Anthropocentrism v. Biocentrism

In multiple classes the topic of the difference between Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism has come up.  Each course though looks at them with a slightly different point of view.  The leadership course I'm in took a human approach, will my Environmental Studies class gave definitions related more towards nature.  While each definition base is basically the same I find it interesting that different topics can be applied to them so that the definitions vary slightly.

When defining these terms anthropocentrism is human centered and biocentrism is inclusive of everything.  An anthropocentric view in terms of nature is that nature only has value if humans give it value.  Unless it benefits humans then it does not have value.  A biocentric view for nature is that everything has inherent value in nature.  It does not have to be defined or produce a benefit to given value.  These two opposing view points can be seen in how a person interacts with nature.  Often people are unaware of these ideas but they can clearly be seen in the actions of a person when they interact with nature.  For example, a person that hunts for a prize has an anthropocentric view of nature as its only value is in the game that they catch and can show off.  An example of a person with a biocentric view would be Aldo Leopold in his work "The Land Ethic".  Here he argues that all parts of the land deserve to have rights as they are all valuable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judaism and Ecology (outside reading)

While looking up specific religions and their concepts of environmentalism based on their religious beliefs, I stumbled across the "J ewish Values on Climate Change & Energy" posted by a Religious Action Center of Judaism. They had similar views to the Catholics, which were that in Genesis we were given the land and told to protect and watch over it (Genesis 2:15). They also argued that the Talmudic concept bal tashchit, "do not destroy," was able to be used in conjunction with the argument that all land was God's, to decide that any act that destroyed the land was an act directly against God. They also used " Justice, justice shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20) to argue that the countries that are more responsible for climate change should be held to that problem, and therefore in charge of finding a solution. If poor countries are forced to bear the brunt of climate change (perhaps they are poor because their economy is majorly based on agricul...
Read more

Appalachia

In just a few short weeks I will be embarking on a two week journey on the Appalachian trail. This journey will take me through the hills of Tennesse and Virginia. On this trip I will be joined by classmates but leaving behind technology. In this journal I just wanted to share what my hopes are for the class and what I can learn about the spirituality of the trail. First, I'd love to have this journey teach me how to be less dependent on my phone. Hopefully being in nature like this will show me that it really is not necessary. The second thing I'd like to try to find on the trail a little bit more of myself. I'm dying to know what I will discover about myself and if I will see things in a different light after it. Overall, I'm incredibly excited just to experience something so pure and exciting at the same time.
Read more

Morality in Religion

Many of the world’s environmental problems come from human choices. In an article I read, an anthropologist relates human ecology to our emotions, and states that are our environmental choices are based on our emotions and our reasoning. Environmental management such as deforestation tactics can also be based around morality and making ethical choices, which religion has a powerful influence over. Many religions stem from the notions of making ethically right decisions, as they believe supernatural beings gave them the natural world such as forests and it is their obligation to take care of it.
Read more