Anthropocentrism
Posted August 13, 2010
By Deep Ecology
We are not above or below the rest of the community of life
Comments
Leave a Comment
We are not above or below the rest of the community of life
I agree. Check out my other response. It’s along the same lines of your statement.
I’m Anthropocentric,but not Egocentric.
Therein lies the difference.
It hasn’t made me a less kind person,or puppy killing sociopath being “anthropocentric” as you put it.
Those who are destroying the Earth are egocentric.
If you’re truly anthropocentric than you beleive man is separate from the rest of the community of life. From your point of view is that true?
No,that would not be true.Thank you for correcting me.
I think I see what you’re saying. That it’s egocentrisim, the preference of oneself to anything else, that makes people destroy the earth. And although this is true to many degrees, there are those who aren’t selfcentered who still believe man is the highest form of evolution. This idea leads to the constant trumping of another species for our own. Thank you for your comments.
huh?
What about when a hippo or a lion attacks african peasants? It’s survival of the fittest. Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?
Lions don’t wipe out all of the peasants and hippos don’t destroy the africans foodsource. When a society sees humanity as separate and superior to competition it doesn’t bat an eye at unnecessary slaughter. To end this way of thinking is a step towards a sustainable way of life. Thanks for commenting.
@AdamHintz I agree that killing for no reason is irrational. And i don’t think thats morally acceptable in any way. I just find it amusing that you point out such an obviously biased argument like that, and appeal to emotion. Rather then logic.
Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE. It’s an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value.
It seems like you’re assuming I’m not aware of the way the world works. I don’t know where you got the idea that I think nature is a place of happiness and LOVE. Have you ever heard of evolutionarily stable strategies?
@AdamHintz yes i have. And thats a form of technocracy. In any case, we humans are at the center of all. For a chipmunk, it is their species which they value more. And the caring for acorns is not because the value them equal, or above them. It’s simply because of their self-interest. We work in the same fashion. Therefore, anthropocentrism is a biological tool for survival.
@SunBeamsan
>”What about when a hippo or a lion attacks african peasants? It’s survival of the fittest.”
SotF is just another way of saying “Might Makes Right”. using it, you can justify theft, rape, murder, war and genocide.
>”Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion”
It sounds as if you’re abstracting individual beings as “nature” and then pretending that they do not think or feel.
@wukdar
>”and people who will complain about this puppy will see nothing wrong in buying KFC…
It makes me want to puke…. ”
Indeed. Speciesism is the basis for the threat to the biosphere that exists now, and it is related to racism, nationalism, sexism, etc.
@SunBeamsan
>”Nature, the wild, is not a pretty place of happiness and LOVE”
There is sometimes loves, even across species lines.
>”It’s an extreme place, where the name of the game is survival. The fact that have trumped all other species, means we are the fittest. We therefore have more value”
You seem to be suggesting that conquering is the only benchmark worth looking at. It’s this mentality that causes some people blame the holocaust on Darwinism. Would you value Hitler over Gandhi?
@SunBeamsan
>”Nature is a non-think irrational entity which follows its course regardless of feelings and emotion. All animals in the animal kingdom act in their own interest. Why should humans be excluded?”
Have you thought through the implications of your position? If humans acted like the basest of animals we would not have created laws against certain acts. Any self-serving act would be acceptable under your rationale. If I want your resources, would it be OK to kill you for them?
@AuroraKismet
>”I’m Anthropocentric,but not Egocentric”
I don’t know how you can be one and not be the other. It is after all, the human-centered conceit. They are at the very least tightly co-mingled with each other.
I would argue that anthropocentrism is exactly what is harming the biosphere.
@AdamHintz
>”there are those who aren’t selfcentered who still believe man is the highest form of evolution”
I believe these would be the meat-eating liberals.
@SaganAppreciationSoc I’m not saying it’s moral*. Nature has no morals. And the sad thing is that stealing resources from one group to another is as old as civilization. But in any case, my philosophy in relation to Anthropocentrism is “Rational Self-Interest”. Rational Self-Interest is defined as the act of reason applied to interests. Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity.
@SunBeamsan
>”Nature has no morals”
That’s suggesting that ethics appeared in a vacuum. Actually, morals are an element of biology that probably started off as concern for one’s offspring and then branched out from there. Then came concern for those closely related to the animal. Then the troop. And we now often see sign of trans-species affection.
>Something animals are unable to do because of their mental incapacity
I’m boggling at the presumption here.
@SunBeamsan That´s probably what the dinosaurs were thinking too. Before the stone from the sky.
@SaganAppreciationSoc ethics did come from a vacuum. When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication. Now on your statement that affection to ones off-spring mean they have morals, well it shows how blissful you really are. You cannot apply your own morality or ethics on an animal or plant. Thats putting subjective meaning to an objective reality.
@SaganAppreciationSoc- “And we now often see sign of trans-species affection”
Yes, it’s called bestiality, and zoophilia. And yes it has happened, but it is not an biological trait. This is a very rear phenomena indeed. It ‘usually’ only takes place where conscience men are around to foment it.
@pohjalo perhaps. The desperate strive for survival is not always successful. And biology has shown that time and time again. But to hold other species to an equal or higher value, “bio-centrists”, is an logical and suicidal act. Indeed and species who behaves in this way, deserves to go extinct.
@SunBeamsan
>”Yes, it’s called bestiality, and zoophilia”
{Eyeroll}. No, we’re talking about the many cases where animals take an interest in others who are not members of their own species. Whether that’s a hen who decides to brood on puppies, or a cat that nurses a baby squirrel, or dolphins that help humans in trouble.
PS Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
@SunBeamsan
>”ethics did come from a vacuum”
Actually no. We know that ethics started with concern for offspring. Then it was concern for those related closely. Then it as for the tribe or troop or pod.
>”When a male lion kills the cubs of another, the concept of morals and ethics is human fabrication”
Using this strange argument one could point to humans killing their own children and say humans are without morals. So what’s your point?
@SaganAppreciationSoc yes. Indeed there are people who have no morals. The criminally insane lack emotion, and thus any form of ethics. There are people with these types of mental illnesses who have a predatorial thirst for blood. Children or not, they are prey.