CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Environmental anthropocentrism is a viewpoint that places humans at the center of

environmental considerations, often prioritizing human needs and interests over the well-being of

the natural world. This perspective has historically shaped much of environmental policy and

practice, influencing how resources are utilized, conserved, and managed. Rooted in deep-seated

philosophical and cultural traditions, anthropocentrism views humans as separate from and

superior to nature, which has led to a dominion-over-nature mindset. This worldview has been

pervasive in Western thought, dating back to Judeo-Christian doctrines and Enlightenment ideas

that celebrated human reason and progress as the pinnacle of natural evolution.

The dominance of anthropocentric thought has led to numerous environmental policies

and practices that prioritize short-term human gains, often at the expense of long-term ecological

health. For instance, industrial activities causing pollution, deforestation, and habitat destruction

are frequently justified by their economic benefits. While this human-centered approach has

driven significant advancements in human living standards, it has also resulted in severe

environmental degradation. In recent decades, the limitations and consequences of an

anthropocentric framework have become increasingly apparent. Rapid environmental

degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change are direct outcomes of human-centric policies

and actions. These issues highlight the unsustainability of exploiting natural resources without

considering broader ecological impacts. The degradation of ecosystems not only threatens

1
countless species but also undermines the systems that human life depends on, such as clean air,

water, and fertile soil.

The anthropocentric approach has ethical implications as well, often neglecting the

intrinsic value of other living beings and ecosystems. This can lead to environmental injustice,

where marginalized communities bear the brunt of environmental harms due to policies favoring

more powerful groups. There is a growing recognition of the need to re-evaluate the

anthropocentric paradigm and consider alternative perspectives that promote a more harmonious

and sustainable relationship between humans and the environment. Ecocentric and biocentric

perspectives argue for the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems, advocating for a

more balanced and ethical approach to environmental stewardship. Indigenous worldviews,

emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of living in harmony with

nature, offer valuable insights and models for sustainable living.

This study critically examines the concept of environmental anthropocentrism, its origins,

and its impacts on environmental policy and practice. It will explore alternative frameworks such

as ecocentrism, biocentrism, and indigenous perspectives, providing recommendations for

integrating these alternatives into policy and practice to promote sustainable and equitable

environmental management.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The problem with environmental anthropocentrism lies in its inherent bias towards

human-centric concerns, often leading to environmental exploitation and degradation. This

2
approach fails to adequately address the intrinsic value of nature and the interdependence

between human well-being and ecological health. As a result, policies and practices based on

anthropocentric principles can contribute to unsustainable development, environmental injustice,

and biodiversity loss. There is a critical need to critique this dominant framework and explore

alternative perspectives that prioritize ecological balance, equity, and long-term sustainability.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to critically examine the concept of environmental

anthropocentrism, its origins, and its impacts on environmental policy and practice. This study

delves into the philosophical and historical underpinnings of anthropocentrism, tracing its roots

in Western thought and culture, and understanding how these ideas have shaped contemporary

environmental attitudes and policies. It seeks to assess the negative consequences of

anthropocentric approaches, particularly their contribution to environmental degradation,

biodiversity loss, and social injustices faced by marginalized communities disproportionately

affected by environmental harms. Furthermore, the study will explore alternative frameworks

such as ecocentrism, which places intrinsic value on all living beings, biocentrism, which

emphasizes the rights of all life forms, and indigenous perspectives that advocate for living in

harmony with nature. By critically evaluating these alternatives, the study provides practical

recommendations for integrating them into policy and practice, promoting a more sustainable

and equitable approach to environmental management.

3
1.4 Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons. It contributes to the academic discourse on

environmental ethics by providing a comprehensive critique of anthropocentrism, highlighting its

philosophical and practical shortcomings. By examining the limitations of current

anthropocentric approaches, the study offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners,

suggesting the potential benefits of adopting alternative frameworks such as ecocentrism,

biocentrism, and indigenous perspectives. These alternatives emphasize the intrinsic value of

nature and the rights of all living beings, supporting the development of more inclusive and

equitable environmental policies. Furthermore, this study enhances public awareness and

understanding of the interconnectedness between human and ecological well-being. By

promoting a more balanced and respectful relationship with the natural world, it encourages a

shift towards sustainable and just environmental practices, addressing the urgent need to protect

our planet for future generations. Ultimately, the study seeks to inspire changes in both thought

and action, fostering a deeper appreciation for the intricate web of life that sustains us all.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is situated within the field of environmental ethics, with a specific

focus on anthropocentrism. It critically examines anthropocentric viewpoints, exploring their

philosophical and historical roots, and assessing their impacts on environmental policy and

practice. While the primary emphasis is on anthropocentrism, the study also comparatively

analyzes alternative perspectives such as ecocentrism, biocentrism, and indigenous worldviews.

4
These comparative analyses aim to highlight the limitations of anthropocentrism and

demonstrate the potential benefits of more holistic and inclusive approaches, promoting a deeper

understanding of how diverse ethical frameworks can contribute to sustainable and equitable

environmental management.

1.6 Methodology of the Study

The methodology of this study is grounded in philosophical analysis. This approach

involves critically examining and interpreting the fundamental concepts and arguments related to

environmental anthropocentrism and its alternatives. The study will analyze key texts, historical

developments, and philosophical arguments to trace the origins and implications of

anthropocentric thought. Comparative analysis will be employed to evaluate alternative

frameworks such as ecocentrism, biocentrism, and indigenous perspectives. By systematically

dissecting and contrasting these viewpoints, the study aims to uncover underlying assumptions,

ethical implications, and practical consequences, providing a robust critique and informed

recommendations for more sustainable environmental ethics.

1.7 Literature Review

The critique of environmental anthropocentrism has gained significant traction in recent

years, as scholars and activists alike recognize the urgent need to re-evaluate humanity's

relationship with nature. This review examines four influential works that challenge

anthropocentric views: Timothy Morton's The Ecological Thought, Bill McKibben's Eaarth:

Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Cormac Cullinan's Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth

5
Justice, and Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Each of these

books offers a unique perspective on the limitations of human-centered environmental

approaches, advocating for a more holistic, inclusive, and sustainable interaction with the natural

world.

Timothy Morton's The Ecological Thought (2010) stands out as a pivotal work in

ecological philosophy, challenging traditional anthropocentric perspectives and introducing the

transformative concept of the ‘mesh.’ The ‘mesh’ represents the intricate and inescapable

interconnectedness of all living and non-living things, transcending superficial appreciation to

evoke a profound realization of the interdependence among all entities. Morton's philosophy

shifts the environmental discourse from a human-centered approach to one that recognizes and

values the intricate web of ecological relationships (Morton, 2010).

Morton's work is pivotal in ecological philosophy because it urges a departure from the

anthropocentric mindset that has long dominated environmental thought and policy. Instead,

Morton proposes that true ecological awareness requires understanding the deep interconnections

and dependencies that bind all forms of life and matter (Morton, 2010). This perspective is

essential in fostering an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the environment, one that

acknowledges the intrinsic value of all life forms, regardless of their utility to humans.

A significant strength of Morton's book is its ability to provoke readers to reconsider their

place within the ecosystem. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of all entities, Morton

challenges the traditional hierarchy that places humans at the top, encouraging a more egalitarian

6
view of nature (Morton, 2010). This paradigm shift is crucial for developing sustainable

environmental practices that respect and preserve the integrity of the entire ecosystem, not just

those aspects deemed valuable by human standards.

For us, find Morton's argument is compelling and essential in the current environmental

discourse. His concept of the ‘mesh’ resonates deeply with the need to move beyond superficial

environmentalism to a more profound and inclusive ecological consciousness. This perspective

aligns with contemporary movements towards sustainability and biodiversity conservation,

emphasizing the importance of recognizing and valuing the interconnectedness of all life forms.

However, one area where Morton's work falls short is in addressing the practical

implications of his philosophical ideas for environmental policy and practice. While the work

provides a robust theoretical framework, it lacks concrete guidance on how to translate this

ecological awareness into actionable policies and practices. This gap is critical because, without

practical applications, the transformative potential of Morton's ideas may remain largely

theoretical. This study aims to address this gap by exploring how Morton's philosophical insights

can be integrated into environmental policy and practice. By bridging the theoretical and

practical aspects of ecological thought, this work seeks to provide concrete recommendations for

implementing more holistic and sustainable environmental management practices. Furthermore,

it examines the implications of Morton's ideas for addressing contemporary environmental

challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecological degradation.

7
 In Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet Bill (2010) McKibben provides a

sobering analysis of the severe impacts of climate change, coining the term ‘Eaarth’ to denote a

fundamentally transformed and less hospitable planet. McKibben critiques the anthropocentric

mindset that prioritizes short-term human gains over long-term planetary health, arguing for a

radical rethinking of our economic and social systems to adapt to the new realities of a changed

environment (McKibben, 2010). This work is particularly significant for its urgent call to action,

emphasizing the necessity of resilience and sustainability in facing the profound challenges

posed by climate change.

McKibben's argument is grounded in the recognition that the planet has already

undergone irreversible changes due to human activities (McKibben, 2010). He posits that

continuing on the current trajectory of consumption and exploitation is not only unsustainable

but also catastrophic. Instead, McKibben advocates for localized, small-scale solutions that

emphasize sustainability and resilience. He challenges the anthropocentric notion of endless

economic growth, arguing that such a mindset is incompatible with the ecological limits of our

new reality (McKibben, 2010).

One of the central themes of the book is the need for a profound cultural shift in how we

relate to the environment. McKibben emphasizes the importance of reducing consumption and

adopting more sustainable lifestyles. He argues that the pursuit of endless growth and the

exploitation of natural resources have led to the degradation of the planet, and only by

fundamentally rethinking our values and practices can we hope to mitigate the worst impacts of

climate change (McKibben, 2010).

8
 A significant strength of McKibben's work is its emphasis on practical, localized

solutions. He highlights the potential of community-based initiatives, such as local agriculture,

renewable energy projects, and grassroots activism, to build resilience and sustainability. By

focusing on small-scale solutions, McKibben provides a hopeful vision of how communities can

adapt to the challenges of a transformed planet (McKibben, 2010).

From our viewpoint, we find McKibben's call for a radical rethinking of our economic

and social systems both compelling and necessary. His emphasis on localized, sustainable

solutions resonates deeply with the need to move away from the destructive patterns of

exploitation and consumption that have characterized human interaction with the environment.

McKibben's work is a powerful reminder of the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for

immediate and transformative action.

However, one area where the work falls short is in addressing the deeper philosophical

underpinnings of anthropocentrism. While McKibben critiques the practical consequences of

anthropocentric approaches, he does not delve into the philosophical roots of this mindset. This

study aims to fill this gap by exploring the philosophical foundations of anthropocentrism and

offering alternative frameworks, such as ecocentrism and biocentrism that prioritize the intrinsic

value of all life forms and the interconnectedness of ecosystems.

Cormac Cullinan's Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (2011) offers a

groundbreaking critique of traditional anthropocentric legal frameworks that regard nature as

property to be owned, used, and exploited by humans. Cullinan advocates for a profound

9
transformation in our legal systems, proposing an Earth jurisprudence that recognizes the

intrinsic rights of nature (Cullinan, 2011). This perspective draws heavily on indigenous

knowledge systems and ecological science to argue for a more holistic, respectful, and

sustainable relationship with the natural world (Cullinan, 2011).

Cullinan's central argument is that the current legal systems, rooted in anthropocentric

values, are fundamentally flawed because they fail to acknowledge the interconnectedness and

intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems. He posits that the legal recognition of the

rights of nature is essential for the survival and well-being of the planet. Cullinan writes that,

“We need to transform our governance systems to reflect the reality that humans are part of a

larger community of life” (Cullinan, 2011, p. 45). This shift in perspective challenges the

dominant legal and ethical paradigms that prioritize human interests over ecological health.

The book is particularly compelling in its integration of indigenous knowledge and

ecological science. Cullinan draws parallels between traditional indigenous worldviews, which

often see humans as part of a broader ecological community, and modern scientific

understandings of ecosystems. He argues that these perspectives offer valuable insights for

developing legal frameworks that promote ecological sustainability and justice. For instance, he

cites the example of the Whanganui River in New Zealand, which was granted legal personhood

status, recognizing its rights and ensuring its protection (Cullinan, 2011).

One of the strengths of Cullinan's work is its practical implications for legal reform. He

provides concrete examples of how Earth jurisprudence can be implemented, such as the

10
incorporation of the rights of nature into national constitutions and the establishment of legal

guardianship for natural entities (Cullinan, 2011). These practical suggestions make the work not

only a theoretical manifesto but also a practical guide for policymakers and activists.

Cullinan's argument for the legal recognition of the rights of nature is both revolutionary

and essential. His critique of anthropocentric legal systems resonates deeply with the need for a

more inclusive and respectful approach to environmental governance. Cullinan's emphasis on

indigenous knowledge and ecological science underscores the importance of integrating diverse

perspectives into our legal and ethical frameworks.

However, one problem with the book is its exploration of the philosophical roots of

anthropocentrism. While Cullinan effectively critiques the legal manifestations of

anthropocentrism and offers practical solutions, he does not delve deeply into the philosophical

foundations of this worldview. This study aims to address this gap by examining the

philosophical underpinnings of anthropocentrism and exploring alternative frameworks, such as

ecocentrism and biocentrism, which prioritize the intrinsic value of all life forms and the

interconnectedness of ecosystems.

Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014) is a

profound and urgent critique of the deeply entrenched relationship between capitalism and

climate change. Klein contends that the logic of continuous economic growth and rampant

consumption, which underpins capitalist economies, is fundamentally at odds with the

requirements for ecological sustainability. She asserts that the current economic system

11
prioritizes profit maximization over the health and stability of the planet, perpetuating

environmental degradation and exacerbating climate change (Klein, 2014).

Klein's central thesis is that addressing climate change requires a fundamental

restructuring of our economic systems. She writes, “The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not

about carbon—it’s about capitalism” (Klein, 2014, p. 21). This bold statement encapsulates her

argument that the root cause of environmental destruction lies in the capitalist imperative for

endless growth. Klein critiques the anthropocentric economic systems that place human desires

and financial gain above ecological health, leading to policies and practices that exploit natural

resources unsustainably.

One of the key strengths of Klein's work is her emphasis on the necessity of collective

action and political engagement. She highlights the role of grassroots movements, indigenous

communities, and local activists in pushing for environmental justice and systemic change. Klein

documents numerous instances where community-based solutions have successfully challenged

destructive practices and proposed sustainable alternatives. For example, she discusses the

efforts of the Ogoni people in Nigeria to resist oil exploitation by multinational corporations

(Klein, 2014, p. 325).

Klein also critiques the inadequacy of market-based solutions, such as carbon trading and

green technology, which are often promoted within the existing capitalist framework. She argues

that these approaches fail to address the underlying drivers of environmental degradation and are

insufficient to mitigate the scale of the climate crisis. Instead, Klein calls for transformative

12
changes that go beyond superficial adjustments to the current system, advocating for policies that

redistribute wealth, reduce consumption, and prioritize ecological and social well-being (Klein,

2014).

For us, Klein's arguments are compelling and her call to action both urgent and

necessary. Her critique of capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with ecological

sustainability resonates strongly, especially in light of the accelerating climate crisis. Klein's

emphasis on grassroots movements and community-based solutions is particularly inspiring, as it

underscores the power of collective action in driving systemic change.

However, one limitation of the book is that while it effectively critiques the economic

and political dimensions of climate change, it does not look deeply into the philosophical

underpinnings of anthropocentrism that contribute to environmental exploitation. This study

aims to address this gap by examining the philosophical roots of anthropocentrism and exploring

alternative ethical frameworks, such as ecocentrism, biocentrism, and indigenous perspectives,

which emphasize the intrinsic value of all life forms and the interconnectedness of ecosystems.

All four books provide critical insights into the limitations of anthropocentric approaches

to environmental issues, albeit from different angles. Morton's philosophical approach in The

Ecological Thought offers a theoretical framework for understanding the interconnectedness of

all life forms, challenging readers to move beyond human-centered thinking. McKibben's Eaarth

provides a practical and urgent portrayal of a planet already impacted by human actions,

advocating for localism and reduced consumption. Cullinan's Wild Law takes a legal perspective,

13
arguing for the recognition of the rights of nature and challenging the anthropocentric legal

systems that dominate Western thought. His work is revolutionary in its call for a new

jurisprudence that respects the intrinsic value of all life forms. Klein's This Changes Everything

critiques the economic systems that drive environmental degradation, calling for systemic change

and collective action to address the climate crisis.

Together, these books highlight the need for a multifaceted approach to environmental

issues, integrating philosophical, practical, legal, and economic perspectives. They collectively

argue for a move away from anthropocentrism towards a more holistic and inclusive

understanding of our relationship with the natural world. These works emphasize the importance

of recognizing the intrinsic value of nature, promoting sustainability, and fostering a respectful

coexistence with all life forms.

14
 CHAPTER TWO: UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOCENTRISM

2.1 Definition and Conceptual Framework

Environmental anthropocentrism is an ethical standpoint that places human interests and

needs at the center of environmental considerations, positing that the natural world holds value

primarily in terms of its utility to humans. This perspective contrasts sharply with ecocentric and

biocentric viewpoints, which ascribe intrinsic value to all living beings and ecosystems,

irrespective of their utility to human beings. The concept of anthropocentrism is deeply rooted in

Western philosophy and religious traditions. Historically, anthropocentrism has been linked to

the Judeo-Christian belief system, where nature is viewed as a creation intended for human use

and dominion. This idea has significantly influenced Western attitudes towards the environment,

promoting a hierarchical view that places humans above all other forms of life.

Philosophically, anthropocentrism gained further traction during the Enlightenment, a

period characterized by an emphasis on reason, science, and human progress. Enlightenment

thinkers such as René Descartes famously asserted that animals are merely automata, devoid of

reason and consciousness, thus justifying human exploitation of animals and nature (Descartes,

1637). Francis Bacon's promotion of scientific inquiry as a means to control and dominate nature

further entrenched anthropocentric values in Western thought (Merchant, 1980). The conceptual

framework of anthropocentrism is built upon the idea of human exceptionalism, which posits that

humans are fundamentally different from and superior to other species. This belief is intertwined

15
with dualistic thinking, which separates humans from the natural world. As philosopher

Plumwood (1993) notes, this dualism underpins the justification for exploiting nature, as it

constructs a dichotomy between the human (as rational and moral) and the non-human (as

irrational and amoral).

In practice, anthropocentrism manifests in environmental policies and practices that

prioritize human benefits over ecological well-being. For instance, policies focused on resource

management often emphasize the sustainable yield of resources to ensure continued human use

rather than preserving ecosystems for their own sake. As noted by environmental ethicist Norton,

the dominant discourse in environmental policy has been one of “weak anthropocentrism,”

where nature is valued only insofar as it provides goods and services to humans (Norton, 1984,

p. 132). The impacts of anthropocentrism are evident in various environmental issues. For

example, deforestation for agricultural expansion is often justified by the economic benefits it

brings to human societies, despite the significant loss of biodiversity and disruption of ecosystem

services (Foley et al., 2005). Similarly, pollution control measures frequently prioritize reducing

health risks to humans over addressing the broader ecological impacts of pollutants.

Critics of anthropocentrism argue that this framework is inherently unsustainable and

ethically flawed. Ecocentric and biocentric perspectives, which recognize the intrinsic value of

all living beings, offer a more holistic and equitable approach to environmental ethics.

Ecocentrism, as advocated by Leopold in his Sand County Almanac (1949), calls for a “land

ethic” where humans see themselves as part of a broader ecological community and act in ways

that respect and preserve the integrity of this community (Leopold, 1949, p. 204). Moreover,
16
indigenous worldviews often embody ecocentric principles, emphasizing the interconnectedness

of all life and the need to live in harmony with nature. These perspectives challenge the

anthropocentric paradigm and provide valuable insights for developing more sustainable and just

environmental policies.

In conclusion, environmental anthropocentrism places human interests at the forefront of

environmental considerations, often at the expense of ecological integrity. While this viewpoint

has historically shaped much of environmental policy and practice, it faces increasing criticism

for its unsustainable and ethically problematic nature. Alternative frameworks, such as

ecocentrism and biocentrism, offer promising pathways for rethinking our relationship with the

natural world and fostering a more harmonious and sustainable coexistence.

2.2 Historical Development

The historical development of environmental anthropocentrism can be traced back to

ancient Western philosophies and religious doctrines that have profoundly influenced human

attitudes towards nature. The roots of anthropocentrism are deeply embedded in Judeo-Christian

traditions, where the idea of human dominion over nature is prominently featured. According to

Genesis 1:26, God grants humans “dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the

heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on

the earth” (Holy Bible, English Standard Version). This scriptural endorsement provided a

theological justification for viewing nature as a resource meant to serve human needs,

reinforcing the notion that humans are distinct from and superior to the rest of creation.

17
 During the Middle Ages, Christian scholars like Thomas Aquinas further articulated this

hierarchical view, suggesting that non-human entities exist primarily for human use (Aquinas,

2014). This perspective became deeply ingrained in Western thought and continued to shape

attitudes towards nature for centuries. The Enlightenment period marked a significant shift in the

articulation and justification of anthropocentric views. Thinkers such as René Descartes and

Francis Bacon played crucial roles in reinforcing and secularizing the anthropocentric paradigm.

Descartes famously posited that animals are automata, devoid of reason and consciousness,

thereby justifying human exploitation of animals and nature. Descartes viewed the human mind

as fundamentally different from the physical world, promoting a dualistic separation between

humans and nature (Descartes, 2006). Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Descartes, advocated

for the empirical investigation of nature to harness its power for human benefit. In his works,

Bacon argued that scientific progress should aim at “the relief of man's estate” by gaining

mastery over nature (Bacon, 2000). Bacon’s vision laid the groundwork for modern scientific

methods and industrial practices that prioritize human control and exploitation of natural

resources.

The Industrial Revolution further entrenched anthropocentrism as technological

advancements enabled unprecedented levels of resource extraction and environmental

modification. The development of machinery, mass production, and fossil fuel consumption

allowed for rapid industrial growth, framing nature as a mere backdrop to human progress. The

economic theories of the time, such as those proposed by Adam Smith, emphasized the

exploitation of natural resources as a means to generate wealth and improve human living

18
standards (Smith, 2005). As industrialization spread, so did the environmental impacts of

anthropocentric practices. Deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction became widespread,

reflecting the anthropocentric view that nature's primary value lies in its utility to humans. This

period also saw the emergence of the conservation movement, which, while aiming to protect

natural resources, often did so from an anthropocentric perspective. Conservationists like Pinchot

advocated for the sustainable use of resources to ensure their availability for future human

generations, rather than preserving nature for its own sake (Pinchot, 1910).

The historical trajectory of anthropocentrism has significantly shaped modern

environmental policies and attitudes. Environmental laws and regulations have traditionally

focused on managing natural resources to prevent their depletion and mitigate their negative

impacts on human health and economic activities. For instance, policies aimed at controlling air

and water pollution are often justified by their benefits to human health rather than their

ecological significance. However, the limitations of anthropocentrism have become increasingly

evident as global environmental crises, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem

degradation, pose severe threats to both human and non-human life. This recognition has

prompted a growing critique of anthropocentric frameworks and a call for more holistic and

ecocentric approaches to environmental ethics and policy.

In summary, the historical development of environmental anthropocentrism is deeply

rooted in religious and philosophical traditions that have long prioritized human interests over

ecological well-being. From Judeo-Christian doctrines to Enlightenment thought and the

Industrial Revolution, anthropocentrism has shaped the way humans interact with and impact the
19
natural world. Understanding this historical context is crucial for critically evaluating

contemporary environmental policies and exploring more sustainable and equitable alternatives.

2.3 Philosophical Underpinnings

Philosophically, anthropocentrism is grounded in several key ideas that collectively shape

how humans perceive and interact with the natural world. One of the most fundamental concepts

is human exceptionalism, the belief that humans are fundamentally different from and superior to

other species. This belief is deeply rooted in Western thought and is often linked to religious

doctrines and philosophical traditions.

Human exceptionalism is closely associated with dualistic thinking, which separates

humans from the rest of the natural world. Descartes, a key figure in the development of modern

philosophy, famously articulated this dualism. Descartes posits that animals are mere automata,

lacking the rational soul that characterizes humans. He wrote that, “they have no mind, and this

shows that animals act merely by instinct, without understanding” (Descartes, 2006, p. 58). This

Cartesian dualism has had a lasting impact on Western thought, reinforcing the notion that

humans are distinct from and superior to other forms of life.

Utilitarianism is another philosophical framework that supports anthropocentrism by

valuing actions based on their consequences for human welfare. Bentham and Mill, prominent

utilitarian philosophers, emphasized that the moral worth of an action is determined by its

contribution to overall human happiness or utility. Bentham’s principle of utility posits that “the

greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (Bentham,

20
1970, p. 11). While Bentham did argue for the consideration of animal suffering, the primary

focus of utilitarianism has traditionally been on maximizing human well-being. This focus on

human welfare often leads to environmental policies and practices that prioritize human benefits

over the intrinsic value of nature. The Enlightenment further reinforced anthropocentric values

through its emphasis on reason and individualism. Enlightenment thinkers celebrated human

reason as the means to understand and control the natural world. Francis Bacon, for example,

advocated for the empirical investigation of nature to harness its power for human benefit. Bacon

famously declared that “knowledge is power,” suggesting that scientific knowledge should be

used to dominate and exploit nature for human progress (Bacon, 2000, p. 85).

Immanuel Kant also contributed to the anthropocentric worldview by emphasizing the

moral autonomy of humans. Kant argued that humans possess intrinsic worth because of their

capacity for rational thought and moral agency, which he believed set them apart from non-

human entities. Kant stated that, “rational beings alone have intrinsic worth; it is through their

autonomy and rationality that they achieve dignity” (Kant, 1997, p. 43). This perspective

reinforced the idea that human needs and desires should be prioritized in ethical considerations.

These philosophical underpinnings create a framework where the environment is valued

primarily for its ability to meet human needs and desires. This anthropocentric framework often

sidelines the intrinsic worth of non-human entities, leading to environmental policies and

practices that prioritize human interests. For example, policies focused on resource management

typically aim to ensure the sustainable yield of resources to benefit human populations, rather

than preserving ecosystems for their own sake.

21
 Critics of anthropocentrism argue that this framework is ethically flawed and

environmentally unsustainable. They advocate for alternative ethical frameworks that recognize

the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems. Ecocentrism, for instance, posits that

ecosystems and natural processes have inherent worth, independent of their utility to humans.

Leopold, a prominent advocate of ecocentrism, argued for a “land ethic” that respects the

integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. Leopold stated, “a thing is right when it

tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it

tends otherwise” (Leopold, 1949, p. 224).

Biocentrism is another alternative framework that extends intrinsic value to all living

beings. Philosopher Taylor, in his work Respect for Nature, argues that all living organisms have

a good of their own that deserves moral consideration, and humans are not morally superior to

other forms of life. Taylor opines that, “the biocentric outlook sees humans as one species among

many, each with its own inherent worth” (Taylor, 1986, p. 45). This perspective challenges the

anthropocentric view by emphasizing the moral worth of all living beings. Indigenous

worldviews often embody ecocentric and biocentric principles, emphasizing the

interconnectedness of all life and the importance of living in harmony with nature. Indigenous

knowledge systems offer valuable insights into sustainable living and challenge the

anthropocentric paradigm. As noted by scholar Deloria Jr., indigenous cultures traditionally view

humans as part of a larger ecological community, with responsibilities to maintain the balance

and health of this community. Deloria asserts, “indigenous peoples understand that they are a

22
part of the natural world, not separate from it, and this understanding shapes their environmental

practices” (Deloria, 2001, p. 67).

In conclusion, the philosophical underpinnings of anthropocentrism are rooted in

concepts such as human exceptionalism, dualistic thinking, utilitarianism, and Enlightenment

values of reason and individualism. These ideas have shaped a worldview that prioritizes human

interests and often neglects the intrinsic value of non-human entities. By critically examining

these philosophical foundations, we can better understand the limitations of anthropocentrism

and explore more holistic and equitable approaches to environmental ethics.

2.4 Manifestations in Policy and Practice

Anthropocentrism manifests in environmental policy and practice through a variety of

mechanisms that prioritize human interests over ecological integrity. In resource management,

anthropocentric policies often emphasize economic growth and human development over

ecological preservation. For instance, deforestation for agriculture, mining, and urban

development is frequently justified by the immediate economic benefits these activities provide.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), agriculture remains the leading

cause of deforestation, driven by the demand for commodities such as soy, palm oil, and beef

(FAO, 2020). These activities are defended by their contributions to economic development and

food security, despite their substantial ecological costs, such as loss of biodiversity, disruption of

water cycles, and increased carbon emissions. As noted by environmental scholar Hamilton, “the

23
relentless drive for economic growth, particularly in developing countries, often trumps

environmental considerations” (Hamilton, 2010, p. 45).

Environmental laws and regulations frequently reflect anthropocentric priorities, focusing

on managing natural resources to prevent their depletion and ensure their continued availability

for human use. For example, the United States' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

mandates environmental impact assessments (EIAs) primarily to mitigate negative effects on

human health and well-being. While these assessments consider environmental impacts, their

primary goal is to balance ecological concerns with economic development, often sidelining the

intrinsic value of ecosystems (Karkkainen, 2002). This approach is evident in many countries'

policies, where environmental protection is framed as a means to sustain human life and

economic activity rather than as an end in itself.

Conservation efforts also exhibit anthropocentric biases, particularly in the prioritization

of species that have cultural or economic significance to humans. Charismatic megafauna, such

as tigers, elephants, and pandas, often receive disproportionate attention and funding due to their

appeal to the public and their perceived importance to tourism and national identity. A study by

Smith et al. (2010) highlights that species with high public profiles are more likely to be the

focus of conservation efforts, even if they are not the most ecologically crucial. The study states,

“conservation resources are often allocated based on species' charisma rather than ecological

importance, leading to neglect of less visible species that play key roles in ecosystem

functioning” (Smith et al., 2010, p. 78).

24
 This anthropocentric bias in conservation can lead to skewed priorities and inefficient use

of resources. For example, efforts to save iconic species like the giant panda involve significant

financial investments, which could potentially yield greater ecological benefits if directed toward

protecting entire ecosystems or less charismatic but keystone species. As Kareiva and Marvier

(2012) argue, “conservation strategies need to move beyond species-centric approaches and

focus on preserving the ecological processes that sustain biodiversity” (Kareiva & Marvier,

2012, p. 19). Moreover, anthropocentric environmental policies often fail to address the root

causes of ecological degradation. Policies that prioritize short-term human benefits, such as

subsidies for fossil fuels or incentives for large-scale monoculture plantations, contribute to long-

term environmental harm. These practices exacerbate climate change, soil degradation, and water

scarcity, undermining the ecological foundations upon which human societies depend. As

environmental ethicist Rolston points out that, “anthropocentric policies tend to be myopic,

focusing on immediate human gains while ignoring the long-term sustainability of the planet's

ecosystems" (Rolston, 2012, p. 34).

In contrast, more holistic approaches to environmental policy and practice, such as

ecocentric or biocentric frameworks, emphasize the intrinsic value of all living beings and

ecosystems. These approaches advocate for the protection of nature for its own sake, recognizing

that human well-being is ultimately interconnected with the health of the planet. For instance, the

concept of “earth jurisprudence” calls for legal systems that recognize the rights of nature,

granting legal personhood to natural entities and ecosystems. This perspective challenges the

25
anthropocentric paradigm and promotes a more balanced and sustainable relationship between

humans and the environment (Cullinan, 2011).

In conclusion, anthropocentrism manifests in environmental policy and practice through

the prioritization of economic growth and human development, the framing of environmental

laws to balance ecological concerns with human interests, and the bias in conservation efforts

towards charismatic species. These anthropocentric approaches often lead to environmental

degradation and overlook the intrinsic value of nature. By adopting more holistic frameworks

that recognize the interconnectedness of all life, policymakers can promote more sustainable and

equitable environmental practices.

26
 CHAPTER THREE: CRITIQUES BASED ON ALTERNATIVES TO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOCENTRISM

3.1 Ecocentrism and Biocentrism

Ecocentrism and biocentrism are two philosophical approaches that offer robust critiques

of anthropocentrism by emphasizing the intrinsic value of nature and all living beings, rather

than their utility to humans. These perspectives shift the ethical focus from a human-centered to

a nature-centered or life-centered viewpoint, advocating for the protection and preservation of

ecological systems and all forms of life.

Ecocentrism is a nature-centered philosophy that argues for the inherent worth of all

ecosystems, including their abiotic components, independent of their utility to humans. This

perspective advocates for a holistic approach to environmental ethics, recognizing the

interdependence of all ecological elements. Aldo Leopold's “land ethic” is the foundational

concept in ecocentrism. Leopold posits that “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the

integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”

(Leopold, 1949, p. 224). This statement underscores the ecocentric belief that ethical decisions

should be made based on their impact on the entire ecosystem, rather than on human interests

alone. Leopold’s land ethic challenges the anthropocentric notion that humans are separate from

and superior to nature. He argues for a respectful and sustainable coexistence, where humans
27
view themselves as members of the biotic community, not conquerors of it. According to

Leopold, “the land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils,

waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” (Leopold, 1949, p. 204). This perspective

requires a paradigm shift in how humans perceive their relationship with the natural world,

promoting an ethic of care and responsibility towards the environment.

Ecocentrism also emphasizes the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem health.

Ecocentric policies and practices prioritize the maintenance of ecological balance and the

preservation of natural habitats. For example, conservation efforts based on ecocentric principles

focus on protecting entire ecosystems rather than individual species. This approach recognizes

that the health of individual species is intrinsically linked to the health of their habitats. As noted

by environmental philosopher Callicott, “ecocentrism calls for an ethical responsibility to protect

and restore the health of ecosystems, viewing human activities through the lens of their

ecological impact” (Callicott, 1999, p. 68).

Biocentrism extends moral consideration to all living beings, asserting that all forms of

life have intrinsic value and deserve ethical consideration. Philosopher Paul Taylor, in his work

Respect for Nature, argues that “the biocentric outlook sees humans as one species among many,

each with its own inherent worth” (Taylor, 1986, p. 45). Biocentrism emphasizes the moral

significance of individual organisms, advocating for the protection of all life forms, not just those

deemed valuable by human standards. Taylor outlines four key principles of biocentrism: the

recognition of the inherent worth of all living beings, the interdependence of all life forms, the

denial of human superiority, and the acceptance of the principle of equal consideration for all
28
living beings. He writes that “each organism is a teleological center of life, pursuing its own

good in its own way” (Taylor, 1986, p. 99). This principle highlights the intrinsic value of

individual organisms, irrespective of their utility to humans.

Biocentrism challenges anthropocentric ethical frameworks by asserting that human

interests should not automatically take precedence over the interests of other living beings. This

perspective calls for a radical rethinking of human activities that harm or exploit other life forms.

For instance, biocentric ethics would oppose practices such as factory farming, deforestation, and

industrial pollution, which cause significant harm to animals and plants. Both ecocentrism and

biocentrism provide robust critiques of anthropocentrism by shifting the focus from human-

centered to life-centered or ecosystem-centered ethics. These perspectives promote policies and

practices that prioritize ecological health and biodiversity, challenging the exploitation of natural

resources for short-term human benefits. As noted by environmental ethicist Rolston,

“ecocentrism and biocentrism both reject the notion that human interests are paramount,

advocating instead for an ethical framework that respects the intrinsic value of nature and all

living beings” (Rolston, 2012, p. 123).

In practice, ecocentric and biocentric ethics can inform a wide range of environmental

policies and actions. For example, ecocentric principles can guide land use planning to minimize

habitat destruction and promote ecological restoration. This approach is exemplified by the

concept of rewilding, which aims to restore ecosystems to their natural states by reintroducing

native species and removing human-made structures. Similarly, biocentric principles can inform

animal welfare policies, promoting humane treatment and protection of animals in agriculture,
29
research, and conservation. Both philosophies also have implications for environmental

education and public awareness. By promoting a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness

of all life forms and the intrinsic value of nature, ecocentric and biocentric perspectives can

foster a more respectful and sustainable relationship between humans and the environment.

Environmental educator David Orr emphasizes the importance of ecocentric education, stating

that, “education for sustainability must be rooted in an understanding of the natural world and

our place within it, fostering a sense of ecological responsibility and stewardship” (Orr, 2004, p.

89).

In conclusion, ecocentrism and biocentrism offer powerful critiques of anthropocentrism

by emphasizing the intrinsic value of nature and all living beings. These philosophical

approaches advocate for a shift from human-centered to life-centered or ecosystem-centered

ethics, promoting policies and practices that prioritize ecological health and biodiversity. By

challenging the exploitative and utilitarian tendencies of anthropocentrism, ecocentrism and

biocentrism provide a foundation for more sustainable and ethical environmental stewardship.

3.2 Deep Ecology and Ecological Holism

Deep ecology and ecological holism offer radical and comprehensive critiques of

anthropocentrism, advocating for a profound rethinking of humanity's relationship with nature.

These philosophies emphasize the intrinsic value of all living beings and the interconnectedness

of ecological systems, promoting a holistic and egalitarian approach to environmental ethics.

30
 Deep Ecology is a radical environmental philosophy that advocates for a profound

rethinking of humanity's relationship with nature. Coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess,

deep ecology emphasizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and the need for a fundamental

ecological consciousness. Naess differentiates between ‘shallow’ environmentalism, which

focuses on pollution and resource depletion, and ‘deep’ ecology, which calls for a holistic

approach to ecological problems. He writes that “the essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper

questions, and we are not satisfied with a shallow or reformist approach” (Naess, 1989, p. 29).

Deep ecology promotes an egalitarian view of life, where humans are no more valuable than

other species. This perspective challenges the anthropocentric belief in human superiority and

calls for a substantial reduction in human impact on the natural world. The principles of deep

ecology advocate for biodiversity, ecological sustainability, and a profound respect for all forms

of life. Naess articulates eight principles that underpin deep ecology, including the recognition of

the intrinsic value of all life forms and the necessity of reducing human interference in the

natural world (Naess, 1989).

Deep ecology calls for a shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric thinking, where humans

see themselves as part of the larger ecological community. This shift requires a fundamental

change in attitudes and lifestyles, moving away from consumerism and exploitation towards

sustainability and conservation. Naess argues that “ecological responsibility requires changes in

policies and lifestyles that are drastic and far-reaching” (Naess, 1989, p. 33). The deep ecology

movement has inspired various environmental activists and organizations to advocate for policies

that prioritize ecological integrity over human economic interests. For instance, the practice of

31
rewilding, which involves restoring ecosystems to their natural state by reintroducing native

species and removing human-made structures, aligns with deep ecology principles. Rewilding

projects aim to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, reflecting the deep ecological

commitment to preserving the intrinsic value of all life forms (Foreman, 2004).

Ecological Holism extends the principles of deep ecology by emphasizing the

interconnectedness of all ecological systems. This approach argues that ecosystems should be

understood and valued as wholes, rather than merely as collections of individual species. James

Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a prominent example of ecological holism, proposing that the

Earth functions as a self-regulating system. Lovelock writes, “The Gaia hypothesis suggests that

we are part of a larger system, one that we must respect and understand if we are to continue to

thrive” Lovelock, 1979, p. 19). The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth's biological and

physical components interact in complex ways to maintain conditions suitable for life. This

perspective highlights the interdependence of all life forms and the importance of maintaining

the health and balance of entire ecosystems. Lovelock's hypothesis suggests that human actions

that disrupt the balance of natural systems can have far-reaching and potentially catastrophic

consequences (Lovelock, 1979).

Ecological holism advocates for a holistic approach to environmental management,

where policies and practices consider the well-being of entire ecosystems rather than focusing

solely on individual species or human needs. This approach calls for integrated conservation

strategies that address the root causes of environmental degradation and promote the resilience of

natural systems. For example, holistic land management practices, such as permaculture and
32
agroecology, seek to create sustainable agricultural systems that work in harmony with natural

processes, enhancing soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem stability (Mollison, 1988). Both

deep ecology and ecological holism provide critiques of anthropocentrism by advocating for a

more integrated and respectful approach to environmental stewardship. These philosophies

emphasize the importance of maintaining the health and balance of entire ecosystems, rather than

focusing solely on human needs. They challenge the anthropocentric notion that humans are

separate from and superior to nature, promoting a view of humans as integral parts of the

ecological community.

The critiques offered by deep ecology and ecological holism have significant

implications for environmental policy and practice. They call for a shift towards policies that

prioritize ecological integrity and sustainability over short-term human interests. For instance,

deep ecological and holistic approaches to climate change emphasize the need for systemic

changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and restore natural

ecosystems. These approaches advocate for transitioning to renewable energy sources,

implementing conservation strategies, and promoting sustainable lifestyles (Devall & Sessions,

1985).

Furthermore, deep ecology and ecological holism encourage a re-evaluation of economic

systems that prioritize growth and consumption over ecological health. They call for the adoption

of alternative economic models, such as steady-state economics and ecological economics,

which seek to balance human well-being with environmental sustainability (Daly, 1991). These

models emphasize the need to live within ecological limits and promote equitable distribution of
33
resources. In addition to informing policy, deep ecology and ecological holism also influence

environmental education and public awareness. By promoting a deeper understanding of the

interconnectedness of all life forms and the intrinsic value of nature, these philosophies can

foster a more respectful and sustainable relationship between humans and the environment.

Environmental education programs that incorporate deep ecological and holistic principles can

help individuals develop a sense of ecological responsibility and a commitment to sustainable

living (Sterling, 2001).

In conclusion, deep ecology and ecological holism offer powerful critiques of

anthropocentrism by emphasizing the intrinsic value of all living beings and the

interconnectedness of ecological systems. These philosophies advocate for a shift from human-

centered to ecocentric and holistic thinking, promoting policies and practices that prioritize

ecological health and sustainability. By challenging the exploitative and utilitarian tendencies of

anthropocentrism, deep ecology and ecological holism provide a foundation for more ethical and

sustainable environmental stewardship.

3.3 Indigenous Perspectives on Nature

Indigenous perspectives on nature offer valuable critiques of anthropocentrism by

emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life forms and the importance of living in harmony

with the natural world. Indigenous knowledge systems often embody principles of respect,

reciprocity, and stewardship, challenging the exploitative and utilitarian approaches

characteristic of anthropocentric worldviews. For many Indigenous cultures, nature is seen as a

34
relative or a community member, rather than a resource to be exploited. Deloria, a prominent

Indigenous scholar, writes that “indigenous peoples understand that they are a part of the natural

world, not separate from it, and this understanding shapes their environmental practices”

(Deloria, 2001, p. 67). This relational worldview fosters a deep sense of responsibility towards

the environment, promoting sustainable practices that ensure the well-being of future

generations. Unlike the anthropocentric model, which often views nature through a lens of

domination and exploitation, Indigenous perspectives encourage a symbiotic relationship with

the Earth, recognizing that human well-being is deeply intertwined with the health of the natural

world.

Indigenous land management practices, such as controlled burning and polyculture

farming, reflect a profound understanding of ecological dynamics and the need for balance.

These practices often lead to greater biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, offering valuable

lessons for contemporary environmental management. Kimmerer, in her book Braiding

Sweetgrass (2013), highlights the importance of reciprocal relationships with nature, stating, “in

Indigenous ways of knowing, human people are often referred to as the 'younger brothers of

Creation.' We say that humans have the least experience with how to live and thus the most to

learn” (Kimmerer, 2013, p. 9).

Controlled burning, a practice used by Indigenous peoples in various parts of the world,

including Australia and North America, involves the deliberate setting of small, controlled fires

to clear underbrush and promote the growth of certain plant species. This method helps prevent

larger, uncontrolled wildfires and maintains the health of ecosystems. In their study on
35
Indigenous fire management in Australia, Gammage (2011) notes, “these fires were planned with

precision to promote diverse and healthy landscapes, showcasing an intricate understanding of

the local environment” (p. 102).

Polyculture farming, another Indigenous practice, involves growing multiple crop species

in the same area, mimicking the diversity found in natural ecosystems. This approach enhances

soil fertility, reduces pest outbreaks, and increases crop resilience. According to Altieri (1995),

“polyculture systems are highly productive and sustainable, offering a viable alternative to the

monocultures promoted by industrial agriculture” (p. 23). Indigenous knowledge systems also

emphasize the importance of spiritual relationships with nature. Many Indigenous cultures

believe in the presence of spirits in natural elements such as mountains, rivers, and trees. This

spiritual connection fosters a deep respect for the environment and guides sustainable practices.

As described by Berkes (2012), “the sacred and the ecological are intertwined in Indigenous

worldviews, where spiritual beliefs reinforce the stewardship of the land” (p. 17).

The principle of reciprocity is central to many Indigenous environmental ethics. This

principle involves giving back to nature in return for the resources it provides. Kimmerer (2013)

explains, “reciprocity is about the giving back for the gift we have received, recognizing that the

Earth provides for us, and we must care for it in return” (p. 20). This ethic of reciprocity

contrasts sharply with the exploitative mindset of anthropocentrism, which often takes from

nature without consideration of replenishment or balance. Incorporating Indigenous perspectives

into environmental policy and practice requires recognizing and valuing Indigenous knowledge.

This process involves respecting Indigenous sovereignty and ensuring that Indigenous peoples
36
have a central role in decision-making about their lands and resources. An example of successful

integration of Indigenous knowledge is the co-management of protected areas in Canada, where

Indigenous communities and government agencies collaborate to manage national parks. This

partnership recognizes the value of Indigenous ecological knowledge and promotes practices that

benefit both biodiversity and cultural heritage (Berkes, 2012).

Indigenous perspectives can contribute to global environmental governance. The United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) emphasizes the importance

of Indigenous participation in environmental decision-making processes. Article 29 states,

“Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the

productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources” (United Nations, 2007).

Implementing such frameworks can ensure that environmental policies respect Indigenous rights

and knowledge, leading to more sustainable and equitable outcomes.

The critiques of anthropocentrism offered by Indigenous perspectives highlight the

limitations of a worldview that prioritizes human interests over ecological integrity. By

recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms and the interconnectedness of human and

ecological well-being, Indigenous knowledge systems provide a foundation for more sustainable

and just environmental practices. These perspectives challenge the dominant narrative of human

superiority and exploitation, advocating for a more balanced and respectful relationship with the

natural world.

37
 To sum up, Indigenous perspectives on nature provide valuable critiques of

anthropocentrism by emphasizing interconnectedness, respect, and reciprocity. Indigenous land

management practices, spiritual beliefs, and ethical principles offer important lessons for

sustainable environmental stewardship. Integrating Indigenous knowledge into environmental

policy and practice can lead to more equitable and effective solutions to environmental

challenges. By embracing the wisdom of Indigenous cultures, we can move towards a more

harmonious and sustainable relationship with the Earth.

3.4 Non-Western Philosophical Approaches

Non-Western philosophical approaches offer diverse critiques of anthropocentrism,

emphasizing holistic and interconnected views of the natural world. These philosophies often

advocate for harmony between humans and nature, challenging the dominance of human-

centered perspectives and promoting more sustainable and ethical environmental practices.

Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism provide rich

frameworks for understanding humanity's relationship with nature, each offering unique critiques

of anthropocentrism. Buddhism teaches the principle of interdependence, where all phenomena

are interconnected and interdependent. This concept, known as ‘dependent origination,’ suggests

that everything arises in relation to other things, and therefore, harming nature ultimately harms

oneself. The Dalai Lama emphasizes this interconnectedness, stating that “because we all share

this small planet Earth, we have to learn to live in harmony and peace with each other and with

nature” (Dalai Lama, 1996, p. 65). Buddhism promotes compassion and mindfulness, extending

38
these principles to the environment. By recognizing the intrinsic value of all living beings and

the interconnectedness of life, Buddhism provides a profound critique of anthropocentrism,

advocating for environmental stewardship rooted in empathy and awareness.

Taoism emphasizes living in accordance with the Tao, or the fundamental nature of the

universe. Taoist teachings advocate for simplicity, humility, and non-interference with natural

processes. Laozi, the founder of Taoism, writes that, “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is

accomplished” (Laozi, 2006, p. 34). This perspective encourages a harmonious and respectful

relationship with the natural world, contrasting sharply with the exploitative tendencies of

anthropocentrism. Taoism promotes the idea of ‘wu wei,” or non-action, which involves aligning

with the natural flow of the universe rather than imposing human will upon it. This approach

fosters a deep respect for the natural world and encourages practices that are sustainable and in

harmony with the environment.

Confucianism promotes the idea of harmony between heaven, earth, and humanity.

Confucian environmental ethics stress the importance of moral cultivation and virtuous living,

which includes caring for the environment. Tu Weiming, a prominent Confucian scholar, argues

that, “The way of Confucianism is to see humanity as part of a cosmic order and to respect and

care for all living things within this order” (Tu, 2001, p. 47). Confucianism emphasizes the

importance of ‘ren,’ or humaneness, which extends to all forms of life. This ethical framework

encourages individuals to act with benevolence towards the environment, promoting sustainable

practices that benefit both humans and the natural world.

39
 Indian philosophical traditions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, offer

additional critiques of anthropocentrism through their emphasis on the sanctity of life and the

interconnectedness of all beings. Hinduism recognizes the divine presence in all forms of life,

advocating for the reverence and protection of nature. The concept of ‘ahimsa,’ or non-violence,

is central to Hindu ethics and extends to all living beings. The Bhagavad Gita, a key Hindu text,

states, “He who sees the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self, remains poised in the state

of harmony” (Bhagavad Gita, 6:29). This perspective encourages a deep respect for nature and

promotes practices that protect and sustain the environment.

Jainism offers a rigorous critique of anthropocentrism through its strict adherence to non-

violence and respect for all forms of life. Jain philosophy teaches that every living being has a

soul and that all life forms are interconnected. Jain ethics advocate for minimizing harm to all

living creatures, leading to practices such as vegetarianism and careful environmental

stewardship. As Jain scholar Natubhai Shah explains that “the principle of non-violence (ahimsa)

in Jainism is a comprehensive principle that applies not only to human beings but to all forms of

life” (Shah, 2004, p. 32).

African and Indigenous philosophical approaches also provide valuable critiques of

anthropocentrism, emphasizing community, reciprocity, and the sacredness of nature. African

philosophies often stress the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of living in

harmony with the environment. The concept of ‘Ubuntu,’ which means ‘I am because we are,’

highlights the interconnectedness of all beings and the importance of community. Ubuntu

extends to the natural world, promoting an ethic of care and responsibility towards the
40
environment. As Desmond Tutu explains, “Ubuntu speaks of the very essence of being human. It

is to say, 'My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.' We belong in a bundle

of life” (Tutu, 1999, p. 31). This interconnected worldview fosters environmental stewardship

and sustainable practices.

Indigenous philosophies from various parts of the world, including Native American,

Maori, and Aboriginal Australian traditions, emphasize the sacredness of nature and the

importance of reciprocal relationships. Indigenous environmental ethics are rooted in a deep

respect for the land and a recognition of the interdependence of all life forms. As Indigenous

scholar Cajete explains, “For Indigenous peoples, the land is a living entity, a being with whom

we share a relationship” (Cajete, 2000, p. 78). This perspective challenges anthropocentric views

and promotes sustainable environmental practices that honor the intrinsic value of nature. By

embracing non-Western philosophical approaches, we can develop more holistic and sustainable

environmental ethics. These perspectives emphasize the interconnectedness of all life and

advocate for harmonious relationships with nature, providing robust critiques of

anthropocentrism. Integrating these diverse viewpoints into environmental policy and practice

can lead to more effective and equitable solutions to global environmental challenges.

41
 CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Summary

This study has critically examined the concept of environmental anthropocentrism,

tracing its origins, impacts, and the alternative perspectives that challenge its dominance. We

began by defining environmental anthropocentrism as an ethical standpoint that places human

interests and needs at the center of environmental considerations, often at the expense of the

natural world. This viewpoint, deeply rooted in Western philosophical and cultural traditions, has

shaped environmental policy and practice, prioritizing human welfare over ecological integrity.

The historical development of anthropocentrism was explored, highlighting its

foundations in ancient Western philosophies and religious doctrines. The Judeo-Christian

42
tradition, with its notion of human dominion over nature, significantly influenced the

anthropocentric worldview. Enlightenment thinkers like René Descartes and Francis Bacon

further reinforced these ideas by promoting human reason and scientific progress as tools to

control and exploit nature. The Industrial Revolution marked a pivotal moment in the

entrenchment of anthropocentrism, as technological advancements facilitated unprecedented

exploitation of natural resources.

Philosophically, anthropocentrism is grounded in ideas such as human exceptionalism

and dualistic thinking, which separate humans from the rest of nature. Utilitarianism, which

values actions based on their consequences for human welfare, also supports anthropocentrism.

The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and individualism further entrenched the notion that

human needs and desires should be at the forefront of ethical considerations, often sidelining the

intrinsic worth of non-human entities.

The manifestations of anthropocentrism in environmental policy and practice were

examined, revealing how policies often prioritize economic growth and human development over

ecological preservation. Examples include deforestation for agriculture, mining, and urban

development, justified by their benefits to human societies despite significant ecological damage.

Environmental laws and regulations frequently reflect anthropocentric priorities, focusing on

managing natural resources to prevent depletion that would harm human interests rather than

preserving ecosystems for their own sake. Conservation efforts often prioritize charismatic

species with cultural or economic significance, neglecting less visible but ecologically crucial

organisms.
43
 We then explored alternative perspectives to anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism and

biocentrism emphasize the intrinsic value of nature and all living beings, advocating for holistic

and life-centered ethics. Deep ecology and ecological holism call for a fundamental rethinking of

humanity’s relationship with nature, promoting the interconnectedness of all ecological systems

and the need for a substantial reduction in human impact. Indigenous perspectives emphasize the

interconnectedness of all life forms and the importance of living in harmony with the natural

world, offering valuable lessons for contemporary environmental management. Non-Western

philosophical approaches, including Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and various Indigenous

philosophies, provide robust critiques of anthropocentrism by advocating for harmony and

balance with nature.

4.2 Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight the profound influence of anthropocentrism on

environmental thought and practice, revealing its deep-seated roots in Western philosophy and

culture. This human-centered perspective has significantly shaped environmental policies, often

prioritizing human welfare over ecological integrity. The consequences of this approach are

evident in the ongoing environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change,

underscoring the limitations and detrimental impacts of an anthropocentric framework.

By tracing the historical development of anthropocentrism, we see how ancient religious

doctrines, Enlightenment thinking, and the Industrial Revolution contributed to the dominance of

this worldview. Philosophically, the ideas of human exceptionalism, dualistic thinking, and

44
utilitarianism have reinforced the notion of human superiority and the exploitation of nature for

human benefit. These philosophical underpinnings have permeated environmental policy and

practice, leading to approaches that often neglect the intrinsic value of non-human entities and

ecosystems.

The examination of alternative perspectives such as ecocentrism, biocentrism, deep

ecology, and Indigenous and non-Western philosophies reveals the potential for more sustainable

and ethical approaches to environmental management. These perspectives challenge the

anthropocentric paradigm by emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life forms and the

intrinsic value of nature. They advocate for policies and practices that prioritize ecological

health, biodiversity, and the well-being of all living beings, not just humans.

Ecocentrism and biocentrism shift the focus from human-centered to life-centered or

ecosystem-centered ethics, promoting policies that prioritize ecological health and biodiversity.

Deep ecology and ecological holism call for a profound rethinking of humanity’s relationship

with nature, advocating for a substantial reduction in human impact and a holistic approach to

environmental stewardship. Indigenous perspectives emphasize the interconnectedness of all life

forms and the importance of living in harmony with the natural world, offering valuable lessons

for contemporary environmental management. Non-Western philosophical approaches, including

those from Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and various Indigenous traditions, provide robust

critiques of anthropocentrism by advocating for harmony and balance with nature.

45
 In conclusion, the study underscores the need to move beyond anthropocentrism and

embrace more inclusive and holistic perspectives on environmental ethics. By integrating

alternative frameworks such as ecocentrism, biocentrism, deep ecology, and Indigenous and non-

Western philosophies into environmental policy and practice, we can promote more sustainable

and equitable environmental management. These perspectives offer valuable insights for

developing policies and practices that respect the intrinsic value of nature and recognize the

interconnectedness of all life forms, ultimately fostering a more harmonious and sustainable

relationship between humans and the environment.

REFERENCES

Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Westview Press.

Aquinas, T. (2014). Basic Works. Hause, J. and Pasnau, R. (eds.). Hackett.

Bacon, F. (2000). A Critical Edition of the Major Works. Vickers, B. (ed.). Oxford University

Press.

Bentham, J. (1970). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Burns J. H. and

Hart, H. L. A. (eds.). Athlone Press

46
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Routledge.

Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers.

Callicott, J. B. (1999). Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy.

SUNY Press.

Cullinan, C. (2011). Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Dalai Lama. (1996). The Path to Tranquility. Viking.

Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-State Economics: Second Edition with New Essays. Island Press.

Deloria, V. Jr. (2001). Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Fulcrum Publishing.

Descates, R. (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Descartes' Meditations. Gaukroger, S. (trans.).

Wiley-Blackwell.

Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Gibbs M. Smith,

Inc.

Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R. & Snyder, P. K.

(2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570-574.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.

Foreman, D. (2004). Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century.

Island Press.

47
Gammage, B. (2011). The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Allen &

Unwin.

Hamilton, C. (2010). Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change.

Earthscan.

Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on Metaphysics. Ameriks, K. and Naragon, S. (eds.) Cambridge

University Press.

Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). Conservation Science: Balancing the Needs of People and

Nature. Roberts and Company Publishers.

Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). "Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government's

Environmental Performance." Columbia Law Review, 102(4), 903-972.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and

the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions.

Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Simon & Schuster.

Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press.

McKibben, B. (2010). Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. Henry Holt and Co.

Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution.

Harper & Row.

48
Mollison, B. (1988). Permaculture: A Designers' Manual. Tagari Publications.

Morton, T. (2010). The Ecological Thought. Harvard University Press.

Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge

University Press.

Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics,

6(2), 131-148.

Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island

Press.

Pinchot, G. (1910). The Fight for Conservation. Doubleday, Page & Co.

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.

Rolston, H. III. (2012). A New Environmental Ethics: The Next Millennium for Life on Earth.

Routledge.

Shah, N. (2004). Jainism: The World of Conquerors. Sussex Academic Press.

Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

Smith, R. J., Veríssimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R. M., & Knight, A. T. (2010). "Let

the locals lead." Nature, 463(7282), 27-28.

Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change. Green Books.

49
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton

University Press.

Tu, W. (2001). Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans.

Harvard University Press.

Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. Image Books.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United

Nations.

50