Recognizing Anthropocentrism as a Terminal Disease
By Dr. Michael W. Fox
It has taken us only a few centuries to almost destroy the planet. This achievement has been made possible not by our technologies or species' intelligence, for no intelligent, self-reflective and self-respecting creature would ever do anything so foolish. Rather, we have allowed our reason and our emotion (especially our capacity to empathize with Nature, trees, and animals) to be overshadowed by something else. It is not evil per sé, though many of its consequences are. It stems from how we perceive ourselves in relation to the rest of life on Earth; our self-definition, so to speak.
This "something else" is the anthropocentric fallacy of human superiority over the rest of Earth's creation. We firmly believe that the human species is the only species on Earth (presumably in the entire cosmos) created in God's image, and is top dog.
What God in dog's name, I wonder, would create such an awesome diversity of life forms on Earth just for the exclusive use of one anomalous primate species that has opposable thumbs, an evident identity crisis, and that lives in denial of the consequences of its many seemingly insatiable appetites?
The belief in human superiority, like our ecological and spiritual degeneration, is a relatively recently acquired affliction; an aberration in human consciousness. It is the cornerstone of anthropocentrism and it spread rapidly into Western civilization after two founders of Catholic Christianity, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, embraced the Greek rationalist philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle contended that men are superior to animals because only humans have the power to reason. He conceived of a great chain of being with the human species above the rest of the animal kingdom, and with men above women and slaves.
Augustine argued that since animals lack reason, they have no rational community with us. This view has its roots in the Stoic philosophy of a community of belonging for rational beings. Humans are rational, animals are irrational, and thus animals are external to this community and deserve no moral concern. The Epicureans also put animals out of the picture by developing a theory of justice based upon a contract or agreement. Since animals are irrational, they argued, no agreement or contract could be made with them. Thus justice was denied to animals because they lack reason. Aquinas elaborated on Aristotle's ideas to propose that only humans have immortal souls. Animals can't have; because they lack intellectual understanding.
The influences of Augustine and Aquinas set the stage for the so-called age of Enlightenment. Paganism, Nature worship and belief in spiritual energies and supernatural powers were variously demonized and dismissed as primitive superstition. This 18th Century Enlightenment period of rationalism laid the foundation of the European industrial revolution and effectively sanctified anthropocentrism. Enlightenment harbingers like Francis Bacon saw industriousness, and "having commerce with and vexing nature", as being divinely ordained. Sir Isaac Newton saw the cosmos as a complex machine, a paradigm that lead to a mechanistic view of Nature that greatly limited scientific and technological progress. Philosopher René Descartes, best known for his proclamation "I think, therefore I exist", convinced many that matter and spirit, mind and body, and creator and creation are separate. He placed reason over emotion and reasoned that animals are unfeeling machines.
These three founders of the industrial revolution were instrumental in influencing human psychology to the extent that anthropocentrism, patriarchy, and a wholly mechanistic and materialistic attitude toward Nature/Creation became normative. Perhaps such a pathological mind-set was a prerequisite for the industrial revolution to succeed. To be able to so effectively engineer human consciousness so as to have people deny and reject gnostic encounters with the spiritual dimensions of biological reality, is probably even more amazing than many of our discoveries and feats of mechanical, chemical, and biological engineering. That we humans can so profoundly alter our minds and way of being, in terms of our beliefs, values, and behavior, could give us grounds for hope.
The attitude of Western civilization toward animals and nature reflect the pernicious influences of Greek philosophy, Roman Catholicism, and Enlightenment thinking.
People still believe that animals don't have souls, are irrational, cannot think or have feelings. Pope John Paul II has stated publicly that "It is certain that animals were created for man's use." People talk of the "food chain" and evoke images of a great chain of being with humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Yet ecological science reveals no linear food chain but a mosaic food web in which no species, not even the human, is "superior."
This linear, hierarchical thinking served to divorce us from biological reality on the one hand, and from giving just and fair consideration to the non-human, so-called sub-human, members of the life community on the other. This way of thinking is at the root of our anthropocentrism, which is a pathological condition in so far as it has brought us to the brink of global ecological destruction: ecocide. Furthermore, it leads us to treat animals in the cruelest and barbaric ways for pecuniary ends, and to find cures for diseases most of which we have brought upon ourselves.
Harvard University biologist Professor Edward O. Wilson points out that "We are inextricably part of nature, but human uniqueness is not negated thereby. 'Nothing but an animal' is as fallacious a statement as 'Created in God's own image.' Is it not mere hubris to argue that Homo sapiens is special in some sense -- for each species is unique in its own way; shall we judge among the dance of bees the song of humpback whale and human intelligence?"
If it is true that we are created in the image of God, then we should see the image of God in each other. And with such awareness, see divinity in all that lives and moves since we are all part of the same divine conception and Creation. But it would appear that we see through the glass darkly, or rather we look into a mirror, like Narcissus, and project the image of ourselves onto God. Little wonder that we have an identity crisis when we create a God in our own image and then claim that this God has given us the divine right to use other animals for whatever purposes we might contrive: like genetically engineering pigs to carry some of our own genes so that we can use them to provide our noble surgeons with fresh organs to replace our often self-caused diseased and decaying hearts and livers.
In the name of progress and necessity we forge ahead with the self-anointed divine authority of human superiority over the rest of the Earth community. The cosmos of anthropocentrism appears boundless and filled with utopian promise of an age to come when we will be free from disease, hunger, suffering, and even, some hope, from growing old and from death itself.
We have no qualms about sacrificing animals -- chimpanzees, baboons, dogs, -- on the altar of medical progress, for the good of humanity, for the benefit of society. But is human life, individually and collectively, so precious, so paramount, when our population of 5.7 billion is collectively and systematically destroying the natural world and converting the Earth into a bioindustrial wasteland?
The philanthropist and humanists and the misanthropes and naturalists live in two worlds. The former is anthropocentric, if not utopian and optimistic, while the latter world is biocentric or creation-centered, and more pessimistic. To point out the inevitable nemesis of anthropocentrism is not fatalism but realism. And to offer the antidote -- humility and reverential respect for all life -- is not impractical idealism. It is a survival necessity for the planet and for humanity. The alternative is the emerging planetary plague of a mutant alien being in human form that has no vestige of humanity left, no ethical sensibility or concern for anything or any other being, save its own spiritually degenerate kind.
These observations are not meant to be hyperbole or metaphorical rhetoric. The more they appear to be so, the more we are in a state of denial of the global impact of anthropocentrism and the consequences of our believing that the human species is superior over all others on Earth.
One consequence of anthropocentrism is to see oneself separate from Nature and from the rest of creation. This dualistic view separates humans from other animals, matter from spirit and divinity or the Creator from Nature or Creation. Neurobiologist and Nobel laureate Professor Roger Sperry insists that "The Creator and Creation cannot be separated. The two of necessity become instinctively interfused and evolve together in a relation of mutual interdependence. Thus, what destroys, degrades, or enhances one does the same to the other."
There is only one world, and our senses confirm the biological realism of this existential fact. Yet we have come to live in two worlds that are increasingly mutually exclusive rather than mutually enhancing. The exclusive world view of anthropocentrism is the antithesis of the Earth- or Creation-centered reality that many people still embrace. Anthropocentrism has become the dominant world view of the twentieth century and it threatens to obliterate what is left of the natural world. It is a pathological condition of collective egotism that is driven by hubris and a purely materialistic ethos. It substitutes biological realism for instrumental rationalism, and holds nothing sacred that has not immediate or conceivable utility.
Anthropocentrism also distorts our senses and cognitive processes, leading to a mechanistic and reductionistic mind-set that is actually autistic. To be so far removed from biological realism as to have no awareness of and sensitivity and respect for the holistic, sentient, metaphysical and spiritual dimensions of reality is surely a very serious form of autism.
Scientific knowledge and technology acquired and applied from an anthropocentric perspective have had unforeseen harmful consequences. David Suzuki and Peter Knudtson advise that "Modern science's dazzling achievements in rationally dissecting the natural world may also be contributing to a sense of psychological, emotional, and spiritual detachment from the rest of the natural world. We might legitimately ask what sort of ecological values, if any, are likely to flow from such a human-centered view of the natural world."
Because of the way we structure reality from the perspective of anthropocentrism, we will never be able to heal ourselves or the dying Earth. Hope lies in our adaptive intelligence being used to help us to become Earth- or Creation-centered. But until all our institutions come to recognize the pathology of anthropocentrism, and we collectively cease to live in denial and instead embrace the biological realism of responsible planetary care, our appetites, world markets, and spawning multitudes will become the nemesis of the human race.
Anthropocentrism will be a terminal disease for an exterminator species unless it is able to mutate mentally and behaviorally. We have one final choice: to either extinguish the natural world, or this worldview. We must embrace and attune ourselves to the biological realism of living in ecological balance, sustainably, and in cooperative harmony with all interdependent life forms. To live otherwise, to reject biological realism and to ignore the "laws" of nature implicit in the functional integrity and dynamics of ecosystems, is to reject life. There is no alternative, no utopian technosphere; only this biosphere, planet Earth, our one and only home, which we must heal if we are to survive and be well.
Today people are undergoing a rapid metamorphosis everywhere as the catastrophic consequences of anthropocentrism and industrialism show that we have been on the wrong path since that age when our European ancestors had the arrogance and certainty to call it the age of Enlightenment. The end of it is our Enlightenment.
The necessary mutation in our behavior and consciousness has two interdependent elements. These are in the realms of thought and feeling. Our ethical sensibility on the one hand, and our empathetic sensitivity on the other, must be developed so that reason and compassion govern our actions, relationships, appetites and values. Without ethical sensibility and empathetic sensitivity, what instrumental knowledge, understanding of natural science and technological skills we may possess will do more harm than good. We lack the ability to predict the future, and must accept the law of unforeseen consequences. Hence the importance of developing our ethical sensibility that is based upon humility and reverential respect for all life; and our empathetic sensitivity that is based upon compassionate concern for all sentient beings. Then we will liberate ourselves from the self-limiting confines of anthropocentrism, and in the process of recovering our humanity establish a mutually enhancing relationship with the Earth and all who dwell herein.
The Psychopathology of Anthropocentrism
The ultimate degradation of the human spirit is evident in our disregard for the sacredness of all life and in our indifference to our civilization's callous arrogance toward and destruction of the life and beauty of the Earth. These can be neither wholeness nor healing without love and compassion. Laurens Van Der Post wrote: "As the natural man within looses honor, so too does nature without. We no longer feel reverence for nature and defoliation of spirit and landscape are everywhere to be seen." He insists that the natural world is our one and only source of a living experience of religion, stating "It is the last temple on earth which is capable of restoring man to an objective self wherein his ego is transfigured and given life and meaning without end."
Our anthropocentrism or pathological egotism is a destructive world view that is desecrating the natural world. It is the potentially fatal flaw of a defective, fallen species that leads it to believe that it is somehow superior to the rest of Creation. It is a state of mind that is blind to its own sickness to the degree that is hopes to find ways to health and cures for disease by experimenting on fellow creatures whose suffering and sacrifice is justified in the name of medical progress. No good ends can ever come from evil means and the world will never be rid of evil until the human species acknowledges the source of evil and liberates itself from the delusional state of arrogant anthropocentrism.
Laurens Van Der Post advises that we will not find the answers to the causes of evil unless and until we are "prepared through profound self-knowledge to re-learn the grammar of a forgotten language of self-betrayal and in so doing the meaning of tragedy and disaster."
The ear of conscience listens through the heart of compassion to this forgotten language of "ego-speak." But when the ear is deaf and the heart closed, there is no inner dialog between self and others. There is then no objective self, no voice of reason, only a boundless ego of an impulsive, subjective self that betrays us into believing that it is all.
The Two Selves
The subjective self is able to cut off empathy, the bridge of compassion. This psychic splitting of self from other is at the root of selfish indifference toward the rights and suffering of others, and is the cardinal flaw of the psychopathic personality. Such splitting is also evident in the collective 'biopathic' persona of all cultures that have neither feeling for fellow creatures nor reverential respect for Nature. Both are seen simply as resources and as the means to satisfy exclusively human ends rather than being ends in themselves.
In a normal, healthy person the objective and subjective selves are balanced and integrated, as by analogy a fully actualized civilization is fully balanced and integrated with Nature.
The separation of culture from Nature mirrors the splitting of the unified self in to objective and subjective dualities. In order to adapt to a dysfunctional society, people almost invariably develop a dual or split personality, such a dissociation serving to protect the subjective self from the suffering and chaotic conditions of existence. But in the process of adapting, by dissociating, no one makes any effort to address the suffering and improve conditions of other beings. Well intended philanthropists and organizations endeavoring to help animals and people in the third world and to restore the environment and communities generally face a hopeless situation. What vestiges there may be of altruism and compassion are swallowed up in the down spiral of competetive individualism.
Almost all acts of altruism are ultimately misguided because its recipients have no means of sustaining themselves without dissociative splitting. Those whose basic survival needs are being satisfied will certainly have a degree of security that is not enjoyed by the majority. Yet even these more fortunate people want more when they remain selfishly detached from the rest of the community.
Help in Suffering
To come into poor communities as I have in Africa and India to try and help those in greatest need, especially the street dogs and beasts of burden in the third world, is to be judged only too often as caring more for animals than for people.
I have always felt more concern for the animals than for the people because the people could help each other much more if they chose to be less caught up in their own subjective selves. Yet this pathology of egotism is not adequately addressed or acknowledged as the root cause of much human and animal suffering by those philanthropic agencies and humanitarian organizations that are trying to help improve the human condition. Hence, I contend that human altruism is almost invariably misguided, inappropriate and misdirected. Animals cannot help each other to the extent that people could. They are therefore more helpless, if not more innocent, and are surely worthy of the care and concern of humanitarian organizations. These organizations, however, are too often part of the same pathology of anthropocentrism that is responsible for the demise of civilization and the plight of our species, especially in the third world, that they claim to be rectifying. If this harsh judgment were not true, then I would be able to name one major humanitarian organization that is doing something significant to help the animals in the third world and I cannot.
The inclusion of animal welfare programs and humane education in humanitarian aid and development projects is primarily for the sake of humanity. Doing something to help alleviate the plight of animals and demonstrating empathy and concern for them in the process is the first step in treating the pervasive disease of anthopocentrism. As people have come to learn the community benefits of planting trees, so they will come to realize that when the seeds of compassion and reverential respect are sown for the animals, the community will benefit from humane education and effective animal welfare programs.
Ignorance and chauvinism are two of the pernicious consequences of anthropocentrism. Extreme egotism is a barrier to the acquisition of empathic knowledge. Some appreciation of other's feelings, needs and interests can be acquired through humane instruction, but real understanding can only come via a deep empathic relationship with other sentient beings. Such a relationship is possible only when the barrier of anthropocentrism is overcome and one identifies with the subjective self of another. Young children do this spontaneously with each other and with animals. There is probably a sensitive period during their development when this socializing and empathizing process occurs. But this ability to feel for others is quickly extinguished if it is not nurtured by parents and teachers and shown by example in acts of compassion toward animals.
Compassion in Action
Every community should have an animal shelter and sanctuary for lost, abandoned, sick and injured domestic and wild animals. This is not only a community duty to care for its animals. It is the best way to demonstrate the principles of compassion and reverential respect to children, and without which humane education has little meaning if there is no evidence of it being put into action.
Where there is no loving kindness toward all sentient beings, the whole purpose of human existence must be put to the question. Where there is loving kindness toward all sentient beings, no matter how desperate the human condition, no matter how extreme the poverty, malnutrition and filth, dignity and spiritual integrity are preserved.
There are uncounted numbers of people living in squalor and abject poverty throughout the world and their condition is likely to worsen in the foreseeable future. The same is true for the conditions that domestic animals must endure in these communities, the millions of dogs, cows, calves, goats, sheep, pigs, camels, donkeys, mules, horses, and water buffalo that serve and enrich the lives of these people in many ways.
There will never be sufficient humanitarian aid to make any significant difference for generations to come. But this is no reason to not do something in the name of compassion in these communities for the animals and the people. To show loving kindness, as by providing hospices for the sick and dying and sanctuaries for sick, injured and dying animals, ideally with some veterinary care, is to bring a light into the darkest realm of earthly existence where angels fear to tread. This light of compassion toward the poorest of our own kind enables us to acknowledge and dignify our humanity, which is surely one of the more significant purposes of our existence. And when compassion is extended to embrace other sentient beings, beginning with those creatures in greatest need in the urban slums and shanty towns of the Third and Fourth Worlds, we will recover a little more of our humanity. When someone from the First World, like myself, goes into such communities on the dark side of the Earth, one may experience a kind of psychic numbing, a paralysis of will. The suffering is overwhelming, all pervading and my first reaction was one of hopelessness and despair. But no matter how inhuman and inhumane the plight of people and animals may be, one can witness acts of loving kindness like a child in rags smiling and giving a scrap of food to a dog, and a starving cow licking the face of her young calf.
The spirit of compassion has not been extinguished. It lives in those whose plight makes others feel hopelessness and despair. So long as the spirit of compassion lives on through acts of loving kindness there are no grounds for hopelessness and despair: And every reason to do something no matter how seemingly insignificant and against impossible odds. We will never live to see an end to suffering. On the other side of the world it is relentless, and for the sake of our humanity, we must all find ways to help in suffering. To help in suffering is as much a matter of self-respect as it is an expression of respect for the universal self in all life by way of compassionate action and reverential concern.