Some branches of environmental thought have challenged anthropocentric parochialism-anthropocentrism or human chauvinism. They reflect the standpoint that just as we have abandoned our geocentric cosmology, our anthropocentric biology, and related conceits; it follows that we should give up our anthropocentric morality. Indeed, they exemplify the need for a search of credible non-anthropocentric approaches towards nature, which has been one of the central issues of env

The attempt to provide a genuinely non-anthropocentric set of values, or preferences seems to be a hopeless quest. Once we eschew all human values, interests and preferences we are confronted with just too many alternatives, as we can see when we consider biological history over a billion year time scale. The problem with the various non-anthropocentric bases for value, which have been proposed, is that they permit too many different possibilities, none of which is at all congenial to us. In addition, that matters. We should be concerned with promoting a rich, diverse and vibrant biosphere. Human success may certainly be included as a legitimate part of such a flourishing.

- Cultural or societal interrelationships,

We have grown large enough to alter creation whether by the single great explosion of a nuclear weapon, or the billion muffled explosions of pistons inside engines spewing out carbon dioxide. As Oppenheimer said on that New Mexico afternoon testing of the A-bomb, "we have become as gods." In addition, not just the nuclear engineers anyone with a car, anyone with a credit card, has become able to have these powers that may make them become like gods because of their ability to purchase goods that although good to them, have a big impact on the environment. For example the use of SUV's they do suit peoples needs and they should not be stopped from buying them because someday maybe one of their grandchildren will not have warm enough air due to the pollution. I tend in such cases to agree with the great saying "Better the devil you know than the angel you don't. This statement translates into doing anything that you want to do because you know if you don't, there are other people out there that will and you as an individual cant stop them because they have reached a point where nothing they do matters to the environment.

Ecofeminism "is a theory and a movement based on the understanding that there are structural problems with the current system: social and economic inequities simply cannot be resolved within the system, because the system's functioning depends on the devaluation, oppression, and exclusion of the majority of the earth's inhabitants".(class lecture October 2002). Again, the theory of ecofeminism seems to be predominantly developed by white middle class women. However the women most affected by the oppressive hierarchal structure in the form of capitalism and globalization today are women of color, working class women, poor women, and women in the developing world. Ecofeminism, therefore does not understand the realities of a collective society, and only acts further to separate people by gender. This, and similar theories do raise important points, but again they do not incorporate realistic approaches to living everyday life.

-Sentience (ability to feel pleasure and pain)

The whole idea of Anthropocentrism stresses the need for an en

Some common words found in the essay are:
Deep Ecology, Oppenheimer Mexico, Stone Age, , Arne Naess, deep ecology, era globalization, politics useful movement, useful movement era, holds people's lives, own environmental politics, environmental politics useful, notion human, holds people's, people's lives, own environmental, human activities, women women, enriched fortified, values preferences,
Approximate Word count = 1956
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)