William H Murdy – Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version

October 31st, 2012 § 0 comments

One of the seven assigned readings for LFS250 yesterday was the above-titled article (only available by purchase … though if you contact me it just might *magically* appear in your inbox). I just read it today (and I still have four articles to go before I’m caught up), the way I do most of the assigned readings: having my partner read it aloud, frequently interrupted by his interjections and sarcastic comments. But this was the first for which he had no sarcasm. Murdy gets it right.
I’d like to highlight some of his successes.

Murdy first identifies the need for an understanding and acceptance of humans’ anthropocentric tendencies, as natural as the “arachnocentric” tendencies of spiders. We must care more about our own well-being than that of other life-forms because otherwise we will die. Nature won’t care for us if we don’t; every organism must tend to its own well-being, and does. This avoids all the weird conundrums we put ourselves in, when we realize that our very existence requires that we each take from the world outside of ourselves. It is not inherently wrong to do so. What is wrong is the mentality (called Strong Anthropocentrism by some) that these external organisms, resources, and systems exist solely for our benefit. Murdy is right to point a finger at the Christian (among others) division between humans and nature, the duality that allows for this mentality. It is, in fact, entirely possible for us to see ourselves as a part of nature, while also striving to put its resources to our benefit. I guess the difference is in acknowledging that we have no more a claim to them than any other life-form. We make claim to it by brain or brawn, not by right.

But Murdy goes further, and this is where he really strikes gold. He acknowledges a difference between humans and most other animals, in the presence of a cultural history, by which we pass information from generation to generation, cumulating and developing. Having this resource (which has allowed us to advance technology over generations) comes with a responsibility for the knowledge accumulated. And what we know, what each person in this society and most societies around the world knows, whether we face it or not, is that humans have the power to damage the earth far beyond the power of even all other organisms combined. We know how damaging our mentality to this date has been. At the same time, human culture has a great and unique capacity for creativity, beauty, and grace. These values have evolved faster than our physical bodies, over the tens of thousands of years homo sapiens sapiens have existed in social groups. As the best of the products of our highly evolved intelligence and sociality, this is our greatest product of evolution. “An anthropocentric belief in the value, meaningfulness, and creative potential of the human phenomenon is considered a necessary motivating factor to participatory evolution,” says Murdy. But being the sole producers of these values, we are also the sole keepers of them:

“Our greatest danger is not that the human species will become extinct, which is unlikely…,
but that the cultural values that make us human will become extinct.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading William H Murdy – Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version at ava shannon.

meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Who am I?

    I am a student in Global Resource Systems studying Sustainable Community Development in the Americas. I came to this field through my passion for architecture, and out of the dying of a life-long dream to become an architect. I had studied architecture for two years at the University of Waterloo before going on a semi-hiatus while I had my son and got married. I was transferring to UBC's Environmental Design program, and it wasn't until nearly summer that it dawned on me that I was completely disillusioned with the field, and that it actually would not benefit me to be studying a subject whose mere methods of teaching I disagreed with. My problems with the field are deeply rooted, and I have come to the conclusion that if I am to actually contribute to the construction of the kinds of buildings and communities I want to see, then I am better off studying the fields of knowledge that I myself find relevant rather than a series of lectures on "architectonic themes" and "graphic lexicons of place". (OK, I made those up, but you couldn't tell, could you?!) Thus my classes have been in ecology and economics, geography and urban planning, social philosophy and anthropology, and of course, "land, food and community", issues I now recognize as central to discussions of civilization and human development. Technically this is my sixth year of studies by credit, or my eighth consecutive year of being at least a part-time student; in the next year and a half before I graduate I look forward to classes in sociology, community organizing, and natural resource management.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet