Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

[As a quick side note before I post this, I would ask my opponent, whoever that may be, to follow the traditional format of LD debate, both in case structure and argumentation.] Know that although in the eternal scheme of things you are small, you are also unique and irreplaceable, as are all your fellow humans everywhere in the world. It is because I agree with Margaret Laurence, female Canadian author that I must affirm: Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism. Before continuing, I would like to define the following terms as found in the Merriam Webster Dictionary: •Anthropocentrism – considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe •Ought – used to express obligation or advisability •Value – to rate or scale in usefulness or importance •Biocentrism – considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value •Intrinsic Value – ethical or philosophical value that an object has "in itself"; may be regarded as an end •Extrinsic Value - value of objects, both physical objects and abstract objects, not as ends-in-themselves but a means of achieving something else My value for today's round must be that of The Positional Good, defined as "the idea that products and services' values are mostly (if not exclusively) a function of their desirability." As humans, we have a specific obligation to defend our own survival by the use of resources around us; by this, humanity poises itself as the positional good, the most desirable product of evolution, and willing to fight to retain it. The reason that this value ought to be held to the highest standard in the round is that by using it, I do acknowledge that all things have some value; however, as it stands, humanity has positionality. To support my value, I offer the criterion of ethical egoism, defined as "the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism can be applied, by its very definition, to moral agents, or humans. Because humanity has survived through so many eras of living, and has consistently adapted to any challenge placed before it – famine, disease, and discomfort – it may be counted as one of the most adaptable species that ever lived. Humanity has an obligation to act in its own best interests over those of others. By taking ethical egoism and putting it into practice – that is, by doing what is in the interest of human survival – then the positional good is achieved, because by doing so humanity shows itself as the positional good. Observation: Definition Clash The definitions of anthropocentrism and biocentrism are listed as antonyms in nearly every source, including the Merriam Webster Dictionary; however, the wording of both definitions does not insinuate that they are antonyms. This presents a very complex conundrum for both sides of the debate, as the definitions suggest that the two may coincide with one another, which leaves no room for debate. For this reason, to preserve clash, the definition of anthropocentrism may be interpreted as humanity being the most significant entity because it is the only being with intrinsic value. Contention I: Anthropocentrism Improves the Human Condition According to J-Rank Magazine, "The individual, cultural, and technological skills of humans are among the attributes that make their species special and different. The qualities of humans have empowered their species to a degree that no other species has achieved during the history of life on Earth. This power has allowed humans to become the most successful species on Earth. This success is indicated by the population of humans that is now being maintained and the increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources that are being appropriated to sustain the human species." In essence, this information shows that the use of a human-central society and thought process leads to great growth and prosperity, physically and socially, in our world. By humanity's use of the resources around it in a responsible and careful manner, it is able to further improve its society and world. This links to my value of the positional good, because if the human condition is improved, then humanity's positionality is assured. Further, by using our resources in the way we see fit, and by doing that which is in our own best interests, the human condition is improved – with this, my criterion of ethical egoism also has a link. Contention II: Biocentrist Thought is Flawed Biocentrism, as defined by my case, is considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value. Taking this further, intrinsic value is defined as the philosophical, intangible value something has. In other words, biocentrism holds that all living things are ends to themselves. However, this is simply impossible. When a thing is utilized for the betterment of humanity, then it ceases to be an end and instead becomes a means to an end. For example, according to Science Clarified, antibiotics are made from living organisms such as fungi, molds, and certain soil bacteria that are harmful to disease-causing bacteria, which are used to fight infections and infectious diseases caused by bacteria. These small living organisms – which are to be included in biocentrist thought – are injected into the human bloodstream, where they fight off the disease-causing bacteria. This is just one of many examples – plants such as aloe are used to treat sunburn, oils from marine mammals are used in our soaps and shampoos, the list goes on and on. These things are then looked to for their extrinsic value, rather than intrinsic value. Humans, by comparison, are the end looking to be protected by these means. This utilization is in the best interests of humanity, which upholds my criterion of ethical egoism, and ultimately protects human survival as the positional good. Contention III: Humanity Has an Obligation to be Egoist Throughout the course of history, species of plants and animals have come and gone in natural decline, based on their effectiveness and adaptability. As I said before, humanity is a species that has survived the ages and continued to thrive, no matter the circumstance. Humans, since the dawn of time, have used the environment as a tool of adaptation, molding it with their ability of complex reason to produce food, shelter, and art. Because of this, an inexplicable relationship between man and his environment is revealed. In this web, man is at the top of the food chain, because of his skills of adaptability and guile; while man is a part of the environment, he rules it, and changes it to his whims. However, as humanity's place in the environment is revealed, so too is his burden: a burden that he, and only he, can have. Humans must do what is in their own best interest because it is their duty to do so; if they did not, then they would die off, because they would lose this creative power they have been granted. In this, anthropocentrism has its true moral ground: humans are the supreme beings, the most significant entities, because of their ability to reason, to shape their environment, and to use it for their purposes. I now stand open for cross-examination.