Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism.

I will begin my rebuttal by examining your conclusion: "That is the destiny of all life on this planet. Human life is more important than anything else on this planet. The preservation and sanctity of life should be the first priority on every human's mind. People have sacrificed themselves in the past, not for the betterment of other species, but for the good of mankind. " The first obvious question to ask here is to whom is human life most important to? From reading your opening I would assume you are implying that human life is the most important thing for humanity. If you are proposing that the human life is subjectively and quantitatively more important than anything else, then continue reading the paragraph bellow. However if you are proposing that at heart the number one priority of a human being is to care for themselves, then read the latter paragraph. Human life is subjectively and quantitatively more important than anything else For starters I find that the word "anyTHING" was poorly chosen, because surely you don't propose that human life is more important than say our planets core. For all of humanity (and then some) owes it's existence in it's current state to the rotating heap of molten magma that glues together out planet. If you want to say that the human life is subjectively more relevant please provide a mechanism by which you can weight the relevance of a human and nonhuman entities. Are you able to quantify the relevance of those entities? Further more are the ideas of human beings, in some cases more important than the lives of other humans? Take for example germ theory or Newton's theories of classical mechanics, these ideas have inadvertently come about to save the lives of several million human lives. I find that your conclusion that human life is the most important thing on our planet is frankly naï¿½ve, we are all connected to the very core of every aspect of our planet, our universe, our cosmos. It is off course important that we are kind to our selves and are forthright in insuring the quality of our future. Which is precisely the reason we must abandon anthropocentrism philosophies, for now more than ever the fate of the human race relies heavily on it's ability to understand it's planet and it's humble place in the universe. at heart the number one priority of a human being is to care for themselves This second part of my opening rebuttal deals with the notion that protecting human life is at heart the most important goal of humanity. |To be honest, I support this idea. At least in principle. All of humanity is bound through it's similarities and yes among which, as you were so forthright in stating is our ability to reason unlike any other biological system on this planet. Because of this, because of what we are all kin we have good reason to insure our propagation. However humanity is made of the same stuff as all other life on our planet. More importantly we are all a part of a very fragile system. To insure our propagation it would be important to understand that it is quite impossible to quantify the value of any particular life form. Essentially protecting insect life forms is just as important as protecting human beings. Without insects our entire agriculture system would collapse, a fate which would wipe out the entirety of the human race. Further more are the ideas of human beings, in some cases more important than the lives of other humans? Take for example germ theory or Newton's theories of classical mechanics, these ideas have inadvertently come about to save the lives of several million human lives. I find that your conclusion that human life is the most important thing on our planet is frankly naï¿½ve, we are all connected to the very core of every aspect of our planet, our universe, our cosmos. It is off course important that we are kind to our selves and are forthright in insuring the quality of our future. Which is precisely the reason we must abandon anthropocentric philosophies, for now more than ever the fate of the human race relies heavily on it's ability to understand it's planet and it's humble place in the universe. Lastly there are some other areas of your opening that I want to examine: Case one ----------------------------------------------- "The homo sapien species is the only species you can safely remove from this planet, without disrupting the cycle of Nature. " Why do you assume the human race is not part of nature? This at heart seems to be the main clause of your argument. You assume the human race is devided from the rest of the cosmos by some sort of imagined line. If however by your definition nature is everything that is non human then your above statement is a meaningless. Case two ----------------------------------------------- "Humans are the only species that can lie. " This is just simply not true, see the bellow links: . http://www.the-scientist.com... . http://blogs.discovermagazine.com... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...