Are we really conserving wildlife and habitats or just managing under increasing pressure of human demands?
Some articles focusing your interesting question:
Article Sustainable development as deus ex machina
Article Differences between niches of anthropocentric and biocentric...
Article From the Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Perspectives, a Surv...
Article The Complementary Niches of Anthropocentric and Biocentric C...
Ecocentric or anthropcentric attitude is not that matters, but whether one has the ecological conviction is what matters.
Because the conventional ecocentric attitude dictates people to be more nature oriented in the sense that nature is more important than humans whereas the anthropocentric attitude dictates humans to be more people oriented. Both the attitudes have limitations, as are not based on the true or scientific principles of nature's existence
But ecological science has the potential to provide humans a different conviction to be truly scientific to sustain happy forever with nature
In fact ecology (the branch of biology that deals with higher levels of life) reveals that life is a system phenomenon, beginning from the cellular level to the ecosystem level. Below the cellular and above the ecosystem level, the universal system remains quite non-living.
Ordinary biology deals with life up to the level of individuals whereas ecology deals with the higher levels of life - population, community and ecosystem levels.
Only ecologically conscious humans are capable of understanding the ecological continuity of the system of life on the earth.
Individual animals and plants behave quite truly as per the biological instincts and never cause troubles in the natural system of life
But an ecologically ignorant human is confused to manage the earth.
The vision of an ecologically ignorant of what he/she really is, won't permit he/she to understand the real potentials of being an everlasting entity of life on the earth
But the ecological consciousness enable humans to understand his/ her life as not just the body, but the entire system of life on the earth - an infinite continuity, from individual to population, community, ecosystem and the biosphere - to love and care for the entire biosphere as own body - to extend himself/herself to be global, without an enemy in the world
The behaviour of such an ecologically conscious human will be different; he/she will really care for the balance of the system and will have the capacity to limits his/her freedom to manipulate the system as well as own needs, irrespective of where and when he/she lives, to keep the system intact for the whole human generations to enjoy life forever in the earthly system
The management of nature with ecological conviction is both ecocentric as well as anthropocentric.
An ecologically conscious human being, while existing as an individual for a certain time on the earth, does not consider he/she as just an individual/society/nation/ global population of any given period, but a universally continuing entity, living for forever on the earth.
What the world require is a thorough ecological consciousness!
over years canopy of the forest is in a receding trend and due to exotic weeds, regeneration of plant species affected. I am thinking we are only managing under the pressure only.
This is a great question. But it is also a question rooted in philosophy. And we do know that once the human species becomes extinct, all of the knowledge, the philosophies, the languages, the cultures will disappear with their last breath. Until then, it is interesting to muse over this conundrum.
Just some views to throw into the mix. Much like many other species we are species-centric. Ants will colonise and area and alter it very much to benefit their survival. Plants are known to suppress other species from crowding their "space" through the release of chemicals in the air or soil. Humans alter their environment to suit the proclivities and resource use of the time. Our self-awareness has given an insight into how we are utilising resources beyond the carrying capacity but does that make us particularly different from other species?
Really good insights from Eddy. Thanks a lot Eddy for sharing your views.
Eddy, it is not that way.
Humans are not just another species.
Humans as an intelligent species are supposed to understand the ecology of the system of life on the earth which include the entire interactions of all the living among themselves and they themselves with the entire surrounding.
Therefore, humans have the obligation to maintain the balance of the entire system; the obligation of purposefully doing all actions without affecting the natural balance.
Such an erudite living process enable humans to live forever - not from a desire to sustain the Homo sapiens, but from the ecologically conscious actions, which are inevitable from human side as intelligent species
Dr. Ray has put very important aspect of being ecological conscious. Thank you Dr. Ray. Only question comes to mind that how can we bring this consciousness among techno-driven people.
Hi Joseph. We will agree to disagree.
As a zoologist, I know we are just another species of organism. We have evolved, we exist and, at some stage, we will become extinct (possibly replaced by a different offshoot from Homo sapiens).
What you are espousing is a humanist and totally anthropocentric view of the world. And there is nothing wrong with that - it is a matter of opinion and philosophical stance.
In reality we have no obligation to look after anything or anyone. We did not evolve to be caretakers. We exist to survive and we have altered environments to achieve that goal. An awareness of environmental damage is only an awareness that maybe if we continue on the same path we imperil our own existence.
As an observer of many species of animals and plants over decades, I can tell you that there is little difference in many behaviours between humans and other species - we just choose to call them something different. Also we need to understand that the only ones who place us at the top of the evolutionary pile are ourselves. That is not and objective measure by any means.
Great. This discussion and views sharing is really helping a lot. This is how we think differently and still two different opinions could be true at there point of view. Thank a lot. Please keep sharing critical views.
Hi Eddy, thank you for the critical comments which enable me to further criticize your position for better clarification
Yes, humans are yet another animal species, but cannot be equated with any other animal species.
Conventional anthropocentrism and the ecological anthropocentrism are quite different' The ecologically elite cannot view the humans just as another species, but the species who has the capacity to embrace the whole as own system with the potential to manage it properly.
The ecological stance of interpreting humans as the whole is the only reasonable means for humans to manage nature as a sustainable system
Whether one accept or not accept, ultimately humans are evolving to that finality and not to a catastrophe!
All the current environment issues that humans face today are the outcome of a 'Homo sapiens' -centered outlook to nature - of exploiting the resources out of proportion in a struggle to out-compete others (one race or religion or nation over the others, and all races over the other biological species)
Ecological understanding of the real 'human position' in nature and the one system attitude to nature is quite different, which one cannot view through the narrow biological view point.... ordinary biologists only disagree... which ecologists only agree to disagree
I hope the biology that we speak about - evolution and struggle for existence are only a minute aspect of the exact truth of life in the universe, which biologists are not able to imagine properly - agree or disagree...
Joseph, some good arguments.
I am firmly of the opinion that humans are nothing more than just another species. We are not apart from other species, nor are we better or worse than other species; they are subjective anthropocentric assessments of our role. Our consciousness, our awareness, our knowledge, our behaviours, our sentience are specific to us, only us, and will disappear with our extinction (whenever that may be; tomorrow or 100,000 years from now - who knows).
We also need to remember that our environmental impacts on this planet are commensurate with our scale of existence (ecological scale is often overlooked). We are 6-7 billion individuals that take up substantial spaces in the landscape an exploit resources to maintain and enhance our survival; much in much the same way as other communal species exist to enhance their survival.
From a personal point of view, I would like more people to be ecologically aware, but in many instances, that awareness will not change the paths we have set for our species. There is no suggestion of catastrophe. Just a realisation that the species will ebb and flow as it has always done. We may make our lives harder in doing what we do but that is our conscious and unconscious choice (i.e., we "want" a lot more than we "need").
Fundamentally, there is no higher truth in this world or higher meaning. There is no spiritual or universal role that sets humans apart from all other species on this planet. The earth has been around for 5 billion years. Approximately 3-4 billions ago we had the first organisms. They evolved into a myriad of species that came and went. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest this world has seen trillions of species over that time. The human species is just one of those. We will come and go and the earth will persist beyond our efforts as it has done in the past. New species will evolve and things will continue whether it be as a barren rock in orbit around a dying star or as a different ecosystem dynamic sans humans and our restrictive and limiting constructs.
If we really want to understand our position on this planet, you begin by ignoring the "human" as a higher evolutionary and philosophical construct and start treating it as another species. Then you are able to get a much more relevant and realistic aspect of our role in the ecology of this planet. Maybe then we start dealing with problems we create head-on rather than by committee.
Thanks for the discussion.
Thanks Eddy, I have certain questions to your suppositions, which will enable clarification for both of us to discuss better
Your supposition No. 1: "awareness will not change the paths we have set for our species"
What awareness you are talking about?
Has not awareness of different kinds improved human life in the past?
Who has set the paths for our species?
Do you think that there is a path for every species in the course of evolution?
When evolution is a random, accidental and opportunistic change, how can one a set path for any species?
Your supposition No.2: "the species will ebb and flow as it has always done"
Is there any rule in nature that a species has to ebb and flow?
Although we have evidence for extinction of species, the ultimate fate of any species is quite unpredictable; evolutionary theory has not the power to h predict the fate of any species including human species - is it so?
Your supposition No 3: "there is no higher truth in this world or higher meaning"
In fact what is truth as per scientific methodology? If truth is 'anything that is not false ', it is evidence and reasons that decides whether there is partial truth or complete truth. Then why do you say there is no higher truth? A student of science can just say the evidence and reasons are insufficient for certain suppositons
Your supposition No. 4: "There is no spiritual or universal role that sets humans apart from all other species on this planet"
What does it mean spiritual?
If there is nothing spiritual, why should humans say good and bad on individual actions?
Whether you admit or not admit, at least there some good and bad actions sustain a human society - all those without that - the anarchic are vanishing very fast - no one can close the eyes towards history and tell the world that there is nothing good and bad for human actions in nature!
Of course, there were lot of mistakes in the 'good and bad' decisions of humans in the past; but the 'good and bad' are evolving from time to time 'to err is human, but persist in error is devilish' is the scientific position
Your supposition No 5: "The earth has been around for 5 billion years. Approximately 3-4 billions ago we had the first organisms. They evolved into a myriad of species that came and went"
Although evolution is theory of historical analysis of the biological facts, it has no power to predict the future of life.
There is no reason for suggesting that the life will be evolving the same way as it was in the past.
The irrational aspect of this supposition may be countered by the foolish question sometimes ignorant students asks on evolution 'if humans have evolved from monkeys, why the present day monkeys do not evolve into humans"
Why one predicts evolutionary acts? Instead, humans as intelligent species need to analyze the currently in operating evolutionary forces to manage it properly by better understanding and following of ecological practices
Your supposition No. 6: "We will come and go and the earth will persist beyond our efforts as it has done in the past"
How and why do you predict so?
If you look at any basic biological object, you may find self protection and resistance, then how can you say that humans have no obligation to act as a biological entity?
Your supposition No. 7: "New species will evolve and things will continue whether it be as a barren rock in orbit around a dying star or as a different ecosystem dynamic sans humans and our restrictive and limiting constructs"
Why one should be so pessimistic and inactive when the biological urge of every existing creature is to try maximum for self sustenance?
Suicidal behaviour is not expected from normal humans, but only of the psychotics?
Overall, after a critical analysis of the suppositions in your answer, I doubt many flaws in the thinking process, which I hope will be useful for continuing this dicussion
The relationship between two motives underlying environmental attitudes was examined:
ecocentrism—valuing nature for its own sake, and anthropocentrism—valuing nature because of material or physical benefits it can provide for humans.
Article Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes Toward the Environment
Humans in this age are more anthropocentric in their attitude towards the environment.
Dear Vinayak Dhananjay Chavan, you come up with interesting and debatale issue.
Dears, it is true that we humans are the most creative, more complex brains at the same time the most destructive social animal in the world. So, depending on the intervention level towards ecosystem it can be possible to categorize ourselves.
Anthropocentrism: the human being is on “center stage” and nature and ecosistems are sources of resources for human use (unfortunately, the dominant view and the root of the anthropogenic degradation of the biosphere, since it allows for an immoral control and destruction of the wilderness)
Ecocentrism: as biocentrism (Biocentrism: all living beings have inherent value and humans are not superior to others. ), but includes the value of the ecosystems (living AND non-living components) and that the value of biodiversity is above the value of individuals or single species (including humans).
I have enjoyed reading the insights and debates. I think our biggest problem is that "no rain drop feels responsible for the flood." People seek to meet their needs and to fulfill their wants, being influenced mainly by short-term, selfish interests such as hunger, sex drive, deadlines, seeking for social influence, seeking for money, etc. Without being intentionally evil or destructive we are, as a species, setting the stage for our own destruction (we will first destroy many other species). Ultimately a better path would be to partner with nature, to use our creative power to assist natural processes and increase diversity and stability of all ecosystems. I am optimistic that we have the ability to care for our own kind while improving conditions for all life, but I am pessimistic that we will actually do this--the short-term gains of purely selfish behavior tend to win over the long-term gains of large-scale altruism. My hope is that enough people will choose a productive partnership with nature (such as the permaculture movement) that perhaps people will be convinced, en masse, to change our culture from one of destruction to true productivity (measured by ecosystem vitality rather than dollars). Ultimately, however, I am a pessimist because it seems the closer we get to the brick wall of ecosystem collapse, the harder we seem to step on the accelerator!
No body could give actual answer of this types of generalized question, because certain peoples are ecocentric and others are anthropocentric.
Second question is also same types of answer because all peoples mind sets are not same. Because, somebody really conserving wildlife and habitats but others do only for managing under increasing pressure of human demands. So both are generalized questions and cannot be given actual answer.
Some of us have ecocentric principles - see attached, regards, Geoff Holloway, Secretary, United Tasmania Group (UTG) - world´s first Green party (formed 23 March 1972).
Ecocentric or anthropocentric attitudes are complex and dynamic in nature. Humans are bound to switch from one perspective to another with developmental situations. They may not hold a singular perspective at any given era.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics