Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism v. 3.0

[KropotkinKomrade]

I found this to be an interesting discussion but the v. 2.0 thread was closed so I figured I would start v. 3.0.

Anthropocentrism (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, human being, κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the idea that, for humans, humans must be the central concern, and that humanity must judge all things accordingly: Anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women) must be considered, looked after and cared for, above all other real or imaginary beings. Anthropocentrism is a secular, rational and realistic perspective that is closely related to humanism.

Biocentrism is a term that has several meanings but is most commonly defined as the belief that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Biocentric positions generally advocate a focus of the well-being of all life in the consideration of ecological, political, and economic issues. Biocentrism has been contrasted to anthropocentrism, which is the belief that human beings and human society are, or should be, the central focus of existence.

Which stance do you take and why?

[Lord Testicles]

Anthropocentrism I guess, because all forms of life are not equal to human life.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Biocentrism. Quite frankly, I find the planet itself more valuable than us single specie. We die off, the planet lives on. The planet dies off, everything dies off.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is a classic example of a false dilemma.

Humans are a part of the biosphere. Fact.
Humans, like every other species, exhibit modalities of behaviour and verbal expression that lead us to conclude that an "instinct of self-preservation" exists. Every species exhibits these. Fact.

Conclusion: what we need is bio-anthropo-centrism since the preservation and potential development of mankind depends on the situation within the broader "context" environmental one.
One possible outlet for anthropocentrism would be a hypothetical scenarion in which human rationality, in the form of technology, enables the continuation of the species when the biosphere is more or less ruined (but that would resemble science fiction hypotheticals). So maybe you could discuss the philosophical implications of these imaginary situations.

[piet11111]

Anthropocentrist obviously i like my antibiotics.

[Princess Luna]

I found this to be an interesting discussion but the v. 2.0 thread was closed so I figured I would start v. 3.0.

Anthropocentrism (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, human being, κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the idea that, for humans, humans must be the central concern, and that humanity must judge all things accordingly: Anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women) must be considered, looked after and cared for, above all other real or imaginary beings. Anthropocentrism is a secular, rational and realistic perspective that is closely related to humanism.

Biocentrism is a term that has several meanings but is most commonly defined as the belief that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Biocentric positions generally advocate a focus of the well-being of all life in the consideration of ecological, political, and economic issues. Biocentrism has been contrasted to anthropocentrism, which is the belief that human beings and human society are, or should be, the central focus of existence.

Which stance do you take and why?
I have a question for the defenders of Anthropocentrism, how should we treat other intelligent species if any are discovered? if they only possessed half the intelligence and reasoning ability of humans, would it be wrong to enslave them and force them to work for the benefit of human and how would you justify it rationally?