Anthropocentrism

[Questionable]

What do leftists think about secular anthropocentrism, the concept that humans are distinct and superior to animal species?

Historically it appears to have been a right-wing position, especially in the context of religious systems using it as an ideology, but I've seen leftists such as the people in the "Human Progress" group on Revleft advocating it.

What do you all think?

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do leftists think about secular anthropocentrism, the concept that humans are distinct and superior to animal species?

Historically it appears to have been a right-wing position, especially in the context of religious systems using it as an ideology, but I've seen leftists such as the people in the "Human Progress" group on Revleft advocating it.

What do you all think?

Humans are part of the animal world, not speperate from it in any objective way - I'd think that this is a basic assumption of materialism which would at that point distance any sort of human-focusedness on the marxist left from right-wing anthropocentrism which comes out of older ideas of a sort of caste-system for the natural world or from religious ideas of a divinely-appointed role in the world for humans.

But while being part of the natural world and being animals, humans are also distinct from these other animals in our consious ability to control and shape our environment, including how we relate to eachother and organize human societies. Just that fact that only humans can wonder and debate if there is such a thing as anthropocentrism demonstrates how humans are in some ways set apart from the rest of the animal world.

[Questionable]

Humans are part of the animal world, not speperate from it in any objective way - I'd think that this is a basic assumption of materialism which would at that point distance any sort of human-focusedness on the marxist left from right-wing anthropocentrism which comes out of older ideas of a sort of caste-system for the natural world or from religious ideas of a divinely-appointed role in the world for humans.

But while being part of the natural world and being animals, humans are also distinct from these other animals in our consious ability to control and shape our environment, including how we relate to eachother and organize human societies. Just that fact that only humans can wonder and debate if there is such a thing as anthropocentrism demonstrates how humans are in some ways set apart from the rest of the animal world.

I'm not sure I see anthropocentrism as being contradictory to the fact that humans are a part of the ecosystem, unless we take it in its religious form. As humans, we must recognize that by protecting the environment we are in fact protecting our own interests because we exist within that environment.

The real question, I think, is whether anthropocentrism should have any meaningful influence on policy-making. Should we value the interests of the human species above that of any animal species, should there arise a conflict of interests?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Should we value the interests of the human species above that of any animal species, should there arise a conflict of interests?

I think there is always a conflict of interest in that human settlement always disadvantages or destroys other life forms, on a certain level.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I reject the position almost wholeheartedly. And if any of you were dogs, cats, lions, tigers or elephants, you'd probably reject it too.

Just like we believe that, in the long-term and all things being even, workers act in their own self interests and capital acts in its own self interest, so humans act in their own self interest too. And in humans the urge is stronger, because we have that biological trait - as all animals do - that compels us very strongly, as a species, to want to continue our species via re-production.

[Questionable]

I think there is always a conflict of interest in that human settlement always disadvantages or destroys other life forms, on a certain level.

This is certainly a problem but I think human knowledge has reached the point where we can expand without viciously harming the environment. Once the threat of capital is removed this will be even more realistic.


I reject the position almost wholeheartedly. And if any of you were dogs, cats, lions, tigers or elephants, you'd probably reject it too.

But we're not. We're humans. Why should we not act for our interests as a species? Anthropocentrism does not necessarily translate to the wanton slaughter of animals and destruction of the environment, because destroying the ecosystem we live in has an adverse effect on us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The other thing about the crude antropocentrism discussion as it appears in liberal and academic circles is that it assumes that the drives and processess of capital are inseperable from "human" drives. That, for example, we survey and exploit everything in the natural world we can find out of a desire to have "mastery" over animals and nature in general - rather than that capital drives humans to exploit every inch of the world for the sake of rapid accumulation no matter what the human or environmental toll.

There are historical examples of pre-capitalist and maybe even pre-class/state humans destroying ecosystems or driving animals to extinction (the mamoth is one example that has been suggested - though I don't think it's been definitavly proven that man-made causes drove the animal out of existance). But other animals entering into new ecosystems or developing new adaptations have also caused similar things, so even these examples, if even historically accurate, doesn't mean that human advancement is any more detrimental to nature and other species than the advancement of other animals is. In addition despite some evidence of environmental damage by pre-capitalist people, there are also tons of evidence showing that it was common for human populations to seek harmony and sustainability in their natural environment. Often custom or religion held practices that were designed to prevent, for example, over-fishing in a certain area so that the next year's food source could be maintained. It's only with more complicated human societies with a more structured class and caste system that examples of callous destruction of nature becomes more common. With areas organized under larger regional powers, then a prince or aristocrat could send out laborers to extract a certain natural resouce in areas where a population didn't need to be sustained.

So when it comes down to it, I think this anthrocentrism question is really about how does human society relate to the natural world and other animals--the idea that our society is anthrocentric suggests that there is something inherently exploitative between society and nature, but misses the mark as to what that relationship is. Capitalism does seek "mastery" of all animals and environments, but it's not a human drive, it's a drive for accumulation of profits. So while Romans might have demanded slaves tear open a hillside to extract some resource, they did this on a use-basis whereas capitalism sets out to map-out everything in the world and figure out how to extract profit from it. In addition the need for profits also means that pollution from capitalist production isn't just an overseight or byproduct in the abstract, it's an inevitable result from the pressure to save production costs: just dump it in the river, it's expensive to deal with in a safe manner! And capitalism doesn't just exploit and control and forcibly remove other animals and the natural world--it specializes in doing this with human populations!

So my responce to the real problems associated with supposed human anthropocentrism is an anthropocentric one: humans have to re-organize human society in order to have a more harmonious relationship with the natural world.

[hetz]

What's interesting is that historical socialist societies ( OK, state-capitalist or whatever ) were not known for caring much about the environment, there was really a lot of pollution and discharging wastes in rivers and elsewhere even as the West was starting to introduce more ecologically-friendly technologies.

[Blake's Baby]

Why is that interesting? Hugely inefficient capitalist states were more environmentally damaging than slightly less inefficient capitalist states. Why would it be otherwise?