Hello folks,

I have been reading _The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth
to the Ecozoic Era_ by Brian Swimme & Thomas Berry; HarperColins paperback,
1994;  ISBN 0-06-250835-0.

It brings together so  much of the scientific literature, pieces of which I
knew and had accepted.  But they put it in perspective as a systematic
evolving whole.  And then they draw interesting conclusions about where we
are now and what we must consider for our future situation.

Beginning with the "Big Bang", they outline the story through the rise of
life, of humans, of civilizations to the present conflict over the human use
(exploitation?) of earth.  They end with a discussion of what they call the
"Ecozoic Era: the emerging period of life following the Cenozzoic, and
characterized, at a basic level, by its mutually enhancing human-Earth
relations...." (p. 280)

You don't need to read the book to follow my comments, though I hope you
will.

We have mentioned "anthropocentrism"; they contrast that with "biocentrism".
Following is a paragraph addressing that contrast and raises a question for
me.  I would like to get your views if I may.

On page 250 in the concluding chapter, they say:

".....it is clear that a mystique counter to the commercial-industrial
mystique must be evoked if the Ecozoic era is to come into being.  The
future can be described in terms of the tension between these two forces.
If the dominant political-social issue of the twentieth century has been
between the capitalist and the communist worlds, between democratic freedoms
and socialist responsibility, the dominant issue of the immediate future
will clearly be the tension between the Entrepreneur and the Ecologist,
between those who would continue their plundering, and those who would truly
preserve the natural world, between the mechanistic and the organic, between
the world as a collection of objects and the world as a communion of
subjects, between the anthropocentric and the biocentric norms of reality
and value."

Following are my comments, questions.

1.  "anthropocentric", taken to mean:

a : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
b : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and
experiences
(from: Merriam-Webster)

2.  "Biocentric" taken initially to be defined as:

 the view that all (and only?) living organisms have moral standing or
intrinsic value. (adapted from:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/ee/distinctions.html#taxonomy )

My comment:
I am not comfortable that the new world view be "biocentric";  I think it is
too exclusive.  It seems to me that we should be thinking "ecocentric", a
concept that includes all life but also soil, air, water, climate, etc., a
recognization of the total interdepence of all the  members of the
ecosystem.

3.  It seems to me that it is not possible for humans to be other than
anthropocentric in the way they view the world.

Of some relevance here is a paper maintaining that the several ways that
people have constructed an environmental ethics is really founded in
anthropocentrism contrary to
arguments of some researchers.  A friend sent me the website:
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html

4.  If one accepts something along the above, including that humans can only
think in anthropocentric terms, what might be required to move toward an
"ecocentric" world view?

My present thinking:

When one examines the arguments by Swimme and Berry it seems to me
that "anthropocentrism" morphs into "ecocentrism" (their "biocentricism").
That is to say that when one follows the "Universe Story", one begins to
recognize that "interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values
and
experiences" really means that we have to be "ecocentric".

In order to move toward "ecocentrism", it seems to me we first need to come
to some understanding of the nature of "human".  For example, what/who is
included in the concept "human", what is the context within which human
exists, is there some "ideal" human toward which an individual might be
expected to strive?

Societies have changed/expanded the criteria/standing for membership from,
for example, only white males with a minimum level of property ownership to
include all white males, non-whites, females.

Now, it seems to me, we need to restructure our way of thinking "human" to
include the whole ecosystem.  That is, we need to think of the whole
ecosystem as being an essential part of "human"; that the essense of being
human is a unity with ecosystem.  For example, we need to think of human
health as being intricately and inseparately  bound into the ecosystem
health.  ("health" yet to be fully defined for me)

I am part of the ecosystem: therefore, I am.

Am I too far out in left field??

Maybe some of you don't want to move to an ecocentric world view, don't
think it matters?

Sincerely,

Ray