Home For Fiction – Blog

Many of us think they’re individually the center of the universe. The irony is, they might be right, but that’s a discussion for another day. The same concept in a wider context is called anthropocentrism. In simple terms, anthropocentrism is the assumption that humans are the most important entities in the universe.

The problem is not so much the belief itself. After all, many of us would likely consider the possibility that other life forms exist in the universe. Probably many of us would also consider the possibility that alien life forms not only exist but are as or even more intelligent than we are.

So, is anthropocentrism “a thing”? Does it really exist?

The question is yes, indirectly. And that’s what makes it insidious. In other words, the true danger of anthropocentrism arises from the fact that it’s subconscious: We’re often not aware we express anthropocentric behavior. That is, we might state we don’t think humans are the center of the universe, we might really believe it, too, yet we act and think as if we were.

So let’s take a look at what anthropocentrism really is, together with examples of anthropocentric behavior. We’ll see what kind of problems such behavior produces, and what some possible solutions could be.

What Is Anthropocentrism and Why It’s a Problem

As I mentioned in the introduction, anthropocentrism can be defined as the belief that humans are the most important (or at least central) beings in the universe. However, this definition of anthropocentrism – again, as I’ve already implied – doesn’t quite reveal the insidious nature of the problem.

The true problem with anthropocentrism is the ideological framework it creates: To display anthropocentric behavior means to (usually subconsciously; without realizing it) behave as if humans were very important.

How Anthropocentric Behavior Emerges

In a funny meta- kind of way, the very fact that we have a concept such as anthropocentrism and we talk about it is an instance of anthropocentrism in its own right! I mean, to claim that no other creature considers itself the center of the universe is anthropocentric in its very structure.

But besides this minor linguistic and metaphysical wizardry, anthropocentric behavior tends to assume a variety of subtle, barely discernible forms. Let’s take the question “Is there intelligent life in the universe?” as an example. It’s a characteristically anthropocentric question, on many levels:

• It assumes that conscious intelligent life (in this order) is a very rare event in the universe.
• It deploys anthropocentric scales, methods, and criteria to determine this uniqueness.
• The assumption that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos will have major repercussions here on Earth involves several new anthropocentric trains of thought, abstract enough to be outside the scope of this post. I leave them as an exercise to the reader.

Another example of anthropocentric behavior is the way we treat other animals. We simply start from a position of hierarchy, assuming axiomatically that human beings are superior to other animals. Indeed, we categorize other animals according to the degree of intelligence we perceive them to have. This way we claim e.g. orangutans or dolphins to be superior to e.g. chickens or lizards.

The Problem with Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentric behavior is a problem because it leads to the perpetuation of ignorance. In other words, anthropocentrism hurts us because it limits our thinking framework, by forcing us to reflect on situations and issues only from a limited perspective. The problem is exasperated by the fact that it’s a subconscious process, keeping us from truly understanding the dynamics it entails.

To continue the example of the previous section, when we discuss about our coexistence with other animals, anthropocentrism subconsciously makes us think in ways we, humans appreciate and value. We consider intelligence (or consciousness, which we assume many animals not to experience) to be the reference point that must determine our other behavior. If advanced echolocation or eyesight were instead the point of reference, we’d be in trouble!

Take animal rights, for instance. We might have good intentions, wanting animals not to suffer (and that’s undeniably great). Yet the methods we follow are often informed by anthropocentrism. More still, we hierarchically divide animals into categories, often based on intelligence. “Smart” animals, okay. “Dumb” animals, less okay. Not to mention, we’re anthropocentric even there. We measure intelligence in ways suitable to humans (such as the use of tools).

Remember my post on Dunning-Kruger? I there said that the Dunning-Kruger effect is basically a catch-22 kind of thing, where stupid people are too stupid to realize they’re stupid. Anthropocentric behavior follows a similar pattern, in that we humans are too blinded by our ideological narrow-mindedness to realize we’re being narrow-minded. It’s quite the quagmire.

So, are there any solutions?

Possible Solutions

If anthropocentrism is a Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, perhaps we ought to seek for solutions in the same place. Once again, let’s go back to my post and see what kind of solutions I suggested there. Among others, I said: “Challenge your own preconceptions. ‘Am I really right to think A?’ ‘Have I been wrong to consider B ignorant?’ ‘Is my belief C justified?'”

The only way out of ignorance is to scratch the limits. If anthropocentrism has us enclosed in a narrow bubble of ideologically motivated thought patterns, we need to move right at the edge of this bubble and try to poke it.

That is, question our most fundamental assumptions. How do we define intelligent life? How do we define experience and perception? At the very least, we should refrain from assigning hierarchical relations based on biased factors.

Or, in the words of George Carlin, “Life is sacred? Who said so? […] You know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? ’Cause we’re alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred”.