Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

I want this to be in a public forum format in a sense. I hope i get a response. Today the resolution states that: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism I offer the following definitions Anthropocentrism-Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human value and experience Biocentrism- the extension of natural value to non-human, coporeal species Ought- an expression of duty of obligation Intrinsic Value- Of natural merit or importance Observation 1: Humanity is the most coherent actor per this resolution. As biocentrism and anthropocentrism are systems of values that only humans may have. Ought is an expression of duty or obligation, so the question that needs answering is- what obligations do humans have The resolution specifies that the conflicts we should talk about are conflicts between valuing anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The resolution does not justify the destruction of nature if it would harm humanity. The anthropocentrism that we are concerned with is the anthropocentrism that clashes with biocentrism, when nature becomes a hindrance to the development and sustainability of homosapiens, it would be justifiable, or we ought to value people over nature. #2 We can bever beat nature. If we fought nature we would lose. Seriously though, natural equlibrium ensures that one part of nature relies on the other. The destruction of one would destroy the other. So the ultimatium that nature would cease to exist due to human efforts, is completely ridiculous. Contention 1: Humanity has an obligation to human life, but not nature. Where it would conflict, we must choose to preserve human life. Humans ought to be anthropocentric due to the natural order of things. Sub Point A) Natural Equlibrium Every animal makes use of all gifts and resources; humans are animals and ought to as well. That means we must value our ways over the "natural biocentrism" ways do. Do we have claws like a bears? Can we fun fast like cheetahs? We have a different resource, our mind, which must value over nature's goals and aspirations. What's truly natural is for every species to utilize their resources even if conflicts with the supposed goals of nature, because that is truly natural. No animal will stop to consider humanity's obligations, develop an obligation to us, and respond preserving our needs in place of their own. A beaver will build his dam on that river even if we have farms that depend on said river. Sub Point B) In situations where nture clashes with human life anthropocentrism must be valued above biocentrism to preserve humans. The common ground held by Biocentrist is that they aren't advocating that we halt the use of resources, just that we provide value equally for all factors in the universe. Contention 2) Biocentrism is illogical and impractical therefore flawed Sub Point A) Biocentrism is illogical Intrinsic value means that the subject is its own end. The good that produces is simply that it exists. Biocentrism is a human system of belief meaning humans are placing intrinsic value on things. Resources are a means to an end. Humanity does not value things simply because they ARE, biocentrism cannot value nature simply because it IS that's silly and therefore it would be a hindrance at best to value biocentrism at all. The only time it is justifiable to value something simply for being is to value a human being This leads me to the impractical aspect, if resources had their own intrinsic value, then inherently through the use of resources we are causing harm. If we are to value all universal factors equivalently then we can never justify the use of any natural resource. Intrinsic value by implication is weighed equally no matter where the value is placed. So my destruction of trees to prodiuce the paper of wood I se today or the alteration of animals and plants into food is weighed as heavily as killing people. Starting off with the first statement u mentioned about that we dictate the human systems and such. Yes i agree entirely thats exactly why our opinions are the only ones that matter and why animals opinions dont. Which is why they are not equivalent to us. Next we will never destroy nature. We would be negating Abraham Maslow's heirarchy of needs which is impossible . We need nature to survive. In doing so we value it without even knowing. Biocentrism is stating that all forms of life have intrinsic value. But we still need to value humans more than anything else. We have an obligation to ourselves first so crossapply my contention 1 tagline. And the example of the trees. We cut trees for paper. We still need trees though but their are other organisms that give us oxygen. Are u saying there arent? We will never destroy nature to the point where we cannot use it. Thirdly, yes i do argue that we value humans more than anything else. And animals value themselves more than anything else as well.