Embracing Biocentric Worldview

When Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859, Darwin might have thought that his evolutionary theory would apply to nature only. If that happened, humans would probably not survive because they were physically weaker than other stronger animals with robust bodies. But humans proved to be stronger than other creatures by virtue of their exceptional intelligence. So, evolutionary theory became beneficial to humans in several ways. 

Drawn mainly from the Darwinian theory of natural selection, we have learned to control other creatures using our intelligence. To a large extent, we have been able to subdue nature: we have cut down forests; we have built big cities; we have developed household gadgets to lighten the intensity of drudgery; we have invented the automobile to make locomotion easier; we have used up water resources to feed ourselves; we have thus done anything that our mind could cover for comfort and luxury. It seems that there is nothing beyond human ingenuity.

Adverse effects

Our actions, however, have adverse effects on our life: when trees were cut down, wild animals such as tigers and leopards disappeared; when we made big cities, hygienic villages disappeared; when we manufactured more and more automobiles, our earth became more polluted with carbon monoxide; when we used up water from the sources, sea creatures were affected; we have thus destroyed our habitat for a more comfortable and luxurious life. Contemporary society is thus governed by an anthropocentric worldview that always places humans at the centre.

The thrust of Darwinism is natural selection, where capable creatures survive in nature while incapable ones die out. Drawn from this theory, sociologist Herbert Spencer argued that the principle of natural selection based on capability equally applies to a society where the stronger humans can survive while the weaker ones disappear. Later sociologists called this theory Social Darwinism, which assumed that this would act within human society. 

But both theories, Darwinism and Social Darwinism, did not apply in a linear fashion, as was expected. Instead, all humans became one for the purpose of natural exploitation. Consequently, anthropocentrism emerged, where human-centered activities are freely allowed to function. Apparently, this is against the rules of ecology because human practice has promoted evolution based on the free exercise of power. This would threaten the existence of other creatures essential for ecological balance. Because humans subdued the less intelligent creatures for their own proliferation, the less intelligent ones could not save their life. In this respect, anthropocentrists are the followers of Darwinism without spelling it out. 

Whereas anthropocentrism promotes evolutionary theory by its implication, biocentrism, on the contrary, is an approach to maintaining ecological balance. The thrust of this principle is that each creature on earth is a part of the ecosystem essential to save the earth. In this approach, human intervention to save incapable creatures is necessary because otherwise, only the powerful ones, including humans, will survive. 

The ecological approach can also be introduced to the socioeconomic sphere, where the weaker investors are protected by policy intervention. This can be likened to biocentrism, where all creatures find some space to survive in nature. 

Just as biocentrism is practiced to maintain ecological balance, the same can be extended to society to keep socioeconomic balance. In this sense, it can be called sociocentrism. In order to develop a nation based on social justice, we need to adopt sociocentrism based on the ecological approach. Therefore, the first and foremost important task is to conserve biodiversity, which is essential to let all creatures survive. It is essential to understand that once biodiversity is preserved, humanity can be saved. Only then humans of all strata, from high caste to low caste, from rich to poor, from male to female, can be equal in essence.

Humans are essentially anthropocentric today. Domesticated animals such as cows and goats are beneficial to humans, but wild beasts such as tigers and leopards are not. What effect, for instance, killing poisonous snakes to save human life can have in the future? How can we determine whether this is morally right to sacrifice chickens and sheep to cater food to ever-hungry humans? The same applies to society as well. What, for instance, if a nation made a law to only promote a free trade policy where only those with resources can survive, while others cannot sustain their life at all? 

Within human society, powerful humans have made laws to cater to their interests of benefit. An anthropocentric worldview can be likened to unfettered capitalism, where free market policy determines the volume of profit or deficit. Traders have nothing to do with other considerations, such as the worker’s wages and the quality of their life. In one sense, this practice can be called micro anthropocentrism within the broader framework of macro anthropocentrism. In recent days, many nations across the world have made laws against the discrimination of animals in terms of the benefit they provide to humans.

Policy intervention

Likewise, they advocate policy intervention to protect the rights of downtrodden people. They make laws against discriminatory practices in society. They promise social justice where social ecology can be maintained. This raises the rays of hope. Despite efforts made by the government, however, we have not yet seen significant achievements in this regard. It is essential that we realise the balanced approach to sustain both nature and society. But it is also equally true that talking about the ecological approach, in theory, does not suffice.

 Many ideal theories cannot be put into practice well if we do not foresee the possible consequences of our actions. We cannot achieve sustainable goals if we are not sincere. Nepal is a country that has made good laws to maintain ecological balance both in nature and society. This approach has been effective in the case of nature. But in society, it has not been effectively put into practice. We have a long way to go before we make our nation a paradise.

(The author is the chairman of Molung Foundation. bhupadhamala@gmail.com.)