Modified:
26 Feb 2010
by Booji

Vote totals:

Yes:

0%

No:

50%

Neutral:

50%

 
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.


Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Bookmark and Share


DEBATE: ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM

The qualities of humans have empowered the species to a degree that no other species has achieved during the history of life on Earth, through the development of social systems and technologies that make possible an intense exploitation and management of the environment. This power has allowed humans to become the most successful species on Earth (although if sheer numbers are the measure of success, then bacteria and insects are more successful than humans and always will be). This success is indicated by the large population of humans that is now being maintained and the increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources that are being appropriated to sustain the human species




All the Yes points

ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM


Yes!!!!


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!!!

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).


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM


Can Anthropocentrism be within biocentrism?


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!


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM


NO!!!


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.


What do you think?  Vote on this point below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No

ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM


Chauvinism is irrational


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).




Vote on the overall debate: anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

What do you think?  Vote on this debate below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No
1. Yes!!!!
# 1

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!!!

regina.euzebio

|

01:34, 07 February 10

|

Karma Score: 5


# 2

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).

NADIA999

|

14:58, 07 February 10

|

Karma Score: 5609



1. Can Anthropocentrism be within biocentrism?
# 1

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!

booji

|

12:00, 04 January 10

|

Karma Score: 2961

|

Applause: 1


# 2

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.

A_Dying_Wren

|

10:34, 07 January 10

|

Karma Score: 12



2. NO!!!
# 1

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

Bracken15

|

18:38, 28 January 10

|

Karma Score: 3


# 2

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.

sammei726

|

14:46, 17 February 10

|

Karma Score: 3



3. Chauvinism is irrational
# 1

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).

drift

|

19:21, 26 February 10

|

Karma Score: 307



Loading...