Anthropocentrism

A “-centrism” is a worldview or way of looking at things that places some particular value or group at the center. Anthropocentrism is that worldview that considers humans to be the most important thing in the Universe, or at least on the planet Earth. In contrast, the biocentric worldview considers humans to be a particular species of animal, without greater intrinsic value than any of the other species of organisms that occur on Earth. The ecocentric world view incorporates the biocentric one, while additionally proposing that humans are a natural component of Earth’s ecosystem and that humans have a right to the products and services of ecosystems in order to sustain themselves and their societies.

It is agreed by almost all scientists and philosophers that scientific knowledge cannot resolve questions of value. That is, science can only reveal what is, not what should or shouldn’t be, which is the realm of values or morality. Therefore, although some value debates involve facts provided by science, they are not scientific debates. Scientific research cannot resolve them and scientists do not speak in them with special authority. The debates about anthropocentrism and other value systems are of this type.

There are a number of implications of the anthropocentric view, which strongly influence the ways in which humans interpret their relationships with other species and with nature and ecosystems. Some of these are as follows:

1. The anthropocentric view suggests that humans have greater intrinsic value than other species. A possible result of this attitude is that any species that are of potential use to humans are a “resource” to be exploited. This has, historically, usually occurred in an unsustainable fashion that results in degradation, sometimes to the point of extinction, of nonhuman species, as has occurred with the dodo, great auk, and other animals.
2. The view that humans have greater intrinsic value than other species also influences ethical judgments about interactions with other organisms. These ethics are often used to legitimize treating other species in ways that would be considered morally unacceptable if humans were similarly treated. For example, animals are often treated cruelly in medical research and agriculture. This treatment of other species has been labeled “speciesism” by some ethicists.
3. Another possible implication or assumption of the anthropocentric view is the belief that humans are the height of the natural evolutionary progression of species and of life. This belief is often said to be in contrast to the modern biological theory of evolution, which does not find any scientific use for ranking some species as “higher” than any others (although such language has often been used by biologists over the last two centuries).

Thus, anthropocentric views can be, and often have been, used to justify unlimited violence against the nonhuman world. However, it should also be noted that such violence does not follow as a logical necessity from all forms of anthropocentrism. For example, an anthropocentrism that views human beings as charged with a caretaking or nurturing mission with respect to the rest of Nature might urge human beings to be mindful of the nonhuman. A few evangelical Christian thinkers have advanced such ideas in recent years. Likewise, ecocentric or biocentric views that cast human beings as “just another species” do not logically require that we treat nonhumans as well as we treat humans; the darker conclusion might be drawn that humans need be treated no better than we now usually treat nonhumans. A few extreme thinkers of the ecoregional school have argued that mass famines in places such as Africa are “natural” and should not be interfered with.

The individual, cultural, and technological skills of humans are among the attributes that make our species, Homo sapiens, special and different. The qualities of humans have empowered the species to a degree that no other species has achieved during the history of life on Earth, through the development of social systems and technologies that make possible an intense exploitation and management of the environment. This power has allowed humans to become the most successful species on Earth (although if sheer numbers are the measure of success, then bacteria and insects are more successful than humans and always will be). This success is indicated by the large population of humans that is now being maintained and the increasing amounts of Earth’s biological and environmental resources that are being appropriated to sustain the human species.

Success, however, is a value concept, not a strictly scientific concept. Thus, group size is not the only possible measure of evolutionary success. Sustainability or duration of the group might be chosen as a better measure. There are clear signals that the intense exploitation of the environment by humans is causing widespread ecological degradation and diminishing the Earth’s carrying capacity or ability to sustain people, other species, and ecosystems. As this environmental deterioration continues, the recent centuries of unparalleled success of the human species may turn out to be short-lived. Human beings have always, and will always, require access to a continued flow of ecological goods and services to sustain themselves and their societies.

Anthropocentrism should not be confused with the anthropic principle, a controversial idea in cosmology and astronomy. The anthropic principle is that since we are observing the universe, cosmic conditions must be such that they permit us, the observers, to evolve. That is, only a universe that permits observers to evolve is an observable universe. The significance of this fact for physics and cosmology has been much debated. Some scientists have argued that there is an infinite multiverse or endless foam of universes, all with different characteristics, and that only those universes whose conditions permit the evolution of intelligent observers can be observed by us or anyone else. The multiverse concept remains a hypothesis.