What is Anthropocentrism?

A critical analysis of to what extent the Anthropocentrism of Human Rights is defensible in the posthuman 'Anthropocene' epoch.

In the posthuman 'Anthropocene' epoch it seems almost impossible to defend the anthropocentrism of human rights. One of the primary reasons why it is wrong to uphold anthropocentrism is that anthropocentrism brings about a number of severe problems for nonhuman entities that we as human beings share our physical environment with. Before going into a detailed summary of how anthropocentrism adversely impacts the environment, it is significant to provide some fundamental principles put forward by the proponents of anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism mainly refers to the idea that human beings or, in other words, mankind are the most vital entities in the universe, and for this reason, they must be valued more highly compared to other nonhuman units in nature. Consequently, from the anthropocentric point of view, the world is best characterized through human values and experiences. This suggests that all other nonhuman beings must serve as particular tools by which human beings can reach their primary goals and aspirations. The nonhuman world is considered useful only when it directly or indirectly benefits human interests. It is generally argued that there is something unique, special and also necessary about humans that makes anthropocentrism important to perpetuate. However, is everything for Human Beings?

Challenging Anthropocentrism

A large number of people have argued that anthropocentrism should be looked upon as something completely and ethically wrong because it is situated at the core of all ecological problems. Overcoming anthropocentrism relates to the idea that 'Man' is not the most important powerful entity in the universe or stands at the centre of all things. One of the many reasons we as human beings have to feel responsible to preserve our nature and the physical environment around us is that we also need to think about future generations. Anthropocentrism results not only in environmental crises but also in environmental injustice.

However, compared to natural disasters, certain environmental injustices are not easily discerned. For instance, people of colour can be considered the victims of environmental injustices. Environmental calamities such as global warming, unequal distribution of environmental benefits and resources, and environmental injustices result in more intimidation for people of colour rather than the affluent white majority. As a result of anthropocentric reasoning, poor and minority people are among those who are most vulnerable to the consequences of global warming and the subsequent climate change caused by self-centered actions and decisions of particular individuals. Consequently, environmental issues of people of colour become survival issues.

The posthuman 'Anthropocene' and Human Rights

We have arrived at a particular point in history where it is inevitable for human beings to start changing how they think about nature and treat the environment around them. It is inevitable to reexamine and reconsider how we as individuals treat nonhuman entities because we now live in times of severe and extreme environmental calamities. Anthropocene, for this reason, forces us to stop and think about all the adverse consequences that our decisions have brought upon physical environment. In 2002, the Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen stated that the Holocene, which refers to the particular geological epoch during which Homo Sapiens have prospered, is coming to an end. We are faced with a new era characterized as "the Athropocene". Anthropocene refers to the idea that environmental issues are primarily a result of peoples' combined inconsiderable activities, bringing about a significant number of ecological cataclysms. This means that the human influence on the global environment is so considerable that it can alter the functioning of the Earth system.

Why Should We Care?

We, as human beings, must realize that we are not the only entities capable of inserting impact on the universe. It seems crucial to understand that ours is the era of Anthropocene when human effects on nature and the physical environment around us are increasingly diminishing. As a result of fast-growing and contemporary scientific or technological advancements, the concepts of anthropocentrism and the human must be abandoned. The most important challenge for us in this new epoch is to get rid of all the differences and live in harmony with other living and also non-living beings.

There are also a number of new emerging entities such as cyborgs and robots that make it quite challenging for us to provide a definite answer to who or what is eligible for rights and to what extent the anthropocentrism of human rights can be defensible in the posthuman 'Anthropocene' epoch. The most significant question that we need to consider is that, is it even possible for human beings to establish a total contamination and hybridization with other living beings. In order to reach the complete contamination, we need to be open to otherness and eliminate all the boundaries that we have built with all the non-human entities.

References

W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism: A modern version", Science 187(4182) (1975): 1168-1172.

Katie McShane, "Anthropocentrism vs. Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care?", Environmental Values 16(2) (2007): 169-185.

Helen Kopnina et al, "Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem", Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 31(1) (2018): 109-127.

Noel Castree, "The Anthropocene: a primer for geographers", Geography 100(2) (2015): 66-75.