Its called mutualism people! gosh hvae you not read up on it gosh! we depend on the plants and animals so therefor we take care of our planet cause we need it!!!

my opponents argument what he/she is basically saying is that we need plants to survive and that plants don't need us. Well that's exactly it we're heterotrophic plant's are at the bottom of the food chain always because what you're saying is plant's are better than humans because they make their own food and we take it does this not show how much more powerful we are how rational. humans breathe C02 which plants breathe now take CO2 that humans emit and almost 89% of plants die eventually because their is no CO2 the earth will go cold and die you see we are needed and wanted very much by plants and others so humans are above plants

Unlike plants(that use photosynthesis to synthesize/make food using sunlight),we cannot make our own food. We are not self-sustaining, we are omnivorous :we need to eat plants and animals (that eat plants or are carnivores and eat herbivores which eat plants) to survive.

plants make need us to plant them sometimes(but most afforestation occurs naturally) but do not depend on us.

We on the other hand depend on plants to survive(indirectly ad directly).

Anthropocentrism means to regard humans as the central element of the universe. Following the first sin came God's declaration that "man is to rule over the earth and subdue it." If God said that, hasn't all of nature made things specifically for man? In this incliment, all decisions should be made to benefit humanity. Animal competencies are mainly adaptions restricted to a single goal, while human competencies serve numerous goals. What happens if we get a cut and it becomes infected? Don't we need to kill the LIVING bacteria to stay healthy? And what if a rat takes up residence in my pantry? The latter prove that humans, not animals should come out on top. Anthropocentrism will protect the enviroment because it isn't our best interest to pollute the air to th point where we must grow a third head to breathe it. To be human is to see the world in a human-centered point of view. In this sense, anthropocentrism is enevitable.

It is a naive categorization to place anthropocentrism firmly within biocentrism. Yes to some extent we do rely on the natural world for our sustinence and for other benefits. However, there comes a point when human development necessitates the loss of natural habitats and diversity. You can't have it both ways.

Its more of a Venn diagram than concentric circles in other words.

The crux of this debate is whether we value the success of our species more than the success of other species insofar as our success doesn't cannibalize itself.!

Humans are the only species on earth w/ enough knowledge in order to save the universe. as most of you tree huggers think that we are killing the enviroment but how about you go talk to a tree to see if they are willing to save the world from DOOM!!!!

As Biocentrism is that life is the center of the universe and Anthropocentrism is that humans are at the center of everything there seems to be no immediatly obvious controdiction. If life is the centre and humans the centre of life, it simply seems like concentric circles. While this may not be what purists of either side would agree with it does seem to me to be reasonable sensible!

B iocentrism is a having life a the center of all things having to do with nature or biology since humans are a life is it not fit that humans are centered. Since the only reason that make the humman race the centered species is the way in which we survive by self preservation is it not our right to be the top of the food chain hence we are the center of all live.

If there wasn't biocentrism there really would be no point for anthropocentricism.

Preferring humans over all other species amounts to chauvinism. Species which are chauvinist will be out-competed by species which are rational (compare a firm which only employs members of the dominant race competing with a meritocratic firm).

because aff is stupid for argument i disagree

It is because of biocentrism that we have evolved into the species we are today. Without the domestication of species and cures found in them too, we would not be alive. We use animals for meat, entertainment, help our crops, etc. If plants did not pollinate then we would have no vegetables or food source. Before, when we had no machines to help us plow our fields, we used donkeys and horse. We used them for travel. Bacteria help us digest food and have helped us find vaccines!! Therefore anthropocentrism and biocentrism ought be valued EQUAL.