Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism v. 2.0

  1. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    As support for anthropocentrism and opposition to biocentrism are part of the HPG agenda, we ought to discuss these concepts here. Back in the day when I was mod of Sciences & Environment, I started a poll in that forum to see where the membership of RevLeft stood on this. Link

    The thread was unfortunately entirely hijacked by hostile bioconservatives, who dismissed the poll as a false binary, basically making the absurd assertion that a person could be both at the same time. Perhaps this new forum would be suitable for a more productive debate -- more productive as it's entirely among self-identified anthropocentrics and the enormous hostility is absent -- on the subject.

    These are the common definitions of Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism:

    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.

    Link

    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.

    Link

    My personal position remains the same as in the initial thread:

    I'm an anthropocentric communist and see the progress, as in improvement and development, of human society and human living standards as the single most important issue worth fighting for in this world. In my opinion we should let nothing get in it's way.

    I refuse to tolerate that people, human beings, remain in unnecessary misery anywhere on earth because someone elses morals, ethics or religion. All such are completely secondary and irrelevant to me when the wellbeing and improvement of our species is in question. Progress of society, science and technology on a global level is crucial if we are to achieve the highest of goals as I see it: maximal wellbeing, minimal suffering and continued development of mankind.

    Whether it's achievement requires the destruction of another species, the alteration of the planet into unrecogniseable, nothing really matters as long as the human species thrives and progresses, living standards and life expectancy are elevated, and obsolete and opressive social models are banished from the face of the earth.

    I duly hope that this position of mine isn't interpreted as ignorance about the environment, because it's actually quite far from that. I see sustainable development as absolutely crucial, because I recognise the danger pollution, overexploitation and waste of resources poses for human survival on this planet. The human species has become incredibly powerful, as has our potential inpact on the environment. Extreme caution and carefulness is required as we develop further from this point -- or we might destroy all life on earth, and thus ourselves.

    Incidentally, as I see it, it being a huge environmental threat is one of the main reasons we must overthrow the capitalist system as soon as possible -- the survival of mankind might depend on it in a not too distant future.
    What is your position?

    How important is this, for you, and for the future of the revolutionary left?

    How severe do you regard the disagreement is on this among the left?

    How should we anthropocentric leftists proceed from this point -- should we combat biocentric thinking fervently, or take the road of compromise?

    If so, on which instances?
  2. Cult of Reason
    Cult of Reason
    I agree with you totally.

    Speculatively, of course, we might have to develop "Sapiocentrism" for any ETs or sapient robots we may encounter. I am only half-joking.

    Compromise is tantamount to letting them represent our movement. They must not be allowed to make us look ridiculous.
  3. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    I am having a hard time finding something to disagree with in your post, Sentinel.

    I feel that for too long now the non-orthodox Left has been hijacked by biocentrism and primitivist sympathisers, as well as people who despise Enlightenment and humanistic principles and their offshoots. There is a common perception that humanity taking control of it's own destiny is dictatorial and arrogant, and that in extreme cases vengeful "Nature" will bring down humans for their alleged hubris.

    They are ultimately in favour of stagnation in both technological and social terms, suspiciously similar to capitalist claims of "the end of history" and dooming us to a more certain extinction through hanging around on Earth than even the most ambitious advocate of space exploration can even hope to.

    Also, in their fear of the melding of man and machine (a process that has already begun), they reveal themselves to be "biological essentialists" - believing that biological flesh is somehow sacrosanct or has a special quality that sets itself apart, for no scientific reason, from all the other types of matter in the universe.

    Buh, I hope what I said makes sense.
  4. Jazzratt
    Jazzratt
    There is a common perception that humanity taking control of it's own destiny is dictatorial and arrogant, and that in extreme cases vengeful "Nature" will bring down humans for their alleged hubris.
    I think this is a very important point - every culture has their vengeful god apocalypse myth. Although it's obviously true that there is a danger to us from environmental degredation this will only be helped by embracing technology to help with the problems. In a lot of discussions with the biocentric left I have noticed a tendency toward the belief that technology necessarily damages the environment and that in order to save ourselves from what is essentially (in the way a lot of bio-nutters talk about it) the rapture we have to give up technology.

    Related to the last point in the previous paragraph it's also alarming to note that a lot of biocentrics, especially green-anarchists and their supporters, are very casual about the death that will result from abandoning technology, many in fact talk in terms of culling as if their fellow humans were nothing more than a herd of cattle. This is why I think it's dangerous to form an alliance with these people - especially if they claim to be on the revolutionary left because their view of a progressive society is so radically different from ours that it's almost a joke to say we have a common goal.
  5. Dimentio
    Well, I do not hold contempt for the environment, and I think it is important to create a sustainable future for the continued existence of some kind of human civilisation.

    The primmies do not have any answers, but they will sure halt progress. In that sense, they are the environmental equivalent to libertarians, who they share the characteristic with that although their own vision will never attract a large following, they sure can punctuate any kind of progressive movement with their garbage.

    I do not even think we should debate with primmies, but rather use them as examples of a flawful reasoning. On tech.eu, we use to use our ideological opponents as examples of flawful argumentation, and we are using the opportunities they are giving us to explain our position.
  6. Raúl Duke
    Raúl Duke
    I think I agree on your position, Sentinel.
  7. chimx
    chimx
    My opinion remains the same: that biocentricism does not exist. What you are calling biocentric views are satisfying very human needs -- usually emotional. The folly of this lays in those people that pretend that their emotional needs and personal values are objective truths for all. It is misguided egotism more than anything.
  8. Jazzratt
    Jazzratt
    My opinion remains the same: that biocentricism does not exist. What you are calling biocentric views are satisfying very human needs -- usually emotional. The folly of this lays in those people that pretend that their emotional needs and personal values are objective truths for all. It is misguided egotism more than anything.
    That's kind of understandable but it remains, at least in my opinion, that a lot of humans (including myself) support environmental ideas out of a regard fo their own backs - what you identify as emotionally satisfying biocentric views [which are, ultimately anthropocentric], but I still think there are a lot of individuals (especially those who support things that are bioconsrrvative but peripheral to those views: bans on vivisection & meat eating for example) who support things that are detrimental to humanity in terms of supporting the biosphere. (On revleft, for example, we had *****neumon and socialistfucker).
  9. chimx
    chimx
    What I think is interesting is that if we view "biocentricism" in terms of displaced egotism that is subjective to individual values, what about a communities intersubjective values that are based on tradition or culture, which could be at odds with an overly-objective anthropocentric position. For example, there has been a history in the United States of seizing burial lands or sacred lands of Indians for mining projects, forestry, etc. Where does one draw the line?
  10. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx
    What you are calling biocentric views are satisfying very human needs -- usually emotional. The folly of this lays in those people that pretend that their emotional needs and personal values are objective truths for all.
    Quad era demonstratum. Let this bury the absurdity of biocentrism hence and forever more. When I hear a non-human entity proclaim biocentrism, I will give it a serious second hearing. Until then, biocentrism is an oxymoron and its proponents should STFU.
  11. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    what about a communities intersubjective values that are based on tradition or culture
    I just can't see how concepts such as culture and tradition should be given a place above that of welfare and wellbeing. In many cases they read as superstition and ignorance.

    For example, there has been a history in the United States of seizing burial lands or sacred lands of Indians for mining projects, forestry, etc. Where does one draw the line?
    I am absolutely against seizing any lands in the way imperialists and capitalists have done, ie simply stealing them. Under a capitalist system I'm against seizing them, period. But I can't see how superstitious beliefs of sacredness could be a legitimate reason to hinder the bringing of wellbeing to the majority of people.

    In cases when they sit on crucial resources that absolutely can't be found elsewhere, I do think that indigenous peoples should be richly compensated for any lands confiscated, but that they will have to compromise on the sacredness, and move to new lands they are provided with -- to say, avoid an energy crisis.

    I also think that if provided with free secular, modern education, much less of the children of these peoples would choose the traditional primitive way of life.
  12. chimx
    chimx
    I just can't see how concepts such as culture and tradition should be given a place above that of welfare and wellbeing.
    Human's are a precarious bunch, with very odd values and qualities that an outside rational observer could possibly construe as lunacy. But we're still human and we still have to deal with the reality that culture and tradition exist. I just think it is necessary to allow some credence to these intersubjective areas lest you want to stir up an emotional reaction.

    can't be found elsewhere
    When is this ever the case, and if it is the case, it sounds like a flawed technology if it relies so heavily on nearly non-existent resources?
  13. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    I was thinking about the uranium needed for nuclear fission mainly -- a relatively clean and very efficient form of energy compared to others available atm. I do vehemently agree that it should be replaced as soon as other methods with the same or better effectiviness/cleanliness ratio, but less dependant on non-renewable resources become available -- such as fusion.

    Overall, I 'm talking about a hypothetical situation though, one in which safeguarding the traditions of a small group of people potentially could cause a humanitarian disaster for a much larger group.
  14. Jazzratt
    Jazzratt
    When is this ever the case, and if it is the case, it sounds like a flawed technology if it relies so heavily on nearly non-existent resources?
    To expand on the fuel for fission example, let's imagine we need this resource in order to generate power. Let's say our resource existed in two places - Place A where it is more difficult to get out of the ground and is far away from the place that needs it, meaning a lot of energy is consumed transporting it and place B where the resource is abundant, relatively easy to extract and nearby - which is the more sensible place to get the resource from and why should this change because a bunch of superstitious sun-worshippers don't want us to extract the resource from "their" land.
  15. chimx
    chimx
    All cultures are superstitious. Who are you to decide the hierarchy of these superstitions, and the priority they take? Imagine the backlash if you wanted to bulldoze a military graveyard to obtain some fuel. Callousness is never a good way to handle a situation like this
  16. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    All cultures are superstitious. Who are you to decide the hierarchy of these superstitions, and the priority they take?
    I for one have no respect for any kinds of superstitions. They all rank equally low, especially if they stand in the way of human wellbeing/progress.

    Imagine the backlash if you wanted to bulldoze a military graveyard to obtain some fuel.
    Graves, at least those in which proletarians lay, are usually not kept forever anyway -- after a while they just bury a new corpse in the same spot. I would be heavily in favor of the bulldozing of any graveyard to obtain resources -- personally I'd be prefer to be cremated, unless some credible way to preserve my remains for a new life in the future is possible.
  17. chimx
    chimx
    I have no doubt that the members of this group would have no problem. I'm talking about the population at large.
  18. LSD
    LSD
    What I think is interesting is that if we view "biocentricism" in terms of displaced egotism that is subjective to individual values, what about a communities intersubjective values that are based on tradition or culture, which could be at odds with an overly-objective anthropocentric position. For example, there has been a history in the United States of seizing burial lands or sacred lands of Indians for mining projects, forestry, etc. Where does one draw the line?
    That's probably the most important question here, and it's not just related to "displaced egoism" of a "primative" nature. Our present societies has just as many hang-ups and sacred cows as any other, and very often it does prevent us from maximizing our use of resources.

    Burial is a good example, but so are monuments and memorials of any sort. Same for historical artifacts, or natural landmarks, or even protected parks. Let's be honest, ANWR is basically just "sacred ground" for the American liberal evneironmental conscience. But the real biggie here, I think, are animals.

    'Cause as I've pointed out again and again on this board, there really is no inductive or deductive way that animal rights can be extrapolated from human society. Animal rights simply don't exist, and yet there is a undeniable human urge to protect animals from harm. An emotional moral drive to minimize suffering, even non-human suffering.

    That drive might be defended with all sorts of complex language, but it remains the naked heart of every single animal rights campaign; and it is exactly as real and exatly as valid as a native american's emotional bond with his "sacred land".

    It's really an all or nothing game here. Either we afford protections to certain non-human groups because of their emotional ties to human (rational or not), or we don't. But if we do, it must include land just as much as it must cats and dogs.

    For my part, I vote strongly in favour of the affirmative and contend that "sacred ground" be protected to exactly the same degree that animals are, namely as far as is reasonably allowable given conflicting human interests. You shouldn't be allowed to torture a dog for sport, but you can eat a hamburger; similarly, if the key to cold fusion is under an indian burial ground, you can dig, but the possibility of oil is not nearly sufficient.

    It's a very fuzzy and inexact test, obviously, but it's probably the best we've got.
  19. INDK
    INDK
    What is your position?
    I am certainly anthropocentric in that I am mainly against biocentrism, but sometimes I dispute humans are the center of existence: I believe the in the advancement and improvement of humans in all forms, don't get me wrong about that, but I don't think we should improve humans because they are the "center of existence", we should improve humans because we are humans, and our improvement will benefit most species other than us. However, I find it just a little elitist or speciesist (for lack of better words) to base our goals on that view.
  20. Sentinel
    Sentinel
    we should improve humans because we are humans, and our improvement will benefit most species other than us.
    I'm not quit sure how that follows, could you elaborate comrade?

    However, I find it just a little elitist or speciesist (for lack of better words) to base our goals on that view.
    That's what anthropocentrism is about though, it sure is 'speciesist' -- however I can't see how it's 'elitist'.. It's rational behavior found in every species, no other species really takes the benefit of others in consideration before their own either, right? And that's all there is to this, basically.
  21. INDK
    INDK
    When I hear "Speciesist" I think of a blatant disregard for animals - which should, more or less, have rights - but if I do look into it it seems most species would be inherently speciesist; that is, valuing itself before another. And this is wise behavior regardless - but, here's a thought: as humans progress and care for themselves, and hold this as a high priority, which they should, humans should be able to extend help to other species, especially since we are in position to do so most. Animal rights are nothing I stress, but disregarding other species entirely is something I would argue against. I'm just trying to work out all the bugs here

    'm not quit sure how that follows, could you elaborate comrade?
    Well, if we use our power as a species that can help other species, our progress is ultimately their's, though to a lesser extent as long as our population stays anthropocentric, technocratic, and generally progressive.

    That's what anthropocentrism is about though, it sure is 'speciesist' -- however I can't see how it's 'elitist'.. It's rational behavior found in every species, no other species really takes the benefit of others in consideration before their own either, right? And that's all there is to this, basically.
    I agree, pretty much.