2.5. Is anthropocentrism inevitable?

Anthropocentrism is often named as the central problem behind the environmental crisis. That has been the case in this course as well. However, we can only exist in this world as humans and therefore humanity is in the “centre” of our own experience. In 1974, philosopher Thomas Nagel contemplated this issue by publishing a scientific article, the title of which asked what it was like to be a bat. In his conclusion, Nagel stated that we cannot know what it is like to be a bat, i.e., we cannot know the experience of a bat. We can, to some extent, attempt to see the world as if we were observing it from the perspective of a bat – based on the knowledge we have of bats – but we cannot escape the fact that our own perspective of the world only opens to us through our human perception system. It is a box we cannot get out of while observing the world, and this epistemic (i.e. knowledge-related) and perceptual perspective is inevitably anthropocentric.

The above-mentioned phenomenon can be called the epistemological anthropocentrism. It is different than moral anthropocentrism which means that we only consider humans as intrinsically valuable beings or automatically prioritise the hopes and desires of humans over the needs of the rest of nature. The anthropocentric perspective of our existence in the world does not mean, or in itself justify, anthropocentric moral thinking. This also holds true between different human cultures. We cannot fully comprehend what the world looks like from the perspective of a person who comes from a significantly different cultural background, but this does not justify us to consider our culture (and the representatives of it) as better or more important.

The difference between epistemological and moral anthropocentrism, however, means that we must practice careful reflection on how different life forms and needs are considered. For example, when we acquire knowledge (produced and interpreted from a human perspective) of what factors affect the well-being of pollinators and the vitality of their populations, we must evaluate what modes of human activity may benefit or harm pollinators. It is also important to remember that anthropocentric observation may mislead us regarding the preconditions for the well-being of the of other species and their modes of life: for example, as stated in the previous chapter, a certain garden or forest that humans consider beautiful may have less diversity in species than a “horrible swamp” that upholds a rich and vital diversity of life. Because of this, the knowledge produced by ecology and biology holds an important place when we want to understand the impact of human activity on other species and the status of ecosystems. The knowledge produced by aesthetics and cultural research is important in order for us to understand the limitations of our own conceptions, preferences and attitudes. 

To some extent, multidisciplinary knowledge can also help us shape epistemological anthropocentrism towards new directions. If we believe in the mutability of the human species and individuals, we can think that anthropocentrism can be alleviated through cultural learning and that other species can also be understood. Even Nagel is not completely strict in his position and admits that we can more readily imagine the experiences of some creatures than those of others. We can understand other humans, and it is easier to understand apes than insects. We can ask why it could not be possible to develop our understanding of the experiences of increasingly strange beings until the perspective of a bat or an insect would finally become comprehendable? Biologists and ethologists working with other animals (known examples include Konrad Lorenz and Temple Grandin) have gradually learned to understand their behaviour and gestures to the extent that they can somewhat interpret some of their experiences, such as if they are feeling pain or pleasure. Is this not understanding the experience of another species?

A human planet? Anthropocene and the conquest of space

Epistemological and moral anthropocentrism is currently apparent in the state of the planet. As we learned on the ‘Introduction to Planetary Well-being’ course, the human species has spread everywhere in the world and shaped it in a way that there is virtually no more “untouched” nature. This situation is now called the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is a geological concept, a description of a situation and epoch: the activity of the human species alters the soil in irrevocable ways which leave behind a geological deposit. The Anthropocene is the subject of large-scale philosophical discussion, and it is considered both a useful and harmful concept. Alternatives are constantly imagined and proposed for the “age of the human” – objectives that we could strive for as human communities. Philosopher Donna Haraway has proposed that it is important to work toward reducing the traces left by the Anthropocene as much as possible, i.e., to make room for the coming era, whatever it might be called. Ethnographer Natasha Myers has suggested that we should strive for a “Planthroposcene” in which humans would learn to ally themselves with plants and other non-human beings. Anthropologist Anna Tsing, on the other hand, has hoped that the Anthropocene world could still uphold patches of the Holocene, i.e., material zones where non-human life could keep on living without human interference.

The Anthropocene is also a story which has societal and cultural impacts. It is an era of the human species, the journey of the universal human towards destruction or salvation; the crisis that is climate change and biodiversity is told as a story of a momentous journey in the coming-of-age story of the universal human. If they can survive this, the story will have a happy ending. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences have hastened to note that the story of the universal human is not enough – there are endless differences between groups of people, situations, places, and power relationships. Simplifying humans as a species or a hero on a mission does not help in understanding the reasons that led to a global ecological crisis or in finding more sustainable modes of operation. As Tero Toivanen and Mikko Pelttari have stated:

In their small thought experiment, Toivanen and Pelttari propose that the Anthropocene carry different meanings for Greenland sharks and humans. For humans, thinking about a Greenland shark is an exercise in defamiliarisation: the shark appears as an opportunity to see the human species from the outside, from the perspective of a Greenland shark. We cannot discern humans as a species without such an outsider perspective. Understanding a species requires an assumption of an alien, preferably one that this older and wiser than us.

The planet Earth will not take shape without the perspective of an alien, either: we need a satellite image from NASA showing the blue globe with its swirling mass of clouds, or maybe models of charts depicting the flow of data communications, air traffic or freight traffic. Like the Anthropocene, these images are also gross simplifications: they do not show Kerava or Catalonia, nor the abundance of insects breeding in a decaying tree, i.e., the level of specific local situations essential for local action. However, they can help us think about what is important about Earth specifically.

Any thoroughly ruminated story of the colonisation of space – for example, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, the television series Expanse, Lois McMaster Bujold’s novel Falling Free – tells us that the distinguishing feature of living on a planet is that it already has systems that maintain life. The systems maintaining life, e.g., the production of clean water, air, food, and the recycling of nutrition, are constant concerns on space stations and bases established on foreign planets. The inhabitants of future Mars, as depicted by Robinson, long for free airspace, oceans, soil, and decent coffee. They also have a habit of criticising the humans of Earth for being ungrateful. When we think about the human species and its survival (on this planet or another), we should remember the fact that humans will not survive without a whole ecosystem. If there is not one, it must be built. Building one has so far been very difficult.

Thinking about the state and future of planet Earth highlights the fact that even though there is plenty of scientific data available on the planetary environmental crisis, it is challenging to experience and imagine. In the next section, we will concentrate on knowledge, imagination, emotions and experiences – all of which are needed to create planetary well-being.