A good friend recently posed the question to me, "How do u feel about the anthropocentric aproach of modern civilization as a barrier to conservation?"
The question developed into an interesting conversation that I decided was worth transcribing... I am represented by A and my friend by B
A:Catch 22... I'll explain...
B: I think the biggest barrier to widespread sustainable development is an anthropocentric perspective of nature.
A: I wouldn't argue against your supposition that it is our greatest barrier, however it is impossible for mankind to think and experience in a way that defies an anthropocentric nature and that the belief that we are able to defy that construct is in itself anthropocentric.
...
A: Hmm.. although not that I read back, you said anthropocentric approach and I was referring to an anthropocentric nature.
B: Gotta be one with nature, man.
A: Agreed, however even during those times of complete submersion into nature, can we truly and fully step outside of our frame of reference as humans and into one that represents a completely holistic, objective perspective?
(The holistic, objective perspective being one that is non-anthropocentric. The argument being that no species, especially individuals within a species,can have this approach.)
B: We wouldn't need sustainable development if we had an objective perspective. It's more a matter of valuing the environment; as all other development and growth (not advocating) depend on its persistence.
(The "Not advocating" was in reference to his background knowledge on my opinion of growth.)
A: What do you mean by growth? Growth of society? Or individuals within an ecosystem? Growth doesn't really exist, change does. Growth is relative and short term.
(I don't think this thought was given enough attention... Growth is relative because one can feel that they are growing as an individual, there is physical growth, etc... But in the manner B was referring to this growth and development is limited to mankind and is an anthropocentric perspective in itself)
B: That's what I mean; Our fixation on growth is finite as our stock of natural capital is.
(Not sure if he meant that our fixation on growth is finite or that our growth is as finite as our supply of resources. I assume the latter.)
A: I agree that having that value (of the environment) is key, but establishing that as an understanding and as a ethic in individuals and society as a collective is what I meant to address.
B: Yeah, and my initial statement that 'we need to move away from an anthropocentric perspective' would institutionalize environmental ethics.
A: And so within that idea of establishing that value, I ask, can we "escape" (not meant to have negative or positive connotations) from an anthropocentric reality?
A: I'm arguing that all species experience reality through a centralized viewpoint and humans are no different.
B: Our reality is our ability to change through experience. So an increased understanding of the interconnected importance of nature will confront us with an undeniable need for change.
A: Even the supposition that we can break free from that and arise beyond it is anthropocentric in nature because it presumes that we have a capacity (besides logical and rational thought) that surpasses any and all other species in nature.
B: Basically the more we connect with (nature), rather than distinguish ourselves as different, we will decrease our anthropocentric dominion.
A: I believe you're right in that it is possible for mankind to decrease what I would argue is our self-importance with respect to the other elements of this planet and we can become "more connected" in doing so. But I don't think that we can relinquish an anthropocentric perspective, solely because we are humans.
A: It is not necessary to relinquish this perspective in order to "decrease our anthropocentric dominion" as you so beautifully put it.
A: Within this perspective we can truly grasp our interaction with all aspects of our environment and (because of the anthropocentric perspective) begin to shift our values and recognize the negative impacts that our current way of life has on us and the rest of the environment.
B: I think that was well articulated. I love how our intellectual paths intertwine.
(I think that the point B was trying to make was extremely important and valid, but the definitions of anthropocentric needed to be defined better. I also have a different opinion of the "capacity" of mankind to move beyond an anthropocentric perspective. I believe that B might agree, however the definition of the concept needs to be understood equally between us before we can truly move further with the conversation... I think this understanding, if it has not already, will come in due time.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
