Biocentrism (from Greek βίος bios, "life" and κέντρον kentron, "center"), in a political and ecological sense, as well as literally, is an ethical point of view that extends equal inherent value to all living things.
The term has also been employed by advocates of "left biocentrism", which combines deep ecology with an "anti-industrial and anti-capitalist" position (according to David Orton et al.).
Usually, the term biocentrism encompasses all environmental ethics that "extend the status of moral object from human beings to all living things in nature".
It observes the consequences of reducing biodiversity on both small and large scales and points to the inherent value all species have to the environment.
[5] Similarly, Peter Singer argues that non-human animals deserve the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings.
[10] His argument is roughly as follows: Singer's work, while notable in the canon of environmental ethics, should not be considered as fully biocentric.
However, not all biological entities are sentient, consider: algae, plants and trees, fungi, lichens, mollusks, protozoa, for example.
[11] Biocentrism is most commonly associated with the work of Paul W. Taylor, especially his book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (1986).
[14] He has pointed to Charles Darwin as an important spokesman for the biocentric view in ecological thought and quotes from Darwin's Notebook on Transmutation of Species (1837):[15] If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, diseases, death, suffering and famine—our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusement—they may partake of our origin in one common ancestor—we may be all netted together.In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species.
This publication sparked the beginning of biocentrist views by introducing evolution and "its removal of humans from their supernatural origins and placement into the framework of natural laws".
[17] The essay "The Land Ethic" in Leopold's book Sand County Almanac (1949) points out that although throughout history women and slaves have been considered property, all people have now been granted rights and freedoms.
In recent years (as of 2011), cities in Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia have adopted laws that protect the rights of nature.
Article 71 states that nature "has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes".
"[23] However, while Hinduism does not give the same direct authority over nature that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god grants, they are subject to a "higher and more authoritative responsibility for creation".
The Hindu belief in Saṃsāra (the cycle of life, death and rebirth) encompasses reincarnation into non-human forms.
"[27] In Buddhism: The Buddha's teachings encourage people "to live simply, to cherish tranquility, to appreciate the natural cycle of life".
"[28] Within the Catholic tradition of Christian thought, Pope Benedict XVI noted that "the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism".
This, he stated, was because "such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things.
In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the "dignity" of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings.
Some of this criticism grows out of the concern that biocentrism is an anti-human paradigm and that it will not hesitate to sacrifice human well-being for the greater good.