Talk:Ecocentrism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazminflores208, B l186.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mchen8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I'd like to add a note about Lupinacci's (2011) identification of anthropocentrism as a root cause of environmental degradation. Debbie Goss (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

From Deep ecology:

The statement, consistent with the nature of life on earth should be rephrased for accuracy. --Viriditas | Talk 01:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC) This could maybe go into a definition for ecocentrism? Muxxa 06:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any difference between this and Biocentrism perhaphs they should be merged? --Salix alba (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they should be merged, but their differences should be highlighted if they are to remain separate articles. Richard001 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stan Rowe would strongly argue against merging biocentricism and ecocentricism. Basically he sees "the planetary ecological system in which organisms are encapsulated as parts, ... and all the associated protoplasmic bundles that 'biosphere' comprises have no separate reality except as wrong ideas implanted by a crude culture in infantile heads. How difficult it is to comprehend that the only unity with which people are in close touch is the Ecosphere, one of whose properties is the phenomenon called life. Life is not a property of complex protein molecules arranged in double helixes, nor of the ordered mixtures of substances that constitute protoplasm. Life is a property of the planet and of the ecological systems that it comprises. One-eyed biology, lacking depth perception, has misled by conceiving a world divided into the animate and the inanimate, the organic and the inorganic, the biotic and the abiotic, the living and the dead. The divisions are not only wrong, they are mischievous for they devalue essential parts of the Ecosphere. What would qualify as animate, organic, biotic and alive without beneficent sunlight, water, soil, and air? These components are as vital, as animated, as important, as the organisms whose life giving sustenance they are." Stephen Mikesell 23:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)

"Ecocentrism does not even distinguish between animate life and inanimate matter or process." Without elaboration that's an absolutely absurd statement. Just by naming the categories they're already distinguishing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.186.175 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Added references as requested. Granitethighs (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion with more (and more critical and analytic) material. Granitethighs (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion. I have still to expand the subhead on ecocentrism and biocentrism and refine editing. Granitethighs (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Removal of infoboxes

I removed {{infobox writer}} and {{infobox philosopher}} since I feel that they were not appropriate in this article. The information contained in the infoboxes can be incomporated into the text of the article. If there is a strong need for having the backround of these people placed in the article a text box off to the right hand side might be an idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I put Aldo Leopold in because he is attributed with the articulation of most of the ideas discussed in the article. What would you suggest as an "appropriate" picture to enhance the topic of ecocentrism and brighten up the page? Not sure what the problem is ... Granitethighs (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic does not lend itself to having a picture so there is no need to put one in. If Commons had a picture of Leopold - but it does not - it would be suitable to add to the article with a caption mentioning his influence. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical criticisms

There are some very interesting philosophical criticisms of ecocentrism on the part of Pope Benedict XVI which were published in December 2009. They could perhaps be cited in an eventual criticisms and controversies section of the article. [1][2] ADM (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the addition of well-articulated criticisms of ecocentrism would be excellent. The object of this article is not to "promote" a particular view but to express it as clearly as possible. Consideration of opposing or different views is, IMO, all part of that process. Please add these views. My only slight concern is that the article already includes discussion of other contrasting views, namely technocentrism etc., so a new section heading of criticisms and controversies seems a bit unnecessary, perhaps a different kind of heading would be better. Anyway - Wikipedia encourages you to edit away - please do. Granitethighs 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy or science

The justification for ecocentrism usually consists in an ontological belief and subsequent ethical claim. The ontological belief denies that there are any existential divisions between human and non-human nature sufficient to claim that humans are either (a) the sole bearers of intrinsic value or (b) possess greater intrinsic value than non-human nature. Thus the subsequent ethical claim is for an equality of intrinsic value across human and non-human nature, or ‘biospherical egalitarianism’.

My understanding is that this is neither a belief nor an ethical claim, but a scientific fact based on the available evidence. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, like that. But you have most of humanity to convince.Granitethighs 08:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and take this to the science refdesk in the next few days. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Effects of Economic Conditions on Ecocentric Views

The following was added to the main page:

Amplified by the recent economic hardship that begun in 2007, business companies and firms have disproved the idea that ecocentrism is the foundation for environmental ethics. There are an increasing number of cases that exemplify the motivations of businesses and firms. The companies are driven to provide sustainable production processes and manufacture sustainable products, not for the sole reason of improving the environment, but rather because of the economic benefits and advantages of attracting consumers who have become consistently more conscious of climate issues.

Saqib Rahim, author of “More Companies Push Sustainability, but Usually Not for Climate Reasons – Study”, discusses how firms are participating in sustainable practices in order to “open new markets, attract employees and improve their reputations with the public”. Instead of focusing on environmentally-friendly initiatives because of a pure desire to improve the Earth, as in ecocentric views, the companies are more concerned with profits and sales. For example, segments such as the auto industry reported that eighty percent of the businesses had established that sustainability is essential in order to stay competitive in the market.

“Products That Are Earth-and-Profit Friendly”, written by Sindya N. Bhanoo in the New York Times, also supports the movement toward anthropocentric motivations regarding sustainability and environmental initiatives, contradictory to ecocentric motivations. Socially, consumers have begun to have an increased awareness of climate and environmental issues as they have become widely publicized in the media. Consequently, the public has progressively become more “eco-friendly” and has created a large market that businesses are trying to capitalize on. In 2008, American consumers spent a total of 500 billion dollars on sustainable goods and services. Companies and firms are moving toward sustainability because of the potential to save millions of dollars, through processes such as using recyclable materials and reducing waste. The main objective of the companies is not to save the environment, but rather what activities would be most effective in reducing manufacturing costs and how can they better capture a larger market segment of the consumer base that is becoming more socially conscious of environmental issues.

Historical examples provide evidence that business sectors and industry segments are not ecocentric, but still maintain to participate in environmental ethics. Their prime motivation for sustainable practices is not ecocentrism and the drive to improve environmental conditions, but rather boost profit margins by adjusting to new social movements and reducing costs.

There are several difficulties here.

• This is an excessively long comment on a small aspect of the topic - it needs to be much more brief to keep the balance of the article, regardless of its content.
• There are several totally unsubstantiated assertions like "Amplified by the recent economic hardship that begun in 2007, business companies and firms have disproved the idea that ecocentrism is the foundation for environmental ethics" and "Historical examples provide evidence that business sectors and industry segments are not ecocentric, but still maintain to participate in environmental ethics". These assertions need citations to back them up.
• Regardless of the above Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view (NPOV). More explicitly "Assertions must be backed by sources and balanced with other views. A source must be verifiable and reliable. NPOV policy is premised on the idea that most secondary sources are not disinterested: a strong encyclopedia is not seeking to provide a disinterested view, but rather multiple views. Hence the slogan "Verifiability, not truth." What matters is not that a claim be true or factual, but rather that it be a verifiable fact that someone actually holds this view. We strive to include all significant views, giving each due weight, and putting each view in context.

Until these issues are addressed the above cannot be included in the article. Granitethighs 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to add some material to the article as soon as I can. Though, I am a busy person and cannot do any major work on wikipedia in the next day or two. But when I can I sure will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainman420 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Manifesto for Earth

I wonder whether the section titled "A manifesto for Earth" should be taken out of this article and made into its own article. Certainly the authors of this book represent an ecocentric viewpoint. However, it appears that this section talks more about the book rather than solely talking about the concept of "ecocentrism". Is there anyway we could use this information as a further reference to points talked about earlier on in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainman420 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Manifesto for Earth

I wonder whether the section titled "A manifesto for Earth" should be taken out of this article and made into its own article. Certainly the authors of this book represent an ecocentric viewpoint. However, it appears that this section talks more about the book rather than solely talking about the concept of "ecocentrism". Is there anyway we could use this information as a further reference to points talked about earlier on in the article? Mountainman420 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, this is a very clear and direct statement of these author's views and also of what ecocentrism means. If it were moved elsewhere I think the strength of the discussion would be diminished. It could be edited to provide a summary of their core ideas but there would then be a serious possibility of misinterpreting or misrepresenting their views. But I agree that there is potential for more in-depth critical and fully cited discussion of key points that exemplify ecocentrism: if you are aware of omitted literature or valuable discussion please add it.Granitethighs 11:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a few specific problems with the section titled "A manifesto for Earth". The first thing is that I think that the authors, Mosquin and Rowe, might perhaps come off as having a disproportionate influence on the dialogue of ecocentrism. Certainly Aldo Leopold and Arne Naess, who are traditionally credited as having been the lead philosophical/ethical articulators of the ecocentric worldview in the 20th century West, rightly deserve the emphasis they are given in the introductory sections of the article. However, we must realize that there have been thousands of articles, books, speeches, ect. given about ecocentrism and deep ecology from a whole spectrum of different academic fields. There are many influential proponents of the ecocentric worldview whose insights we might include in the article.

That being said, I realize that myself or anyone else is encouraged to dig through those sources and try to build on the content of the article even further. I hope to do this in the near future when I can squeeze enough time to work on it. Also, realizing that the editor who added the section on "manifesto for earth" put at least some effort into copying and pasting the content, I am not suggesting that we throw all of that effort and information into the waste basket.

I guess my primary concern with the section is that it is nowhere close to being encyclopedia style content. Beginning with a three sentence introductory, the section features a huge chunk of quotations from another source and then gives a numerical listing of briefly worded principles. All without being elaborated on or summarized in any way. I am not a style stickler who tries to cramp people's creative style, but this is an encyclopedia, isn't it?

I think that if this section is not significantly expanded and summarized or commented upon, then it should probably be deleted in whole. However, if it does get expanded, I would recommend creating an entirely new wikipedia article devoted to the content of that journal article, "A Manifesto for Earth". Then linking it back to the ecocentrism page.

P.S. I realize that there is an inherent possibility with any summarization or commentary of misrepresenting viewpoints. But is this really avoidable? Don't we need commentary in order to illustrate and further clarify the intentions of the original author? Mountainman420 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, as a way forward could I suggest that we follow your recommendation of creating an entirely new wikipedia article devoted to the content of the journal article "A Manifesto for Earth" linked back to the ecocentrism page. But please could I also ask that, following up on your comment "there have been thousands of articles, books, speeches, ect. given about ecocentrism and deep ecology from a whole spectrum of different academic fields" that you also increase the encyclopaedic value of the article by selecting just a few of these thousands of commentaries on ecocentrism and incorporate them into the discussion in an encyclopaedic way?Granitethighs 22:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to add some material to the article as soon as I can. Though, I am a busy person and cannot do any major work on wikipedia in the next day or two. But when I can I sure will.

Oh yeah, are you familiar with any other sources that review, comment, or talk about the article "manifesto for earth"? Mountainman420 (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Critique of article

Should there be those two large quotes in the first section of the article? From my understanding, Wikipedia does not encourage copy and pasting large sections of text even if it is properly cited. A condensed summary of Stan Rowe's definition would suit the article better. In addition, citation #11 is from answers.com. I do not believe this is a credible source and therefor the claim cited from this source should be removed. Mchen8 (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Article

The Rowe quotes are very long and can be cut down to a few sentences each. Also, cite # 11, which leads to Answers.com, is an unreliable source, due to the fact the answers found on there can be posted by just about anyone, don't have references themselves, and more often than not include opinions/biases. Although in this case, no biases were found. G.gospodinova (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)