THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This study associates on (author) biocentrism theory. Moreover, this study

supported by Aldo Leopold’s Ecocentrism theory (1949) and (author) Anthropocentrism theory.

BIOCENTRISM THEORY

Biocentrism, according to Robert Lanza’s theory of biocentrism, it’s our

consciousness that creates the universe, rather than the universe creating our consciouaness.
This would mean that concepts like time and space only exist in our minds.

The scientist first proposed the theory in 2007, and it was met with both
skepticism and intrigue. On his website, Lanza explained that he believes that our reality is
reliant on biology, a concept that some might find confusing at first.

Although, all theses are the senses of human consciousness, the supporters of
Biocentrism claim that every event of nature seemed to have occured in human interest.

Biocentrism is a combination of both physics and biology, it’s meant to be an

overall explanation of our world, aka, a theory of everything. Lanza thinks that other theories of
the universe fail to incorporate one aspect: The roles of humans. To explain his ideas further,
Lanza gave ab example of an experiment showing how much the observer creates and impacts
reality.

In the experiment, it was proven that if someone watches a subatomic particle or

light pass through a barrier, it will create solid-looking hits. When particles aren’t observed, it
willshow the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes at the same time. This is ti
say that the behavior of subatomic particles will differ depending on whether or not they are
being observed.

ECOCENTRISM THEORY

Ecocentrsim, according to (Washington , 2013), captures the broad idea that all
lifeforms have intrinsic value. It contracts with anthropocentrism which sees other lifeforms to
be valuable only in relation to human interests. Keller in (Kirsloskar-Steinbach and Diaconu,
2020) conceives ecocentrism as an axiology that accords moral consideration to biotic
communities and assigns moral judgemnet on the basis of the health and flourishing of
ecological wholes.

As an approach to environmental philosophy, (Callicott, 1999) explains that

ecocentrism sprung from Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic. Leopold aimed at advancing an alternative
to anthropocentrism in his Sand Country Almanac and his Land Ethic as a clearcut example of
an ecocentric philosophy since it is centered on the whole ecological (oe biotic) communities
rather than thier individual members.

Thus, it account for the moral considerability of ecological level above the individual
organism. For (Rowe, 1994), ecocentrism underscores and axiological shift from homo sapiens
to the ecosphere, a value shift backed by the scientific rationale taht Earth Is the whole of
which we are subservant parts.

(Ezedike, 2020) captures its essence when he says that ecocentrism puts all beings in
the ecosystem in one moral universe and explains this to imply that quite apart from its
assumed intrumental value is supporting the existence of human species, nature is deemed as
valuable in and of itself. Humans, therefore, ought to respect and demonstrate moral
responsibility to all beings in the ecosystem.

ANTHROPOCENTRISM

Anthropocentrism is inadequate for biodiversity conservation (Rolston 2012;

Cafaro and Primack 2014; Shoreman-Ouiment and Kopnina 2016). Tim Hayward (1997) in
Anthropocentrism: A Misunerstood Problem. A review of this debateis timely because there is a
rising interest in the ethical underpinnings of animal rights anf welfare (e.g. Siner 1977; Regan
1986; Bisgould 2008; Borras 2016) and biological coversation (e.g. Tallis et al. 2014; Doak et al.
2015; Mathews 2016’ Cafaro et al. 2017; Kopina et al. 2018; Piccolo et al. 2018).

Anthropocentrism, in it’s original conotation in environmental ethics, is the belief

that value is human-centred anf that all other beings are means to human ends.
Environmentally-concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and
at the root of ecological crises.

Moreover, Passmore dismisses claims that it would be intrinsically wrong to

destroy a species, cute down a tree or clear a wildness as merely ridiculous (Passmore, 1974:
111). These views build toward his central idea, the supposition that anything but a human
being has rights is quite untenable (Passmore, 1974: 187). Passmore viewsdefine narrow
anthropocentrism which is characterized by an embace of traditional human entered ethics
that isolate human from the environment. Narrow anthropocentrists believe humans alone
possess value, human efforts on behalf of nonhuman nature are driven by a desire to serve
human needs.
 From the conversation point of view, the animal rigths perspective appears to
value animals species in proprotion to the assumed similarity of thier conciousness with human
consciousness (Singer 1977; Regen 1986).

The study of anthropocentism as approach to study the human-nature

relationship has not yet recieved enough attention. Although both express environmental
concerns and have recognixe that we have a responsibility to the environment, but they have
different motives. This paper is an attempt to expound and clarify.