Is environmentalism against anthropocentrism?
Environmentalism often presents itself as the opposite of anthropocentrism. After all, it gives value to nature, not just to humans. The author shows that reality is more complicated.
Environmentalism itself isn't anthropocentric
In theory, valuing species and ecosystems has nothing to do with giving more value to humans. But look at what happens in practice.
Two different rules
Almost all environmentalists support killing animals of "invasive" species. But almost none support doing the same to humans, even though humans are the species that changes and "invades" environments the most on the planet.
In other words: they apply environmental principles to animals, but not to humans. That shows they're putting environmentalism below anthropocentrism.
The extreme case
The author mentions a rare environmentalist named Pentti Linkola, who argued for applying the same measures to humans. He even supported monstrous things against people, in the name of ecological balance. Almost everyone, including most environmentalists, finds this position repugnant.
The conclusion
The reason we reject Linkola's position is that individuals who feel matter more than keeping an ecosystem a certain way. And that same reason requires us to also reject the programs that kill animals for the same ends.
In short
- Environmentalism presents itself as opposed to anthropocentrism.
- In practice, almost all environmentalists apply their principles only to animals.
- The reason for rejecting the extermination of humans applies to animals too.