[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

ADI - lecturer addedBio/Anthro Topic Paper

Enjoy!

Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont

Date:   Wed, Jul 17, 1996 3:07 PM EST
From:  SWoods96@aol.com
Subj:   res. paper
To:       asnider@moose.uvm.edu
cc:       DRTUNA

Topic Wording Paper
Biocentrism and Anthropocentrism

Steve Woods, Wm. Jewell College

 Let me begin this short paper on the resolution by offering a disclaimer,
that being that most, no rather all, my materials and resources that would be
useful for this paper are packed not so tidily somewhere in boxes 66 78 of a
move that traversed not only several bio-regions but a large amount of
packing and shipping time from Vermont to Missouri.  I apologize in advance
for the inaccuracies or shallowness of thought that may be present as I am
working from a rather small and inefficient memory storage and retrieval
system known as my brain.  The best case scenario is that I will do no harm
to the consideration of the topic, but allow you the person who is voting to
use this paper as a starting point for your own thinking on the topic.

 Having said that, here are some thoughts on the proposed resolution.
DEFINITIONS: The key concepts to be dealt with are obviously "biocentrism"
and "anthropocentrism." In general biocentrism refers to that which is
biologically or ecologically centered, and anthropocentrism is that which
places human concerns at the center or quite literally "man is the measure of
all things" (The sexist language is probably strangely appropriate).  Both
terms are usually applied to a set of thinking or philosophies that are used
to relate to actions and practices.  They could be also interpreted as value
terms in and of themselves, in that they represent biocentric or
anthropocentric values.  To put them into a context, your choice on how to
deal with the pests on your prize garden plants involves a value choice in
this example neatly dichotomized into whether your actions will be
biocentric, such as using lady bugs or hand picking the pests off your
plants, or anthropocentric, using chemicals that are quick and easy to apply
that will kill the pests but not the plants.  Of course, what is biocentric
at root and what is anthropocentric at root is debatable in and of itself as
well.  For the above example, simply having a garden and not utilizing native
species shows an anthropocentric control over nature to begin with.  Or the
sprays you utilize may in fact not be synthetic or human made, but derived
from natural sources and environmentally benign and be more in the biocentric
realm.  Thus the need for,
DEFINITIONS II, THE SEQUEL: As with any term which encompasses a vast amount
of ethical ground, there will be revealed variations and differing shadings
of meanings.  Perhaps the most common attachment to the term biocentrism is
the concept "deep" ecology (see Devall and Sessions; Naess).  Simply put, the
concept refers to being aware of the interconnections of the planet and
acting in accordance with the natural order or balance of nature.  Not so
simply put you will find vast variations in what people will term or advocate
as deep ecology.  There is a strong primitivist strain which is sometimes
spiritual in its advocacy of going back to the land or finding harmony in
nature, or in the adoration of "primitive" sustenance cultures.  There is
also a strain of primitivism that is deeply misanthropic wherein the battle
cry is "back to the paleolithic." A fuzzy memory here suggests "Green
Delusions" as a book which goes through five different shadings of radical
ecologies that might be useful.  Beyond the primitivist strains are more
academic and ephemeral visions of a deep ecology.  There are also some
advocates of deep ecology who recognize that the starting point for action
and thought stems not from some state of Eden, but rather the distinctly non
ecological corporate industrial that currently exists.  The main point being
there is no one "biocentrism" just as there is no one "peace" or "democracy"
or say, to be more relevant "anthropocentrism."
 Just as biocentrism is a complex term with multiple meanings, so is
anthropocentrism.  I believe the terms involved here cast anthropocentrism as
"weak" or "strong." In the case of this term, the weak anthropocentrists have
a greater recognition of humans being in a planetary context that does have
some other players besides themselves.  The strong anthropocentrists believe
in their dominion over those players.  There is also an interesting, to me at
least, strain at least which I will probably be mislabeling apologetic
anthropocentrism wherein the thought is advanced that humans cannot help but
be anthropocentric, just as spiders cannot help being arachnidcentric, or
cats being felinecentric.  The survival instinct and the operating system for
survival is hardwired at the factory.  We are engineered to biologically
succeed by taking full advantage of our environment, social structures, and
thought capacity.  I wish I could remember the exact source and wording for
the following thought, but it goes something like we as humans are the
products of the million years of evolution that occurred rather than the thin
veneer of history that we place ourselves in.
DIVISION OF GROUND: The good news is the varying texture of the terms gives
affirmative and negative a lot of latitude to find personally defendable
arguments.  Some affirmatives may find the radical ground available to them
with biocentrism very comfortable and operationalize a case that advocates
letting the viruses win.  There may be credible arguments which indicate that
combatting and suppressing viruses has not just led to the gross expansion of
humanity, but has made it incredibly vulnerable to gross decimation due to a
lack of intolerance and capacity to evolve a defense to virus variety.   The
negative may choose to characterize such approaches as saying the affirmative
is saying AIDS is good, or the affirmative advocates mass human death.  It is
also quite clear that affirmatives are not stuck with purely radical ground,
and may be able to argue eco-philosophical hybrids such as social ecology or
ecofeminism as ways to merge the concerns of the planet with those of humans.
 Those eco-philosophies may also be part of the negative ground, and quite
capturable as examples of anthropocentrism.  They may also be good critique
ground as a way to go outside the traditional division of ground and offer
the negative a non-resolutionally assigned way of approaching the debate.
"TRADITIONAL" VALUE DEBATE: Such a resolution may see the return of the
"Value Objection." Negatives could wholesale reject the approach and basis
for the affirmative case.  There certainly is a ethical and philosophical
question at the heart of this resolution more than one that is of a technical
or bureaucratic nature.  It is not a how do we do"x" type of topic, but
rather a why should we do "x" type of topic.  
POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVES: There is the possibility of taking a purely
philosophical approach, where the claimed advantage would be one of an
ethical nature, or a question of "rightness." For example: Observation I
Criteria.  Subpoint A. Value to be upheld, life.  Subpoint B. Decision
Calculus, the team that does the most to support not only a quantity, but
diversity of life should be adopted.  Observation II Anthropocentrism Kills
Needlessly.  Subpoint A. Economic development kills species.  Subpoint B.
Current development patterns will not change unless challenged.  Advantage I.
Biocentrism Superior.  Subpoint A. Promotes ethical behavior.  Subpoint B.
Uniquely promotes biodiversity.  Subpoint C. Encompasses the needs of humans.
 Another approach may be to pick specific examples, maybe for example, the
proposal to turn Yellowstone park into a primitive nature area, banning all
forms of motorized access and permanent human made structures within the
boundaries of the park.  Cases might also focus in exclusively on endangered
species, pollution, seed banks and heritage varieties of plants, free the
rivers, or other areas.  Affirmatives should feel free to pick as large of
case as they want, and even be able to pick reasonable examples that are
smaller in scale. It might be interesting to see a "catch and release"
affirmative for house flies and spiders rather than the current grab a
magazine and squash them paradigm for example.  It certainly would be an
example of biocentric ethics over anthropocentric.
POLICY HYBRIDIZATION: It is my personal bias at play here, but I think that
all value topics are also ways to examine policy.  Just as my question is
defined above is it is not how to do "x", but why do "x", the clear missing
element is what is "X"?  I think affirmative could identify an action or a
policy, and then defend it based on the philosophical basis of biocentrism.
 An example would be a case that requires the precautionary approach be
applied to all new federal projects.  The precautionary approach at its
simplest reverses the current presumption of development wherein something is
built, then it must be proven that it pollutes or causes some other
environmental harms to cease it s actions.  Under the precautionary approach,
it must be proven that the project would not harm the environment before it
is built.  An affirmative might even pick a specific project to apply the
approach to, or find a project that would be stopped using the precautionary
approach as an example to claim advantages off of.
NEGATIVE APPROACHES: The negative has a variety of options, from outright
denial and attack of the biocentric value, to more subtle ways of coopting
the goals of the affirmative.  As mentioned earlier, some biocentric thinking
can easily be accused of being misanthropic and dangerous to humans.  It may
be possible though for negatives to turn the concept of human power around,
and argue for a stewardship model of human relationship to the planet versus
dominion.  Being the most powerful and pervasive species, we may have a
unique responsibility to act as humans to save the planet.  Negatives might
bag righteousness altogether, focus on the sun burning out, and say now is
the time to push for space and leave this hulking dead shell of crust.  There
is also the option to point out a resolutional flaw in that all discussions
of biocentrism and anthropocentrism are by default anthropocentric as it is
humans who are carrying on the discussion, and despite our best efforts we
cannot howl for the wolf or screech for whales.  
 Negatives may also grant the goal of the affirmative, but claim some form of
anthropocentrism is an equal, better, or only way to get there.  Stewardship
may be the equal of deep ecology, social ecology may be better than deep
ecology because it also addresses human problems that need to be solved, and
no one may cooperate or understand the affirmative approach unless they can
see benefits directly related to humanity, some form of ultimate workability
issue related to real world concerns.
SUMMARY: There seems to be both radical and conservative ground on both sides
of the issue.  There is a need for creativity on the parts of both teams, and
it seems the issues would be more of an ethical than technical nature.  This
resolution offers a good chance to look at the why behind our actions rather
than just comparing which actions work best.  The future of everyone's person
planet relationship certainly bears a careful and ethical consideration.  We
have inherited a paradigm where business as usual is taken for granted so
much so that we no longer know why we are doing that business or for that
matter, we no longer know what is usual in context of the planet.  Any
opportunity to examine the underlying reasons for why things are the way they
are, and where they are going would be a valuable exercise not only for the
young people who would have to research these ideas for competition, but for
the leaders these young people will be long after they have debated their
final round of our game.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page