First off, I really enjoyed this article. I thought that the author presented a well thought out and well supported argument against the current connotation of the word "anthropocentric". In short, Midgley argues that the human species as a whole must place atleast a little importance on ourselves, even though it should not be to the level that assuming the earth was created for us. Science shattered this former idea of a universe truly centered around humans. Many, in response to this realization, overcompensated the importance of the human race when they realized what small and insignificant players we are in the universal drama Midgley explains. For example, the followers of the Anthropic Principle represent a radical group who vastly overestimate the importance of humans and even bring us to the level of God. However, Midgley argues, we need a little bit of this drama (emphasis on a little bit). Humans needs to have some sense of destiny and place in the universe. The author suggests that instead of placing ourselves as dominant or supreme above all other living things, we should instead love the other living things a little more (partially because we have indirect duties to our environment and there might even be a tinge of the "human good = natural good" argument in here).
I think the author's stance is very applicable to the world's curent position in the midst of a "go-green" or enviornmental movement. This movement tends to create almost a sense of self-loathing for the humane race. After reading online articles about the evil deeds of those self-centered humans, it is easy to walk away thinking "Gosh, those humans sure do suck". We don't have to be the Grinch! I think that in part, this methodology isn't the most effective way to convince people that the environment is worth saving. Although it does do some good to reflect on ourselves and our society as a whole, I agree with the author that it would be better instead to focus on the good in other living things. If we keep only a mild sense of self-importance, just enough so that we care about ourselves enough to continue personal hygiene and maybe even holding the door for a stranger, then we have more respect and care to spread for the natural environment. Unfortunately, however promising this arguement sounds, I feel like the total transition it would take to get to humanity to the point of reducing our human-centric view of the world would be exceedingly difficult. I'm not sure if we have reached the end of anthropocentrism, but at the very least the author outlines an enticing strategy to improve our conditions if the time does come where we can move past our own big egos and realize that the Earth is something worth saving (is that human-loathing of me?)
No comments:
Post a Comment