Introduction
There has been global concern about environmental degradation in the modern world for a long time. The preservation of the environment is considered an important prerequisite for sustainable development from both explicit and implicit perspectives. Although environmental concern has generated at a higher level in the last two decades, the environment is still facing numerous threats from activities that cause degradation. This is because individuals who have expressed concern rarely take any form of engagement to promote responsibility Humphrey 606).
The lack of serious initiatives to develop a proper management strategy is also attributed to the increased diversification of theoretical constructs and views that have dominated the arguments on environmental issues in the recent past. Among the popular theoretical frameworks that have been advanced are: the belief that there is a distinction between humans and nature. That is, humans are uniquely separate from other species in the larger ecosystem and thus more superior. This theoretical construct is known as anthropocentrism. The other belief is hinged on the basis that humans cannot be separated from the natural world and that their existence is generally part of the ecosystems, albeit with equal ownership with other members comprised of plants and animals. This view is known as ecocentrism.
The Dominant Social Paradigm in the Society
Our society is defined in the context of cultural existence, which subsequently defines how people develop their view of the global world (Ehrenfeld 7). These views are in the context of values, beliefs, and the way institutions are made, collectively providing social lenses where people can do their interpretation of the global world from a sociological perspective (Ehrenfeld 7). These factors are what define how individuals or groups will behave towards certain beliefs on nature. At the same time, it is these instrumental factors that will develop into a drive towards a sustainable society, where the current conflicts can be defined and solved.
Anthropocentricism vs. Ecocentrism As stated earlier, anthropocentric belief is based on the view that human beings are more superior to the rest of ecosystems members and therefore should act as the official masters over everything on earth. In this perspective, the desire to conserve should be driven by man’s own desire, protecting what is beneficial to him, just like it would handle the non-man-made natural world. Several scholars have argued that this kind of belief has demystified nature as second in command, giving man whole power to exploit, even unnecessarily (O’Riordan 89; Ehrenfeld 173; Beck 41). According to O’Riordan (89), the demystification of nature with the science of development has led to increased exploitation and manipulation, causing the unnatural ‘death of nature’, subsequently demystifying the future.
The opposite view is that of ecocentrism, which sees nature and humans as co-partners to the global earth, each possessing inherent value to the other (Ehrenfeld 179). Basically, there are two perspectives of examining ecocentrism: the first being the fact that human emancipation and the fulfillment in an ecologically sustainable society” (Ehrenfeld 180), and the second being the acknowledgment of the above-mentioned objective, but an emphasis on the need for a moral view of non-human members of the ecosystem, recognizing their right of existence and continue evolving without interruption. It is important to note that the point separating the two views is the position of humans in the larger global earth: Are humans above or equal to nature?
The value of Nature and Ownership
The ecocentric view of the environmental conservation recognizes no basis for the argument that human occupies the apex of the pyramid and transcends his power of ownership of the entire species of the ecosystem. It puts no value to the belief that humans have the right to control evolution, eventually negating the life of other species in their own natural form against their rights and will. In fact, it is possible to argue that the current ecological crisis emanates from the generally over-exaggerated value of humans over that of other earth members. Ehrenfeld (4) calls it “the arrogance of humanism”. Interestingly, even the less aggressive forms of anthropocentrism can never be considered sustainable in any way. For example, the ecology of conservationism and human welfare can never be regarded as suitable as human weaknesses are inherent in the survival and preservation game. As O’Riordan (12) puts it “in the presence of human crisis, they would be sacrificed for the more humanist perspective”.
The Two Views and Human Economic Development
It is acknowledged that anthropocentrism has existed for ages, subsequently entrenching itself in the community that values economic progress than anything else. In fact, anthropocentrism has dominated the public policy systems of our society, increasing the desire for industrialization seen in the western nations and the entire expansion of the scientific community in the global world (Ehrenfeld 9).
Inevitably, this paradigm has created a strongly entrenched notion that protecting nonhumans should be in line with the level of human satisfaction. In this argument, it is human welfare, motivated by economic prosperity that becomes the basis in which development policies are made. Any policy of nature and its conservation is treated as a secondary need (Beck 66). Anthropocentrism believers and the ecocentrism critics put forward their claim that putting high premium value on human against the nonhuman is the first prerequisite in protecting nature, as the former will not strive to destroy what is beneficial to his existence. According to their arguments, placing nonhuman ahead of human in the conservation effort is not realistic as it promotes anti-humanist morality that ignores the welfare of the human in the ecosystem. However, this argument is somewhat an extremist’s view of the concept of ecocentricism. In fact, the dominant view of ecocentrism is in the basis of equal treatment of ecosystem members, and not one being ahead of the other.
The Contribution of Anthropocentricism to the Current Crisis
The long-aged application of anthropocentrism in the modern world has created a human-centered public policy, particularly in the western world. While there is a general agreement that human existence is important, both among the ecocentrists and anthropocentrists, the divergent views emerge on the contribution of extreme practice of human-centered practices which have been blamed on the fall or failure of environmental conservation initiatives (O’Riordan 97). In fact, this practice has increased the notion that there is an attempt to entrench anthropocentricism further by the Western nations, particularly the United States. Intuitively, the industrial nations have deliberately denied that several warnings tha adverse effects of their activities have caused massive harm to the general environment, particularly the increased global warming.
The available evidence indicate that it has taken more than a century since the first publication on warming of the earth, and yet little initiative have been taken to heed the call for more balanced approach to human activities (Humphrey 608). This failure to incorporate ecological views to the environmental protection in the wider global development has led to unprecedented problems associated with diminishing resources as a result of imbalanced ecosystem. For example, the public policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution have been in existence to date, creating an attitude of over-reliance on resources that do not support sustainability (Ingwe 655). Currently, there are massive campaigns to shift the public policy towards renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
Conclusion
The increased global concern on environmental degradation has created differing theoretical paradigms that threaten the creation of more sustainable management policies on environment. The unabated environmental degradation has generated opposing ends of argument based on two theoretical constructs in the Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. The former is constructed in the belief that humans are superior and holds more power over other members of the ecosystem. This means that every action on the ecosystems should be viewed as an ultimate befit of the human, keeping non-human existence at the mercy of the former. Ecocentrism on the other hand is based on the belief that humans are equal to non-humans in the sharing and right to ownership of the environment. The difference between the two paradigms is basically on the position of humans in the general ecosystem.
Although both sides agree that humans need non-humans to survive, and that the former will need to exploit the non-humans for their survival, there is a wide difference in the pattern of association as defined by the interrelationship between the two. The problem is on Anthrpocentrists’ emphasis on superiority and economic development at the expense of dominant social construct as defined in the ecocentrists’ views. It is therefore critical to conclude that ecocentrism is more likely than never to save the current environmental situation, something that anthropocentric approach has failed to for more than one century.
Works Cited
Beck, Ulrich. Ecological enlightenment: Essays on the politics of risk society. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995.
Ehrenfeld, David. The arrogance of humanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Humphrey, Michael. Global warming: Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2003, pp.606-609.
Ingwe, Richard. Review of the book by Peter Droege (ed.) Urban Energy Transition. Amsterdam. Elsevier, 2008, p. 655.
O’Riordan, Timothy. Environmentalism. London. Pion Limited. 1976