correctives to this course. The rights approaches considered include: (likely prevailing) individual property rights; collective human rights; and 'rights for nature' archetypes. The chapter will conclude by considering the idea that, while rights discourse has something to offer in this context, where human attitudes and behaviour are in play, absent the crucial counterpoint of an ethic of human responsibility, it cannot offer more than a partial solution to the conundrum of how to fashion a sustainable version of the human-environment bond. (H) The Paradigm of Mastery and its Consequences The current prevailing paradigm shaping the human/nature relationship, while it has until quite recently, served (or at least appeared) to promote human flourishing, has now reached the point where it must be regarded as inherently unsustainable. In recognising the shift to the Anthropocene,
An Analysis of Rethinking Humanity in the Anthropocene: The Long View of Humans and Nature
The purpose of this article is to present a brief analysis of the book “The Posthuman” by R. Braidotti (2013) to reconsider the long view of humanity in the Anthropocene, to view humans and nature. Our perception of the future of the planet and humanity is a significant political and social issue. Yet the general flow of an unequivocal debate for a fully human relationship with the earth is still greatly hindered. Until such a conflict becomes clear, it is unlikely that we will begin to reign in environmental change because we are creatures of topographic energy who have created Anthropocene. We need to consider whether it is possible to bring about social change with an alternative view of what our identity is, what it was, and what could upset the existing perception of human’s relationship with nature. A rational sense of sustainable and developmental substance that manages human culture within a wider world is an important extens2ion to the totality of political activity.
Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, and Theocentrism
Organization & Environment, 2005
We are uneasy with nature. The past century has witnessed unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. It has witnessed also unprecedented depredations upon nature. Today there is debate between two moral postures to reconcile these developments. One takes a human-centered, or anthropocentric, view of our relationship to nature, to emphasize the value of securing the resources we need for further development. The other takes an environmentcentered, or ecocentric, view of our relationship to nature, to emphasize the value of conserving her integrity and beauty. This paper explores tensions underling these two views and finds that neither view adequately reconciles us to nature. This paper offers an alternative, theocentric, view of our relationship to nature that reconciles in God our value for resources and our value for nature. This alternative view is founded upon the Catholic Christianity that preceded the Protestant Reformation and the Cartesian metaphysic; one which establishes a divine order of man and nature apart from human egoism and intentions. This paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this theocentric view for environmental policy and practice.