Biocentrism vs Anthropocentrism

[Ethereal]

In my opinion the fact that we can have this conversation and understand the importance of biodiversity and the interdependence of all life should give us no excuse to not see how the anthropocentric point of view is wrong. While we may not fully know, if say, a bear understands its place in an ecosystem and its part in biodiversity, we do understand, and so while you can forgive the bear for thinking in its own self interest because of that perceived lack of "knowing", we cant excuse ourselves for ignoring it and only doing things that benefit man first or only man.

I think we can excuse ourselves for doing those things because it's what evolution has programmed us to do. Granted, our unique ability to engage in abstract thinking has given us the power to take our evolutionary self-interest to dangerous new heights, so we must be balanced in our approach, but there is nothing wrong or unnatural about a species that puts its collective interests above the collective interests of other species.

[Chris]

I don't think there is anyone who is actually "biocentric", at least, not as you've described it. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the life of some marginal bug species on the fringes of the world is equal in importance to a newborn human baby? I suppose in some abstract way it is, but in reality, nobody would ever treat them equivalently. If you were given the choice between stepping on an ant and shooting another person in the head, you'd step on the ant without hesitation. Why? Because you're a human and you innately value human life over other forms of life. It's also worth noting that you can value human life above other forms of life without completely devaluing the latter. In fact, if you value human life, then you must necessarily value the other forms of life that we live in symbiosis with.

I don't think being biocentric means you treat all life equally. There wasa a line in "Life" (2017) that went something like in order to live you must kill. I think it just means you are aware and respect that you're a part of it all.

[Ethereal]

I don't think being biocentric means you treat all life equally. There wasa a line in "Life" (2017) that went something like in order to live you must kill. I think it just means you are aware and respect that you're a part of it all.

That's how the OP framed the question.

"...do you side more with the basics of the biocentric point of view that all life is equal in its importance..."

[AZ Jim]

All living things have a place in the world. Is a prairie dogs life important? It is to the prairie dog! Let's not get into ants, mosquitoes, termites etal.

[Chris]

That's how the OP framed the question.

"...do you side more with the basics of the biocentric point of view that all life is equal in its importance..."

Why I said initially yes but without the moral or equality aspects.

[Ethereal]

All living things have a place in the world.

Not really. Nature has eliminated millions of species long before man ever showed up. If they had a place in the world, then natural selection would have kept them around.

Let's not get into ants, mosquitoes, termites etal.

Why not? They are forms of life.

[Private Pickle]

Huh? Discussion = "regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals" (google)

What other animals have discussions about existence?

[Chris]

What other animals have discussions about existence?

I don't know but how does having discussions entail anthropocentrism? I'm having a discussion and arguing biocentrism.

[Peter1469]

Let's agree to all that.

Humans will leave earth and will rule wherever we go. That is what we do.

Will we? Do we?

I know this will sound gloomy but it's the truth. Man has only existed for a minuscule amount of time in comparison to the age of the Earth and millions of other forms of life that existed before us and that are still here today with us. We are an extremely fragile, extremely violent, extremely selfish, extremely wasteful, extremely short sighted, extremely needy species, but those traits aside our species is just like most other fragile species in that we are dependent on the whims of nature and ecosystems working efficiently and correctly which is accomplished through healthy ecosystems with thriving biodiversity. What we will colonize in the solar system will be simply just survival in an artificial way, it's not living, it's not natural. And to that point we haven't even colonized our own moon let alone the solar system and we are not even realistically close to accomplishing that in our lifetime.

If one day in the very distant future we leave this planet to colonize the solar system we will not be leaving this planet because we can it will be because we have to, and we will have to because of the anthropocentric point of view which will ultimately lead to a severely injured planet that can barely sustain balanced life. To be honest once we leave it will then probably be a relief to the Earth and will allow it to begin to heal itself over the next thousands of years from that point.

We talk about human "dominance" on whatever life we find yet our dominance often comes about from destruction, even if that destruction is at the peril of our own species down the road, but most of the time we ignore that too because we are just soooo awesome.

[Private Pickle]

I don't know but how does having discussions entail anthropocentrism? I'm having a discussion and arguing biocentrism.

adjective: anthropocentric

• regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals.
  
  
  
  

If we are deciding on the future on animals via discussions isn't adjective: anthropocentric

• regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals.
  
  
  
  

If having a discussion on what is more important for animals isn't anthropocentric then I don't know what is...