ANTROPOCENTRISM VS ECOCENTRISM
The world (earth) as a whole over the time of its existence has experienced unexpected advancement and evolution in terms human, material and natural perspective. Development in terms of increased standard and cost of living of humans (man), human economics as well as increased human life expectancy. (World Resources Institute, 1994). Animals over time have also evolved either by increase of survival chances by sheer number of offspring's or mere survival instincts. This particular reason has groomed schools of thoughts with regards to humans development and the relationship with earth.
This short piece will focus is on ecocentrism. It is on the basis of ecocentrism that a critic of anthropocentric will be is carried out?
What is anthropocentrism and ecocentrism view?
A school of thought, the ANTHROPOCENTRIC view of human's relationship to earth, believes in human-centeredness, emphasizing the value of securing the resources humans need for further development and advancement.
The other school of thought, ECOCENTRIC view, takes an environment centered, or view of humans relationship to nature, to emphasize the value of conserving earth's integrity and beauty for continued existence.
A critique of anthropocentrism view
The Lord created man, so Genesis certainly tells us to have 'dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth' (Gen 1: 26), (Andrew et al, 2004), granting him the right to subdue the earth and all its inhabitants.
God, according to Genesis, also issued a mandate to mankind: 'Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it' (1: 28). So Genesis tells men not only what they can do, but what they should do - multiply and replenish and subdue the earth.