Should humanity adopt a biocentric or anthropocentric approach?

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Make your case.

I believe humanity should adopt a biocentric approach, as anthropocentrism has caused significant harm to our world.

[Anonymous]

To me, I lean more towards a biocentric approach because I don't think humans should see themselves as the only lives that matter. We share this planet with other species, and they have a place in the natural world that deserves respect. That doesn't mean human needs should be ignored, but I think we've spent too much time treating nature as something that exists solely for our benefit. A healthy environment ultimately benefits us too. I'd rather see humanity learn to coexist with nature than continue acting as though we own it. 🌿

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Perfectly said. This is my exact argument.

[FreyaRed]

Anthropocentric specifically ethnocentric approach in sociological term, my own subspecies first.

[DonaldDarko]

Anthropocentric. Say some day an asteroid miles wide is headed for earth. There is only one creature living here that might someday be able to stop it. There is only one creature living here that even cares what happens to other creatures.

[Dargil]

Biocentric. All of Creation or G0d would not have created it. Genesis 1:31. All Creation has intrinsic value but not equal value.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

I understand the point that you are making by providing that verse from the Bible, however, the Bible is what humanity uses to justify anthropocentrism. God created man, which throughout the Bible holds dominion over all other animals. So, I think the Bible is more so a better example of anthropocentrism.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Also, who determines what has value? Why does humanity get to make that decision?

[Dargil]

" the Bible is what humanity uses to justify anthropocentrism. "
I could not possibly disagree more.

From Webster's
anthropocentric (adjective)
regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals

Capice?

[Dargil]

G0d does.

[NathanDavis]

and... what's the difference between these two?

would you care to explain... lol

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Biocentrism is the belief that all living organisms have inherent value and are worthy of equal consideration. The morals and values we live by on a daily basis in our society should also be used when making decisions that involve other organisms. It is important to evaluate the potential cause and effect of a decision before moving forward and taking action to prevent any harm from occurring to an ecosystem and those within its framework.

Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are superior to other living organisms and that everything in nature is for our use. This mindset is what has led to the destruction of our natural environment as humanity believes that they are entitled to everything nature has to offer. Throughout human history, we have never considered the planet because the advancement of humanity was always seen as a priority. This meant using earth's natural resources, which we have depleted and degraded. Human greed has destroyed our planet, and I believe it is long past due that we take a biocentric approach as anthropocentrism has only damaged it. Had we always considered the ecosystem, we would be living harmoniously with nature and eventually come to recognize that in order for nature to provide for us, we must in turn protect it.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

here are five major tenets originally coined by American philosopher Paul W. Taylor explains the beliefs that encapsulate biocentrism;

1. The Good of A Being And The Concept of Inherent Worth:
By simply existing and being a part of a much larger and complex ecosystem, all organisms have worth equal to each other. Since humans do not understand for certain the role every organism plays in the vast ecosystem, we therefore cannot determine its value. Even if we understood, every organism exists because it is meant to.

2. The Attitude of Respect for Nature: Humans have a moral obligation to treat nature with respect, simply because we are a part of it. Respect for nature is making sure that you’re only taking actions that you completely understand and at the same time trying your best to minimize the amount of damage inflicted whilst considering everything involved because everything is interconnected.

3. Humans As Members of Earth’s Community of Life:
Humans are merely a small part of a broad ecosystem. The function of an ecosystem does not revolve around humans, but rather, humans rely heavily on the ecosystem to survive.

4. Individual Organisms As Teleological Center of Life:
Every organism has a crucial role to play in the ecosystem, whether we understand and value that role or not. This is what makes them valuable, equal, and worthy of consideration.

5. The Denial of Human Superiority:
Humans are not at the center of everything like we believe and make ourselves out to be. If humans were to be removed from the ecosystem, it is more than likely to thrive in our absence. This is what denies our superiority.

As for anthropocentrism, it is pretty straightforward.

[NathanDavis]

back in middle-school days... I wrote a couple of papers on this, but my approach wasn't for either of the extremes, rather a balance of the two

because of idealism and also being realistic, the middle point would be something like, Sustainability to both preserve and progress at a better pace, as humanity

a biocentric approach can be way too cautious and not yield a realistic benefit... while an anthropocentric approach is obviously one of detriment, and so... finding the middle point might be the one to "save the day" sort of speak

but still... these are only ideals

one day, we will be in dire need of choosing a true path, that won't destroy us for good, but I am not sure today it is that day, lol

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

That's cool! I agree with your stance, we should definitely strive for a balance. However, having had one extreme for so long (anthropocentrism), I think that focusing on the other (biocentrism) might create that balance you are talking about. Additionally, I think that day of needing to choose a true path has long passed and the time is now. How long are we going to wait?

[NathanDavis]

do you like to drive...

going from one extreme to the other might seem or feel like it would counter the other, however... it might lead to a crush, like it can happen sometimes with under-steering and/or over-steering, lol



as for the day in which choosing is needed, it will no longer be a choice we make or can take

this world itself, is going to push us... either way, and there will be little to nothing to do about it, really

[FrodoSkywalker000]

@CaribbeanPrincess91 that's sad 🙁

I really hoped we could be friends. Really enjoyed talking with you. 🤷‍♂️

Still wouldn't mind talking about whatever you want. Guess you don't like me 😢

[FrodoSkywalker000]

Just unblock if you ever wanna talk I guess...

[832loverboy73]

BOOBS-centric !!!

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Focus!

[832loverboy73]

I am... ON BOOBS !!!

[moddy_the_mod]

anthropocentrism of course.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

I strongly disagree but what is your argument for that stance?

[moddy_the_mod]

Animals don't have morality.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

And who are we determine that when they speak a language we don't understand?

[moddy_the_mod]

Tell you what. You go reason with a tiger.

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

That is called instincts, not morality

[moddy_the_mod]

Right. And what would a tigers instinct be?

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

To predate

[moddy_the_mod]

Right. And if you don’t die quickly. What then?

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Given that we are using a tiger as our example, big cats kill their prey by suffocation and do not release unless they are certain the animal has died. Morality is a human characteristic, applying it to animals is silly as they are different and exhibit entirely different behaviors dependent on species. It similar to us saying that the hyena laughs, laughter isn't something animals have.

[moddy_the_mod]

So now you know why we don’t treat tigers as equals

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

Equality would be no guns, or man made weapons, just naked flesh. How we were created as animals. We could never be their equal as they would actually be superior.

[NovaVaderPants]

No idea what that means

[CaribbeanPrincess91]

I explained it to @NathanDavis