Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

Humans cannot help but be anthropocentric, just as spiders cannot help being arachnid-centric, or cats being feline-centric, therefore it should be valued above biocentrism"- Steve Woods Because I Agree with this statement I affirm this Comparative resolution "Anthropocentrism Versus Biocentrism" [Definition] My Opponent has accepted the definition for Anthropocentrism and has Posted his own definition of biocentrism. So the definitions for this Round will be Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings. Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. Now to Today's Debate. [Intro] Survival or the Fittest. It's a popular theory in Nature. What it Basically means is that the best developed organism will Survive in the World. This Theory is My Main Supporting Factor in Today's Debate. Now Survival of the fittest should be applied to all species, If a species cannot survive then it is doomed. Most Species have Special Adaptations that allow them to Survive. A cheetah has speed. A Chameleon has a changing color ability. A Octopus has ink. So what does Mankind have? We have Superior Intelligence, which is based in our Anthropocentrism. Biocentrism Will Take away from this an seeks to put humans on a equal level with all organisms. We Cannot Possibly allow that to happen. Now looking through the Biocentrism side in today's debate you will presumably see a side that will bring up countless sob stories about how humanity is destroying the world. But, Judges I will how every human being is anthropocentric in thinking and that biocentrism takes away Mankind's Superior Intelligence and Robs Humanity of Life. Ct.1-Anthropocentrism is Just Mankind's Way to Survive in the World Politics by Aristotle "We must believe, first that plants exist for the sake of animals, second that all other animals exist for the sake of man, tame animals for the use he can make of them as well as for the food they provide; and as for wild animals, most though not all of these can be used for food or are useful in other ways; clothing and instruments can be made out of them. If then we are right in believing that nature makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man." what Aristotle is saying is "Everything exists for man to use To Sum this up, Humans should be at the Center of the Universe because all things exist to be used by us. We are at the top of the Food Chain, And this is our "Niche" or Humanity's' special place in the environment. Our Needs Cannot be considered at the same level of animals because we consume them not the other way around. The Food Chain has Humans on the top. Because Who else is going to be on the top? Chicken's, Cows, Bears? We have to eat these lower animals to survive, not the other way around. We use these other animals for cultural lifestyles like farming, not the other way around And that makes every human being anthropocentric. Including My Opponent. Unless you do not eat. Anything. Ct.2-Anthropocentrism Will Protect the Environment "If you won't do if for the animal then do it for yourself"-Unknown This argument maintains that Human Using Anthropocentrism Can protect the environment. Humans understand the link between the environment and human life, Anthropocentrism already functions to protect the environment. As Humans we understand that if we pollute the air too much then It will end our species. "In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants have fallen substantially since 1990, resulting in improved air quality over the region."-European Environment Agency Source-http://www.eea.europa.eu... This Source(An Environment Agency by the Way) Shows that humankind is aware of their effects on the ecosystem. Man wants to stick around for Awhile and Anthropocentrism will let that happen. This show Again that Most humans are anthropocentric in thinking. Ct.3. Biocentrism Effectively Cripples humankind's progress This Argument stems off my Opponent's definition of Biocentrism. Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. This Biocentrism concept is Flawed for 2 Main Reasons Subpoint A-Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive So here is Are some "Metaphorically Speaking" Examples What happens if A bacteria needs to survive but it also causing major damage to my health? Do I Not Take Medicine You See The Bacteria Want and Needs to Survive but a human Does too What happens if I just let a poisonous snake bit me? Do I Not let myself the Kill the snake? The Snake Wants and Needs to Survive but a human does too? Philosopher Paul Taylor says "To accept the biocentrism outlook and the world view in its terms is to commit oneself to the principle of species-impartiality. No bias in favor of some over others is acceptable. The impartiality applies to the human species just as it does to nonhuman species." With this Species Impartiality Humans Cannot Favor themselves above any animal and the food chain must be neutral. We are just another Species. Nothing Special about any Form of Human Life. Subpoint 2.Using biocentrism takes away the Significance of humanity Intelligence Biocentrism gives no special value to any living thing, including humans. The beauty of the human race (our achievements, compassion, inventiveness in science and the arts, etc.) is taken away and we(humanity) are another basic species that should not be able to get ahead. This takes away from the fact that we are the ones with intelligent life and the fact that we are to ones Caring for some animals and trying to help them not go extinct. We are the one's discussing this theory not animals. Animals only basic intelligence is to Survive (Which is also implanted within Humanity and goes back to my intro). Would a Cow would've have know it could produce milk? Would a Sheep known how that it fur can produce clothes? "Say what you want but you cannot howl for the wolf"-Unknown [Conclusion] I have ultimately proved how humankind cannot possible survive without Anthropocentrism Judges I urge a pro vote in today debate. I Now open the floor to the con an await his Case.