Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism

[zman]

I have been reading up on this, as well as conducting in-depth email discussions with a good friend of mine recently. The topic has culminated into a compare and constrast exploration of Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism, the former being the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of reality (and the Earth); the latter being the antonym, defined as the belief that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence.
While we have some control over the daily occurances and patterns of our personal existance, in the overall picture, we do not exist as an end in itself. My stance is rooted as environmental. For example, while the cause of climate change has been a hotly discussed topic in recent years, I consider the Earth to be a living organism in and of itself who may just be fed up with rampant human overpopulation and the belief that the Earth serves us. Climate Change is merely the Earth’s reaction to unbridled environmental exploitation; natural disasters being a method used by the Earth to get our attention (and perhaps shake some of us off like a dog emerging from water). George Carlin has a great takes on this, check it out on youtube.

My friend’s stance on the subject, as a student of biology, is that disease, pandemics, and other biological “ills” are a reaction to this as well. Too many people using ever shrinking water supplies, too many people taking from a finite source of food, etc. What doesn’t help is our recent (read: past 100 years) innovations in medical technology, i.e., not letting nature take its course, inventing pharmaceuticals to prolong life (but render us vulnerable to pandemic) thus rendering the human lot to overpopulate the Earth. In short, technological advances in order to beat natural selection have ultimate weakened the human race.

So how about it? Have our anthropocentric ways over the course of time caused a signal of our impending doom or will biocentrism or the natural world take over once again?

 

[Maister]

It's a de facto opinion (among homo sapiens) that our species represents the pinnacle of intelligent life in the universe - after all, we don't know of any other species that rivals our intelligence, do we?

(probably a couple of guys got hootched up on a Friday night and did this with boards)

So given our apparent cognitive superiority and ability to use tools, we're in prime position to impose our collective will on the receiving earth. And that we do with gleeful abandon. But how we define 'superiority' in light of this centrism can certainly be taken different ways. Insects and bacteria demonstrate superior survivability as species go. They'll probably still be subsisting for years after our species' demise off the glue on the backs of postage stamps, all while reproducing by the billions. Tigers and gorillas are stronger and cheetahs are faster.

Personally, I like the Gaia view, where we are but one organism within a system that reciprocally interacts with all other components of the Earth's environment. We subsist on plants that photosynthesize and our respiration converts oxygen into carbon dioxide which in turn alters the planet's atmosphere very small amounts at a time, etc. It might be tempting to think of humans within the context of the planet as very specialized 'neuron cells', but if so, I'm inclined to think the Earth is currently afflicted with a stage 3 brain tumor.

Concerning the role humans play in terms of evolution, I think we are unique (on earth at least) in that we have approached a point where our knowlege and technology is making it possible to REMOVE ourselves from the process altogether. Like it or not, I am convinced that humans will be engineered genetically in the future. A World War or some Dark Age might interrupt this, but it is only a matter of time before it happens.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.......
So how about it? Have our anthropocentric ways over the course of time caused a signal of our impending doom or will biocentrism or the natural world take over once again?

Its a race, if we can use our brains and gadgets well enough, to get to the stars, its an anthropocentric universe! Not all of us have to live well or long for this to happen, just enough with the brainpower and engineering skill to make it happen!

Robert Maulthus be damned! We will conquer earths natural systems and spread through our galaxy! :-D

Sorry Zman, not one to sit around and whine about how evil I have been to the planet just because I exist. Environmentalism is good, it gives us longer to figure things out but damning myself for existing is not on the plate. :a:

GO APES! (I hear Roger Waters "Amused to Death" in the background! :-D

 

[ofos]

It is what it is. What you chose to call it is only important to you. Maister will call it something else.

 

[Gedunker]

So, zmanPLAN, what you're saying is Gaia has thrown in the towel on homeostasis and we're basically ... toast.

 

[zman]

Well, allow me to dissect Gaia for a bit since it was tossed around in the thread.

Then I will be back. However, I am of the opinion that humans have long been their own worst enemy. No, I don't kick myself for existing at all, but merely take stock in the fact that nature has given me (and all humans) the thought process to investigate and question.

 

[wahday]

To me, it seems pretty obvious that the entire planet should be considered as one enormous organism. I think of it as an ant colony. Its comprised of individual entities but functions as a complete system. But being so complex, it can survive problems in specific areas (or in specific systems) through compensation and adjustment.

I personally have a hard time seeing humans killing life on earth altogether, but I can easily see us screwing it up very very badly, especially for ourslelves (and we'll probably take a few thousand other species out with us). But as long as conditions here on earth can support life, it will. Things are too diverse, too complex and too tenacious to be easily doomed. The big Q is whether we will be part of it or not.

I think that humans' unique intelligence allows us, most significantly, to control environments to the extent that we can live anywhere on the planet and this is our major problem (or, rather, the earth's greatest problem). We are not easily kept in check, population wise, by disease, climate, wars, famine, etc. because we can control the conditions that lead to these problems (except war - we don't seem to do that well). Disease can be conquered by manipulating the conditions (ie "environment") under which they thrive. Sure, ultimately there will be many diseases that we cannot control and that will do lots of damage before we can manage them, but generally speaking, this ability to manipulate is what got us to where we are. Climate can be conquered with good design and supplemental heating and cooling. Famine can be addressed by growing excess food in one place and transporting it to another. These are all things other animals cannot do (and which humans couldn't always do, either) and that's why we have reproduced and spread around the globe, having significant local impacts wherever we go and making us unlike any other animal, and certainly any other mammal, on the planet.

So, I have a hard time seeing humans disappearing altogether too soon, but I can easily see a series of cataclysmic events that could drastically reduce our population and change the nature of human culture forever. We are pretty tenacious as well and I don't see humans going down without a fight. Of course, any conditions that would lead to this are probably of our own doing anyway, so it will be something of a form of divine justice. But humans wiped off the earth forever? That won't be an easy one to accomplish...