Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

Thank you C1 - My opponent misunderstand the theory it is not meant to say the best developed organism will survive in the world. I t is actually not simple at all it is very complicated. First of all the theory is placed in his book On The Origin Of the species by means of natural selection. Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space. Representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior. These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago. Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin's view. This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin's time. Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages. So they're not special adaptations they're just adaptations that have happened over time in order for them to survive. And our superior intelligence is not based on an ideology. And to say that humans are protecting the environment is false just because their is low pollution in one country doesn't mean their is low pollution in others and it does not eliminate the problem of pollution. A bacteria does not know what it wants since it doesn't have a mind to think. bacteria isn't going to know that's dying. And snakes only attack if threatened and what would a human be doing with a snake anyway? If an animal is sentient or has the capacity to feel pain that animal has an interest in not feeling pain.Compare a pen and a gerbil. There is nothing I can do to the pen that matters to it. It can't feel pain. It can't be deprived of liberty. But a gerbil can feel pain, and pain is bad, so what I do to the gerbil matters to it. Since the gerbil has interests (specifically, an interest in not suffering), it has moral status. This is not to say that the gerbil has the same interests as a human. I have an interest in participating in the student council. The gerbil does not, since it cannot. Also, I'm a moral agent. The gerbil is a moral patient. It can be acted on, morally, but cannot act, morally. I am responsible for my conduct in a way that a mouse is not. Strictly speaking, I am both a moral agent and a moral patient. The gerbil is only a moral patient. Furthermore My opponents argument stems off an idea that humans are on some special pedestal and biocentrism is trying to take humans off of it. No things or beings are on this earth exist to serve or be used for others. We simply do not know why we are here nor why anything else is here. We have the food pyramid which shows what animals ( including humans) eat. Competition is inevitable because sentient animals have a desire to survive. Conflicts between organisms are inevitable. "Not only must humans make use of the natural environment and thereby compete with animals and plants that might also need that environment as their habitat and food source, but humans must also directly consume some non-humans in order to survive". The person who adopts an attitude of respect will not automatically prefer the interests of humans to the interests of other organisms. He or she will strive to accommodate all interests. This will mean limiting human population, reducing consumption, and being wise in the use of technology. Biocentrism sees humans as just another species, with no special claim on the earth's resources.It might be thought that this leaves us where we were, with humans doing as they please. It does not. Most people say that nonhuman animals and plants have no moral status, whereas humans do. If all organisms have moral status. This shifts the burden to those who would harm other organisms. What didn't need justification now needs justification. Most people are anthropocentrists. Biocentrism would require vast changes in our lives and in society. Compare the changes in thought, attitude, and behavior toward slaves before and after they were freed. Before they were freed, certain things could be done to them with impunity. After they were freed, these things could not be done. Becoming a member of the legal or moral community makes a great deal of difference to how one is (may be) treated.Furthermore what right do we have to claim what the cow produces? Even if the cow is not aware that it produces milk (which it does know, for how can it's calf survive) is it still not the cows milk?If your argument is based on humans being great because of intelligence then if fails. There are some animals that are smarter than humans like a parrot or dolphin until the human grows to a certain age. And what if you owned a dog and you had a retarded kid if the issue is intelligence the dog is smarter than the kid it has more interests than the kid the dog can feel and has more brain activity so shouldn't the dog be saved rather than the kid? above is what I actually said. r1 - My opponent didn't actually make an argument he put up a quote and said opinions about everything being made for us. However that is incorrect Humans don't have a special place in the environment plants do without plant we'd be nothing plants are the only species that can convert light to food, I am not saying that we shouldn't eat plants after all they don't have much of an interest I'm simply saying that we don't have a "special place" in the environment. My opponent makes a fallacy saying "our needs cannot be considered at the same level of animals because we consume them not the other way around." So if a lion eats us his needs are greater? I think those who don't eat, their needs are greater. (non-sequitur) r2 - "this agency is addressing all of Europe." So that's why I said country you conveniently forgot about China,India,Japan,America,Mexico etc. Furthermore Low pollution doesn't mean no pollution. And who might we be? it's certainly not the human race. r3 - "Subpoint A Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive My Opponent did not understand this point clearly. This point states that Mankind's Needs(Eat, Shelter, Sleep) cannot be met with biocentrism and this ultimately Destroys mankind." Non-sequitur you do not show how biocentrism diminishes our ability to survive. and do not show how being biocentric leads to the destruction of human kind. "All moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our duties to humans" If we're anthropocentric wouldn't that mean that we only care about each other and not others? And I wasn't implying that biocentrism grants morals because an ideology is just that an ideology however when practiced said ideology the practitioner will understand that he/she is a moral agent and a moral patient and that a gerbil cannot act morally, but he can. sub B - Humanity as a collective has always hindered progress (Galileo), Einstein (published his paper 4 years before it was accepted), Faraday ( electromagnetism), and humanity never makes discoveries it's always individuals. Humanity has not accomplished many feats people as individuals have.