Toward conservational anthropology: addressing anthropocentric bias in anthropology

Environmental Education: Reflecting on Application of Environmental Attitudes Measuring Scale in Higher Education Students

“…At present, much of ESD is based on the assumption that social, economic and environmental interests do indeed converge, and that plural ethical perspectives in education are desirable (e.g., [88][89][90][91]). However, while an anthropocentric motivation can produce environmentally positive outcomes in situations where both humans and nonhumans are negatively affected, as in cases of pollution or climate change, anthropocentrism is not enough to protect natural elements that have no utilitarian value [77,81,[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. Critical scholars have argued that mainstream ESD ignores the urgency of environmental problems through the discursive politics of neoliberal ideology of equitable economic growth (e.g., [100][101][102][103][104]).…”

Nobody Likes Dichotomies (But Sometimes You Need Them)

“…The defining characteristic of 'colonisation' in general, along with the increase of social inequalities, is the ever-greater instrumentalism in human engagements with nonhuman inhabitants (Strang 2016). This entails the self-proclaimed right to undermine another species' very existence and the evolutionary unfolding in the noble quest for social justice (Kopnina 2012a(Kopnina , 2012b(Kopnina , 2014aCafaro and Primack 2014), in effect condoning 'nonhuman genocide' (Crist 2012, 140). Accusations that conservationists are 'out of control' to save the near-extinct species (Büscher 2015) testifies to a robust anthropocentric bias, and a refusal to acknowledge the legal repercussions of ecocide (Higgins 2010).…”

“…Supporters of the 'rights of nature' perspective (e.g. Cafaro and Primack 2014;Kopnina 2012aKopnina , 2014aKopnina , 2016aKopnina , 2016b point out that the refusal to acknowledge the objectivity of wilderness is a denial 'that we are residents on a planet where there is nature that transcends humans, and that various organisms pursue their own lives independently of our culture' (Rolston 1997, 40). Supporters of conservation point out the multiple instances of nonhuman displacement and ecocide, or killing of millions of non-humans for meat or other uses, or destruction of or loss of ecosystem (Higgins 2010), and call for the recognition of ecological justice (e.g.…”

The Routledge Handbook of Magazine Research

“…Anthropocentric bias in sociology, 38 anthropology 39,40 and even in the scholarship of education for sustainable development 41 indicates that members of the social science community tend to view issues such as the depletion of natural resources and pollution in strictly instrumental terms-as something that negatively affects humans and can be solved by a technological fix. In anthropocentric thought, humans are largely in control of the surrounding world, and problems arising from modern living can be taken care of through technological development and by adjusting certain social structures.…”