…isn’t ecocentrism. It’s just that the ecosphere is too damn strong.
Yes, anthropocentric “stewardship” type thinking can learn from ecocentrism. For example, between two species that are facing undue (anthropogenic…but why isn’t it undue if it’s aviogenic? hmmm) early extinction, we find that environmental movements go for the more charismatic species, rather than the one that is more important in its ecosystem or that can be saved with fewer resources (though it may be easier to drum up support, getting funds for more charismatic species).
This is why I’m ecocentric (at least up to a point), but believe the primary reasons for environmentalism are anthropocentric. There are very few things we could do that would severely put life as a whole on serious jeopardy. Countless terrestrial natural disasters have failed to wipe the slate completely clean and, if anything, created the opportunities needed for our species to come into existence. But it would be terrible if our population growth decreased each individual’s quality of life and robbed humanity of untouched natural habitats to heal individuals who wish to partake. It would be terrible if all the cute animals went extinct.
But more than just “it being terrible if life quality dropped and there were no more hiking trails,” call me a homo sapiens chauvinist, but I don’t want us to go extinct. We’re exactly the kind of animal that is at risk here… and that is why “we are stewards” is absolutely wrong thinking. If we’re in control, then a better analogy is we’re steering a ship and even a sense of self-preservation shall make us want to make sure we don’t hit a rock (one good thing about this analogy.. we can do better than nature! the ecosphere has failed repeatedly to prevent asteroids, but our missiles and nukes might fill in).
Nicely put! I enjoy reading your posts.