Typically, the world exists in a close relationship between humans and nature. As much as most people would disagree, the relationship between these entities is one-sided and, much worse, detrimental to one party-nature. Observably, humans rely heavily on nature for their survival and existence. On the other hand, nature exists independently without human assistance or favor (Taylor, 2017). In this light, if nature were to disappear suddenly, humans would be highly vulnerable to countless adversities like hunger, thirst, and disease.  Considering that humans are highly dependent on nature, numerous theories and perspectives emerged to turn the situation around. According to most religious worldviews, God (or any other supreme being) placed humans in charge to exploit nature to fulfill their needs (like food, clothing, shelter, etc.). In my opinion, this perspective made it possible for humans to use nature for needs beyond survival. The continuous overexploitation and abuse of nature ultimately led to environmental degradation, and a persistent debate concerning the primary intention behind conserving nature (Norton, 1997). Anthropocentrism is a moral and ethical standpoint that depicts humans as the most important species on earth, much less the universe. On the contrary, biocentrism asserts that humans are not exceptional, and hence, they are equal to all other species. Further, ecocentrism recognizes the equality of all the animal and plant species whereas noting that humans have to depend on nature for survival. In light of these perspectives, this paper argues anthropocentrism is largely responsible for the rampant, and massive environmental destruction witnessed throughout history.

According to the anthropocentric view, all other living and non-living components of nature are meant to serve and fulfill human needs. With this notion, it is difficult for humans to suppress their interests because of their love for the environment (Naess, 1986).  Presently, mortality rates have reduced, and life expectancy has increased in most countries. While these aspects indicate the rising standards of our healthcare systems, they also mean overpopulation, overcrowding, and overstretching of scarce resources like water and food to meet the demands of the rapidly escalating population. Due to anthropocentrism and the prioritization of human needs, massive tracts of forest land have been converted into agricultural fields to produce surplus yields to feed the burgeoning global population (Bodice, 2011). Inversely, the destruction of forests and vegetation due to increased agriculture and urbanization has led to desertification and loss of biodiversity. For instance, in the United States, studies reveal that the increasing Slash pinewood plantations significantly contribute to the loss of the Longleaf pinewood ecosystems. To counter the threat, individuals and organizations have taken the responsibility to conserve Longleaf pinewood ecosystems amid the growing demand for wood and timber products in the country and the rest of the world. Such a scenario depicts the struggle against anthropocentrism. Other environmental crises perpetuated through anthropocentrism include overfishing and fossil fuels, which have led to air pollution, depletion of the Ozone layer, and global warming. Even though industrialized countries have significantly reduced pollution, emerging economies are yet to address the challenge.

Due to the notion fronted by anthropocentrism, the relations between humans and nature have changed significantly as anthropocentrism has legitimized animal and plant species destruction for human purposes. For instance, it is surprising how scientists can use plants and animals in research and experiments. Most of the time, these specimens are treated with cruelty and subjected to harsh conditions which eventually kill them. Although these procedures are part of scientific research, they are against the principle which accords intrinsic value to every living thing (Taylor, 2017). When such experiments involve human beings, there is always a heated debate on how it is unacceptable and dehumanizing to use human specimens in scientific studies. According to Kantian ethics, humans are unique hence they can never be a means to an end (Altman, 2011). Such a notion is also supported immensely by prominent religions like Christianity. Notably, the disregard for animal and plant life triggered the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Despite that it is a significant innovation, it has led to mutations and the extinction of plant and animal species. Much worse, humans are facing various challenges like highly resistant weeds and animal diseases.

As studies reveal that humans are the most significant threat to the environment, governments, organizations, and individuals have responded positively to mitigate the crisis emanating from climate change, global warming, and other adversities. Notwithstanding, Cuomo (2016) noted that human interests always overrule and determine relations with nature. In this case, most of the policies and conservation initiatives are guided by anthropocentric motives to ultimately benefit humans. For instance, most environmental conservation organizations are most concerned about the adverse outcomes that could occur to humans due to environmental degradation. Under these circumstances, our requirements and interests are the drivers of ecological conservation. Although this has been the situation for quite a while, things have started changing as some countries recognize natural resources as entities and grant them natural rights which are not hinged on human welfare. Recently, India recognized the Ganges River as an independent resource with rights and freedoms. Like a human being, the river now has an opportunity to thrive with minimal human interference (Ingaraham, 2020). In my view, such a bold move could be one of the best approaches to liberate the environment from unending human domination and exploitation.

Lastly, since anthropocentrism advances that humans are in the highest order, it goes against the balance of nature and equality concerning the environment. In previous centuries, scientists classified some societies and organisms as higher than others. Presently, such hierarchies have no practical scientific meaning.  Even though humans have achieved great things, I would not consider them better or more potent because of their ability to exploit natural resources.

Without a doubt, anthropocentrism contributes immensely to environmental destruction.  While the traditional principle aims at benefiting humans to the detriment of other species, some tenets of anthropocentrism recognize humans as the custodians and protectors of nature.  Although ecocentrism and biocentrism support environmental conservation, they do not explain how nonhuman species could be treated equally to humans. In this situation, I think utilitarianism is the best approach to reduce the impacts of anthropocentrism on the environment.

Reference

Altman, M. C. (2011). Kant and applied ethics: The uses and limits of Kant’s practical philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.

Boddice, R. (Ed.). (2011). Anthropocentrism: Humans, animals, environments. Brill.

Cuomo, C. J. (2016). Sexual politics in environmental ethics: Impacts, causes, alternatives. Forthcoming. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Edited by Stephen M Gardiner and Allen Thompson.

Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & Piccolo, J. J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109-127.

Naess, A. (1986). An Ecological Approach to Being in the World. The Fourth Keith Roby Memorial Lecture in Community Science.

Norton, B. G. (1997). Can there be a Universal Earth Ethics?. Man and Nature, Humanities Research Center, Odense University.

Simkins, R. A. (2014). The Bible and anthropocentrism: putting humans in their place. Dialectical Anthropology, 38(4), 397-413.

Taylor, P. W. (2017). The ethics of respect for nature. In The Ethics of the Environment (pp. 249-270). Routledge.