The designation of divisions in the geologic time scale might typically seem to be a relatively trivial matter of scientific nomenclature, but the proposal to name our current geological epoch the “Anthropocene” has generated unusually vigorous interdisciplinary debate. The controversy has focused largely on the perceived political and ideological assumptions framing the very idea of the Anthropocene, especially who counts among the “we” of Anthropos, with implications for understanding the root causes of global environmental problems, to whom responsibility should be assigned for these problems and their causes, and the role of technological and management approaches in addressing them. Less attention has been paid to claims by proponents that the Anthropocene marks a unique historical transformation of the relation between “humans” and “nature,” a transformation in which “we” displace nature, for better or worse, as drivers of the planet’s future. Paul Crutzen, the Nobel-Prize winning scientist credited with popularizing the notion of the Anthropocene, along with journalist Christian Schwägerl, famously remarks that “We humans are becoming the dominant force for change on Earth. A long-held religious and philosophical idea---humans as masters of planet Earth---has turned into a stark reality. . . . It’s no longer us against ‘Nature.’ Instead, it’s we who decide what nature is and what it will be. . . . [I]n this new era, nature is us.” As Jeremy Baskin notes, this rhetoric plays a double game, claiming to re-insert humans into nature while elevating them as its masters. More importantly, such claims to our post-natural status raise central philosophical questions about the autonomy of nature, the relation between human and geological temporality, and on what basis humanity can be considered as a collective in the absence of any “nature” in common.

... Humanity and nature: Ecology, science, and society. Post a Comment. CONTRIBUTORS: Author: Haila, Yrjö. Author: Levins, Richard. PUBLISHER: Pluto Press (London and Mass.). SERIES TITLE: YEAR: 1992. PUB TYPE: Book (ISBN 1853050415 ). VOLUME/EDITION: ...

Anthropocentrism and the Environment Humans and our ethical principles make us brilliant being compare to other realities, and this centrality of humans in the created cosmos is the very essence of anthropocentrism. Only humans have personalities, emotions and can communicate on a high level who are not controlled by instincts (Miklós, 2014). Our rationality enabled us to know what is right or wrong and made us greater over other existence. It is an undeniable fact that the capacity of humans made us flourished in the area of medicine and technology. The developments and discoveries in Science, which contributed to the body of knowledge, are all product of the rationality of humans. Anthropocentrism came from the Greek word, "Anthropos" that means "human", highlighting the centrality of human in the created cosmos originated in Western philosophy and religion. However, this claim of centrality destroys the social dependency of all existence and imbibes the supremacy one entity. Our inevitability to be connected with other realities seems now to be non-existent, thus, giving more value on humans. The creation of pyramidal structure among existent beings and putting humans on the top of it is a great perplexity. Our claim of being at the top of hierarchy of species led to the destruction of all those that are below us, an inevitable result of our egoistic claim. This taxonomic or biological privilege is used as an ideology, which supports the domination of nature. In the modern period, the humanistic view that human being is the center of all things enters the picture. In fact, this period is characterized as anthropocentric because it is the human who is the source of truth and not mythologies or religion or the Bible. The rise of rationalism considering humans as greater entities because of their rational faculty is the prevailing philosophy. In addition, the rise of scientific discoveries fuels the claim that human and the power of mind can define anything. There is a great detachment from the belief with gods and nature, from religion and just focuses on humans as the prime center. The dilemma is, if the measure of all things is human and his rational capacity, how about the other beings which do not have this faculty? Thus, anthropocentrism is an exclusionary view system whether or not it linked to any specific ideologies (Miklós, 2014). Furthermore, anthropocentrism intrinsically value humanity but intrinsically value nonhumanity [nature] (Burchett, 2018). This leads to the pure socioeconomic intention of looking at the nature as an instrument for monetary gain. This objectification of the earth is an ecological predicament caused by selfishness of people. This does not give an avenue of concern but purely economical intention. In addition, the rise of capitalism as a social system gave license to those who simply made profit from the nature. The technological prowess of human societies has enabled [us] to rapidly extract and exchange vast amounts of natural resources with one another in a feverish, never-ending stream (Varner, 2006). Social ecologists argues that the exploitation of nature just for self-interest is denial of inherent value of the nature. Our existential claim over the nature resulted not only its destruction but also extinction of other species and global climate change. "God said. 'Let's make man in our image, after our likeness.' Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in his own image" (Gen 1:26). This Bible passages elevates the role of human creating a hierarchy among creations. It highlights dominance and Godlike of human. Furthermore, this is a classical way of justifying the superiority of everything including animals, plants and the nature at large. The words "dominion" and "subdue" is a hermeneutical display of the positioning of human on the top of the levels of creation. Actually, man was even responsible of the naming of animals and plants (Gen. 2:20). Thus, the authority was vested to human uplifting him from brute animals and plants. This classical claim of

Research into the sources of contemporary ecological crisis as well as ways to overcome it has been conducted for several decades. Rich academic literature provides numerous attempts to identify the causes of the crisis and its solutions. The ecological crisis is extremely complex and variously conditioned. Therefore, I focus on determining only two sources of the crisis and, respectively, two solutions. Since the late 1960s, monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular, have been made responsible for the environmental crisis. Christianity is accused of forwarding two theses which are harmful to the environment: 1. The sole purpose of nature is to serve man. 2. By God's will, man is endowed with unlimited power over nature. I attempt to overcome this understanding of the source of the crisis by showing the interpretation of the Bible which contradicts the above-mentioned theses. Moreover, I show "the ecological potential" of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. As the second source of the crisis I indicate modern thought: 1. Man's alienation from nature as the result of the Cartesian division of reality into res cogitans and res extensa. 2. Francis Bacon's program: the study of nature is the task of natural sciences alone; nature is devoid of value in itself. 3. The mathematization of nature made it possible for the natural and technical sciences to develop rapidly, which contributed to the industrial revolution. I look for an antidote to this cause of the crisis in Klaus M. Meyer-Abich's idea of man's peace with nature which he developed as part of the practical philosophy of nature. I believe that revealing our inseparable bond with nature and showing compassion towards nature may help overcome the destructive consequences of modern thought.

What Elizabeth Kolbert has called the ‘sixth mass extinction’ due to anthropogenic climate change has obliged us to rethink our traditional assumptions about the rapport between ourselves and nature. While the reconceptualization of nature has largely been led by scientists and environmental theorists and activists, this paper argues that Schelling provides the best and earliest model for rethinking nature in the Anthropocene. To this end, Schelling critiques two approaches to nature. Schelling repudiates Fichte’s idealism for reducing nature to an instrument for the self-assertion of our egos much like modern industrial capitalism views nature as an economic resource to be exploited for human gain. Further, Schelling critiques Spinoza for mechanizing nature as a structurally invariant system in the same way that climate change denialists hold that the earth’s ecosystem is perfectly homeostatic. Having dismissed these two approaches, Schelling develops another environmentally ethical conception of nature to answer the question of how the free human subject emerges out of an allegedly blind and lifeless nature. Schelling’s solution to safeguarding nature is to paradoxically anthropomorphize it further by reconceiving it as always-already structured as per the dynamic free spirit. This paper shall thus conclude by extracting two environmentally ethical principles that Schelling’s anthropomorphization of nature entails. Contra Fichte, the ‘dependency principle’ states that humans are radically dependent upon nature rather than nature being dependent on our positing it as an object of our intuition. Moreover, the ‘contingency principle’ stipulates against Spinoza that nature is itself contingent, dynamic and precarious. In this way, Schelling provides a conceptualization of nature befitting the demands placed upon thought in the age of the sixth extinction.

Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations and their collective interactions with Earth’s various ecosystems, many environmentalists have lamented that nature is being destroyed by humanity. The theoretical framework which presumably accounts for our species’ destructiveness is pejoratively referred to as anthropocentrism, the view that humans are the sole bearers of intrinsic value on our planet, whereas all nonhuman aspects of the biosphere, whether biotic or abiotic, are of merely instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests. I argue, however, that environmental thinkers’ critiques of anthropocentrism are ultimately misplaced. Humanity’s ecological predicament is not the result of overvaluing humanity as such but of permitting institutionalized forms of ethical egoism to underlie policies that narrowly focus on the short-term, frivolous interests of current individuals at the expense of the vital interests of future generations.