Anthropocentrism in Western (modern industrial) society is dominant, goes back hundreds of years, and can rightly be called ‘hubris’. It removes almost all moral standing from the nonhuman world, seeing it purely as a resource. Here, we discuss the troubling components of anthropocentrism: worldview and ethics; dualisms, valuation and values; a psychology of fear and denial; and the idea of philosophical ‘ownership’. We also question whether it is a truly practical (or ethical) approach. We then discuss three troubling examples of anthropocentrism in conservation: ‘new’ conservation; ecosystem services; and the IPBES values assessment. We conclude that anthropocentrism is fuelling the environmental crisis and accelerating extinction, and urge academia to speak out instead for ecocentrism.

No abstract

The present era of biological annihilation lends significant urgency to the need to radically reconfigure human–animal–nature relations along more ethical lines and sustainable trajectories. This article engages with largely post-humanist scholarship to offer up an in-depth qualitative analysis of a set of semi-structured interviews, conducted in August 2017–2018 with 26 radical environmental activists (REAs) from a variety of movements. These activists are posited as contemporary manifestations of the ‘post-anthropocentric paradigm shifts’ that challenge traditional notions of human separateness from – and superiority to – the nonhuman world. However, despite being broadly categorised as post-humanist or post-anthropocentric in their efforts to deconstruct hierarchical and dualistic constructions of the human–animal–nature relationship, considerable variations abound in terms of who and what REAs value and on what basis. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the nature of REAs’ post-anthropocentric sensibilities and mobilisations, and considers implications for the development of more ethical modes of human–animal–nature relationality that value and respect the irreducible alterity of nonhuman others.

Mounting socio-ecological perturbations such as anthropogenic climate change and the sixth-mass extinction (Ceballos et al., 2017) herald the emergence of a new era marked by the extensive impacts of a humanity-turned-geological force: the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007). In response, recent decades have seen the emergence of 'political ecologist' or radical environmental groups (Rootes, 2004) who tend to engage in extra-parliamentary political struggles that seek to initiate profound cultural, onto-epistemological, socioeconomic and structural changes in contemporary capitalist societies. REAs generally tend to regard industrial capitalism, with its drive towards ceaseless expansion, profit accumulation and the commodification of life itself (Bookchin, 2005; Moore, 2014), as a key force underlying environmental degradation. In service of their transformative aims, and driven by profound grief (Pike, 2016) and desperation over the declining state of the biosphere, REAs have become notorious for their use of direct-action tactics-tree sit-ins, massive road blockades, ship-ramming and even 'ecotage' or the sabotage of environmentally destructive machinery and property. However, far from targeting living beings, such tactics are aimed solely at ecologically destructive enterprises and machinery, and intend to serve as last lines of defence for stemming ecological decline (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Bondaroff, 2014) by rendering ecologically destructive activities economically non-viable. While existing literature has laid the essential groundwork by investigating the general parameters of REA identities, historical trajectories, deep ecological orientations,

Many authors have noted the role that anthropocentrism has played in creating humanity’s dysfunctional relationship with the natural world. As human hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence) is an ailment that contributes to the anthropogenic sixth mass extinction of Earth’s biodiversity, we argue instead for ‘harmony with nature’. In recent decades, even the conservation discourse has become increasingly anthropocentric. Indeed, justification for nature conservation has in part shifted from nature’s intrinsic value to ‘ecosystem services’ for the benefit of people. Here we call for a transformation to a more harmonious human-nature relationship that is grounded in mutual respect and principled responsibility, instead of utilitarianism and enlightened self-interest. Far from what Tennyson called ‘red in tooth and claw’, we argue nature is a mixture of cooperation as well as competition. We argue that the UN’s ‘Harmony with Nature’ program is an innovative and refreshing path for change. If we are to achieve harmony with nature, modern industrial society will need to abandon its anthropocentric ‘human supremacy’ mindset and adopt an ecocentric worldview and ecological ethics. We conclude it is thus both appropriate (and essential) for conservationists to champion harmony with nature.