Ecocentrism is the broadest term for worldviews that recognize intrinsic value in all lifeforms and ecosystems themselves, including their abiotic components. Anthropocentrism, in contrast, values other lifeforms and ecosystems insofar as they are valuable for human well-being, preferences and interests. Herein, the authors examine the roots of ecocentrism and discuss its mixed history of international recognition. They argue that non-human nature has intrinsic value irrespective of human preferences or valuation, and they refute the claim that ecocentrism is misanthropic. They then summarize four key examples from the academic literature in which anthropocentrism fails to provide an ethic adequate for respecting and protecting planet Earth and its inhabitants. The authors conclude that ecocentrism is essential for solving our unprecedented environmental crisis, arguing its importance from four perspectives: ethical, evolutionary, spiritual and ecological. They contend that a social transformation towards ecocentrism is not only an ethical but a practical imperative, and they urge support for ecocentric understanding and practices. https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/article.php?t=why-ecocentrism-key-pathway-sustainability https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article examines environmental ethics theories focused on the division between “anthropocentric” and “ecocentric” approaches in regard to three valuebases for environmental concern: self-interest, humanistic altruism, and biospheric altruism. The author argues that while applied anthropologists claim to be morally engaged, this engagement rarely supports biospheric altruism. Anthropological advocacy of indigenous rights as well as support for development enterprise on the part of applied anthropologists results in anthropocentric bias in anthropology. While moral engagement may be said to be the mark ofapplied anthropology, environmental ethics is rarely evoked and moral engagements seem to extend only to humans. On the other hand, constructivist anthropologists often describe environment, nature, or wilderness as social constructions and do not engage with questions of value and rights, resulting in relativism that ignores the urgency of conservation efforts. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2011.625951 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
With the emergence of education for sustainable development (ESD), robust literature on ethics and ESD has emerged; however, ecocentric perspective developed within environmental ethics is marginalized in current ESDebate. The questions discussed in this article are as follows: Why is the distinction between anthropocentric and ecocentric view of environment salient to ESD? How can this distinction be operationalized and measured? Until now, little has been done to address complement quantitative studies of environmental attitudes by qualitative studies, exploring the sociocultural context in which ecocentric or anthropocentric attitudes are being formed. Neither of existing scales engaged with the interface between environmental ethics and sustainable development. This article will discuss ESD in the context of environmental ethics and present the results of the case study conducted with the Dutch Bachelor-level students. Results of qualitative evaluation of the scale measuring ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes will be presented, and the new Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Sustainable Development (EAATSD) scale will be proposed.
