Biocentrism seeks the same level of respect, status, and position for all living beings, regardless of the kind. The word ‘biocentrism’ comes from ancient Greek, with ‘bio’ meaning like and ‘kentron’ indicating center. Its notion was expressed for the first time in the 20th century, with Western Philosophers being highly interested in it.
But when it comes to practice, it has always been in the thoughts, except that writings in its regard were not considered until the last century. The best example of the same would be Buddhism, one of the oldest religions, that believes in not harming any kind of living organisms including plants. Likewise, the native Americans are highly supportive of biocentrism and have multiple practices derived from the theorem.
Decoding Biocentrism Theory for you
As per Biocentrism, all kinds of living things are equal and have equal moral considerations. Be it humans, animals, insects, or herbs — each strives for equal respect, and not one group is above the other. The theorem sounds promising and hopeful, but the catch is that all of its concepts might not have relevance anymore.
Many have even regarded the concept as baseless, yet you will agree that its core is caring for nature and everyone who’s part of it. It additionally presents an indirect message to humans, urging the civilization to not take themselves as superior. Instead, one must see oneself as a part of nature, having equal grounds as any other living thing. But with biocentrism debunked, a lot of bewilderment has been popping up recently.
Understanding the Rules of Biocentrism
The theorem has four rules, which are:
- Non-maleficence: Non-maleficence strictly disallows humans to harm animals, plants, or other living beings.
- Non-interference: It suggests that one must try not to enter the space of other living beings or invade their natural goals. Other than interrupting, you must also avoid restricting, redirecting, or accelerating tasks of them.
- Fidelity: Humans, being the smartest creatures, should be mindful to not manipulate, exploit, and deceive others. Likewise, you aren’t supposed to use other living beings for personal gains.
- Restitutive justice: In case someone accidentally harms a living thing, Restitutive justice must be carried out to create a moral balance.
Important personalities talking about Biocentrism
- Albert Schweitzer: In one of his works, ‘Philosophy of Civilization2’ of 1923, Albert Schweitzer hints at biocentrism to be the ideal way of living. But if you look around, Albert has not one time mentioned the term ‘biocentrism’. It is the message that we are referring to, which tells us about Biocentrism being a sustainable way of lifestyle.
- Paul Taylor: Paul Taylor’s book Respect for Nature of 1986, includes multiple statements that are in favor of biocentrism. Of all, speaking of humans, Earth, the center of life, anthropocentric bias is the most notable.
- Robert Lanza: A popular stem cell researcher and a biocentrism voice, has so far worked on two biocentric-oriented projects. In both his works, biocentric assumptions of life are the main focus.
How is Biocentrism debunked?
With Biocentrism debunked, a lot of criticisms came pouring, just as you would expect for other philosophical ethics. Such criticism ended up badly for the theorem and got it debunked. Well, one popular criticism it received is for its demanding nature and rules, which are often seen as unreasonable. For example, the non-maleficence ask, tells us to not harm other living things. But killing chickens and other animals for a meal is pretty common. The theorem even tells us to not harm plants. If so, how are humans supposed to survive?
Another rule that the Biocentrism theorem asks for, is to not intervene in other living organisms. But for scientists to pause virus spread, intervening in-between must happen. Likewise, Biocentrism suggesting time and space to be a resultant of consciousness is unreal. The reason is that consciousness in itself is a big mystery.
Linking Biocentrism to Science
The core of Biocentrism, concerning science, has fewer things in relevance. But many wonder if Biocentrism is backed by science, which again is a big question mark even today. When it comes to scientists and researchers, biocentrism will be skeptical or fascinating in some cases.
Furthermore, Biocentrism is a glorious concept that has way fewer links with science. Plus, it does not have any physical evidence or testable predictions for scientists to start somewhere, which contradicts other theories. Such makes it difficult for scientific communities to comment on Biocentrism with certainty.
In conclusion, the Biocentrism theorem is where a society is expected to give equal rights and treatment to each living thing. Its virtue does sound great, but to what extent; is the question!
Well, Biocentrism ethics aren’t very practical in a large population, besides having so many loopholes. In addition to that, it lacks evidence and scientists aren’t able to draw anything to support the theory; therefore, Biocentrism debunked.
Critics of the theorem have urged that picking out vegetables and sometimes butchering animals for meals is required. While harming creations, including herbs, is not allowed in Biocentrism, there aren’t any alternative for it.
The universe is a creation of life, and not otherwise; as explained by the participatory anthropic principle. With that, Biocentrism and its connection with real science is almost delusional, given the lack of strong evidence for the theorem.
As per biocentrism, Death can be seen as unreal as people are only getting deported to another universe and continue to live a life there.
For one, humans killing other living things to survive is a common behavior, but Biocentrism does not support it. Secondly, it does not allow one group to interfere with another group, which again is not possible.
The opposite of the biocentrism theorem is anthropocentrism which sees humans as a higher group, having intrinsic value.