User:Jazminflores208/final article

These are the recommendation for revising: Ecocentrism


 * added a new more reliable citation to what technocentrism was in the background section to add more background to the definition
 * added sentence in background section as well as citation and added a different intro to the next sentence to better fit.
 * added sentence in anthropocentric section and citation that is from a journal instead of a book which is now peer reviewed
 * all of my sources went from not being peer reviewed to peer reviewed sources

Copied content from Ecocentrism, see that the page's history for attributions.

Background
Environmental thought and the various branches of the environmental movement are often classified into two intellectual camps: those that are considered anthropocentric, or "human-centred," in orientation and those considered biocentric, or "life-centred". This division has been described in other terminology as "shallow" ecology versus "deep" ecology and as "technocentrism " versus "ecocentrism". Ecocentrism can be seen as one stream of thought within environmentalism, the political and ethical movement that seeks to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities by adopting environmentally benign forms of political, economic, and social organization and through a reassessment of humanity's relationship with nature. Ecocentrism in modern terms is also seen as being able to make a change or having the opportunities and desires to make change for the benefit of the environmental matter. But also in various ways, environmentalism claims that non-human organisms and the natural environment as a whole deserve consideration when appraising the morality of political, economic, and social policies.

Anthropocentrism
Ecocentrism is taken by its proponents to constitute a radical challenge to long-standing and deeply rooted anthropocentric attitudes in Western culture, science, and politics. Anthropocentrism is alleged to leave the case for the protection of non-human nature subject to the demands of human utility, and thus never more than contingent on the demands of human welfare. Anthropocentric's believe that humans are the most important central piece of the earth. An ecocentric ethic, by contrast, is believed to be necessary in order to develop a non-contingent basis for protecting the natural world. Critics of ecocentrism have argued that it opens the doors to an anti-humanist morality that risks sacrificing human well-being for the sake of an ill-defined ‘greater good’. Deep ecologistArne Naess has identified anthropocentrism as a root cause of the ecological crisis, human overpopulation, and the extinctions of many non-human species. Lupinacci also points to anthropocentrism as a root cause of environmental degradation. Others point to the gradual historical realization that humans are not the centre of all things, that "A few hundred years ago, with some reluctance, Western people admitted that the planets, Sun and stars did not circle around their abode. In short, our thoughts and concepts though irreducibly anthropomorphic need not be anthropocentric."

