Anthropocentrism and the Argument from Gaia Theory

Abstract

Anthropocentrism holds that only things valuable in themselves are: human beings, their desires and needs, and satisfaction of those. In turn, Gaia theory holds that Earth and all creatures on it constitute something akin to a vast living being. Many layfolk maintain that Gaia theory implies falsity of anthropocentrism, and thus puts kibosh on that doctrine. But philosophical writers deny this implication. This paper therefore argues for what we may call the Kibosh Thesis—that Gaia theory, when correctly understood, does indeed put kibosh on anthropocentrism. It defends this thesis by appealing to the Part-Whole Thesis—that no parts of a living being which do not constitute whole being can have as much intrinsic value as being itself has. Since evidence supporting Gaia theory is mounting, this thesis appears to provide a fairly strong argument against anthropocentrism. In arguing for this position, I show why anthropocentrism is a plausible doctrine, specify Gaia theory's main claims, meet main philosophical objections to Kibosh Thesis, and develop argument from Part-Whole Thesis.