This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Ecology High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I'm having trouble understanding this term. If you center your worldview around the "whole universe", then how are you really centering around anything at all? Isn't this essentially (to coin a term) acentric? Sarge Baldy 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please read any of the references (for instance Ref 2 in "The American Scholar"). Mainstream science has forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe. According to biocentrism, a more accurate understanding of the real world will require that we consider it biologically-centered. It’s a simple concept: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. Biocentrism incorporates the living universe and allows the observer into the equation as the late Nobel laureate John Wheeler insists is necessary. In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regener (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see first reference (there's a whole book on it if you really want to understand :) Actioncat3 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again:

NO DIRECTION HOME

You know, stones tend to fall down, they usually do. Unless you launch them with a certain speed, which is called escape velocity, at least 7,9 kilometer per second. When Hitler launched his V-2's, his so-called Vergeltungswaffen, on London, he wasn't thinking of spacecraft and exploring the universe, but his scientists led by Werner von Braun were aware of the possibilities of the immense speed those rockets were capable of. Now let us look at history, the whole, seemingly complex and chaotic road that led to the firing of this weapon in the beginning of 1945 which could, launched out of The Hague, reach London in about five minutes. One may ask where to start this history, in the Renaissance, in Old Greece, or with the caveman, maybe with the extinction of the sauriers or even further back in time. I suggest we'll go as far as the first unity capable of duplicating itself and thus setting into motion a biolocigal mechanism, skip all the details and facts of evolution and also the details of human history, horrible or not, many, maybe too many books have been written on the matter of coincidence or a more or less logical or even determined route with just a few sidesteps, like the nose of Cleopatra. Let us just jump into the reality of today. For example, the actual state of space investigation and the posibble development of space colonies in the next, let us say, 30 years from now. It is clear that if people are to survive in such a condition outside the motherplanet for a lifetime, their environment will have to be a small copy of their natural environment and that is why experiments on this project were called, for example, Biosphere II. This may come true and be reality within 50 years, who knows? Let us suppose it does happen in that not all too far future. Does it ring any bell? Is my association with procreation pure madness or just what one politely should call a hypothesis and nothing more. (Since I am working on this idea for quite some time, before I had a letter published in Nature, correspondence, 7 january 1982, containing in other words the same, I am aware of the reactions. People seem to think that a certain plan is necessary but, sorry, reality does not work like that; it is just a biological mechanism if it works out or not.) It seems hard to understand, this possibility of a determined process leading to independent copies of the biosphere – very basic and in this this case on a planetary scale. This defenitely is not a metaphore but analogy and language cannot do without it. The main problem, I suppose, is the unwillingness to accept the idea of being an instrument of living nature rather than the steward. Maybe the right subject or category should be not “biocentrism”, but “futurology”

I would like you to take in consideration that it maybe wise for a prisoner to know his whereabouts. And not being just a rolling stone.

Roeland A. de Bie, july, 6, 2006, Amsterdam

86.82.24.167 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any difference between this and Ecocentrism? Perhaps they should be merged. --Salix alba (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eco and Bio are usually interchangeable to a degree. However, I don't think eco-izing everything is the proper way to go about it and biocentrism is the term that should be used in place of 'ecocentrism'. Eco is about as abused as sustainability and green are at this point. (J03K64 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would be opposed to a merge in light of the different definitions biocentrism has. --Loremaster (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check "Bicoentrism" on Google, you'll see that most of the literature on this has absolutely nothing to do with ecocentrism. Actioncat3 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Study the origins of Environmental Science and its history and you will understand how there is a difference. Understanding anthropocentrism will also help. There is a difference between ecocentrism which considers humans as a species with sentience but does not center on humans as anthropocentrism does. rodgaskins@msn.com 23 August 2011

An anonymous user appended the following text to the article, with the edit summary on "biocentrism", a discussion started on the Erasmus University Rotterdam in 1980.

Van: "roel de bie" <roeldebie@hetnet.nl>
Aan: <Wikipedia.nl>
Onderwerp: Biocentrism
Datum: zondag 2 april 2006 2:40

Dear Sir,

" Reffering to the word 'biocentrism", I may remark that the word was used in a letter to Nature, january 7, 1982. (Following, if you wish, hereafter). As far as I know the word did not exist at that time, but that is of no importance, so the more the contents. The crucial statement is: mankind and all its cultural products are an integral part of the overall living system, the biosphere. So mankind is in no way the caretaker or even gardener of this planet but a functional part of it. My statement is: every living planet, every biosphere will eventually develop a species able to create a biosphere II, a child, just as the very beginning of life did, but on a totally different scale. We call it the development of spacecraft and the possibility of self-supporting spacecolonies. It may also be an inevitable and necessary process and a logical outcome of the beginning of all life: reproduction, finally on a planetary scale. Maybe hard to accept but at least worth a discussion."


© Nature Publishing Group 1982

For some  reason I do not understand , I am not able te copy this article, this letter in correspondence, Nature, january 7, 1982. But it does exist. Probably has to do with copyright, not my bussiness.

I have no idea what the context of the letter is, but it clearly didn't belong in the article, so I moved it here. Wmahan. 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentrism is primarily used in the context of ethical theory, not ontology as the term "existence" implies. Unless someone can make a strong argument for leaving it as existence, I think it should be changed to "moral concern."

I agree. Feel free to make that change. --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the section regarding the transgender flavor of the word should be transported to a different page, they have no bearing on one another.

I disagree. I think we should simply mention that biocentrism has several meanings. --Loremaster 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is completly wrong. According to Tyler - Millers book In Living in the environment(2000)biocentrism is explained as being Atomistic (individual centred), where the primary focus is on the individual species or organism. It places emphasis on human management and stewardship - which is human centred - or Anthropocentric.

What the author of this post is refering to is a more holistic approach, or Earth Centred. WHich means that the definition provided is more suited to defining Ecocentric worldviews. 14:49 EST 19 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.221.3 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, trans women can't have kids and still have XY chromosomes, so they really aren't quite "full women". 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the neologism template as the term has been around since 1885-90. [1]—Morning star (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first section should be a historical etymology of which uses came first and how they developed. Also biocentrism as a scientific view should be separated from the two other moral philosophy view points in the longer descriptions and probably have its own larger page - when someone is ready to write it. Will put on my long list of things that I think should be done! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very interesting philosophical criticisms of biocentrism on the part of Pope Benedict XVI which were published in December 2009. They could perhaps be cited in an eventual criticisms and controversies section of the article. [2][3] ADM (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Biocentrism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity = "amongst many". 99.35.15.170 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inception_of_Darwin's_theory#Transmutation_notebooks = "notebook on transmutation of species" 99.19.41.209 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable wikilink within title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not title per wikipedia article (thus not capitalized), there his notebooks. 99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... origin in one common descent" = "common ancestor" 99.19.41.209 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"common ancestor" would be appropriate, rather than the unnecessary pipe [[common descent|common ancestor]], if it weren't within a quote. Guidelines are against Wikilinking within quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentrism is “a kind of ethics of individualism” (Source: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E4-25-07-03.pdf) in that it prioritizes the value, rights and survival of individual organic beings. Ecocentrism, on the other hand, takes a more holistic approach, giving moral priority to species and ecosystems. (http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E4-25-07-03.pdf )

Hellohi15 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric ethics includes Albert Schweitzer’s ethics of reverence for life, Peter Singer’s ethics of animal liberation and Paul Taylor’s ethics of bioegalitarianism (Source: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E4-25-07-03.pdf ).

Albert Schweitzer's “reverence for life” principle is a precursor of biocentric ethics. Conventional ethics concerned itself exclusively with human beings. Schweitzer’s ethical philosophy introduced a “depth, energy, and function that differ[s] from the ethics that merely involved humans.”(Source: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E4-25-07-03.pdf )

Biocentric ethics is different from classical and traditional ethical thinking. Rather than focusing on moral rules, as in Classical ethics, it focuses on attitudes and character. In contrast with traditional ethics, it is nonhierarchical and puts a heavy emphasis the natural world. (Source: http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/envethics/biocentric.htm)

Hellohi15 (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term biocentrism encompasses all environmental ethics that “extend the status of moral object from human beings to all living things in nature” (Source: http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E4-25-07-03.pdf). Biocentric ethics calls for a rethinking of the relationship between humans and nature.

Hellohi15 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest we make some changes to "Biocentrism (Greek: βίος, bio, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center"), in a political and ecological sense, is an ethical point of view which extends inherent value to non-human species,[1] ecosystems, and processes in nature - regardless of their sentience.[citation needed]"?

The part about "ecosystems and processes in nature" applies more to ecocentric than biocentric ethics, and it is not always "regardless of their sentience" (see Peter Singer's arguments). Hellohi15 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving

"Biocentrism in Hinduism

Biocentrism is the basic concept of Hinduism, which belives in all living-beings are equal, as all living beings have soul ('athma') and the visual form is only different. However, there is notion of hierarchy between the different species : finally, only Humans would have the possibility to leave the cycle of reincarnation - the meaning of the life in Hinduism philosophy - and to acceed to Heaven. This brings us back to anthropocentric perspective too - though Gods remain superior to mortals."

to this new section ("Biocentrism in Religion"), and adding more about biocentrism's relevance to other religions and spiritualities.

Hellohi15 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's wrong and confusing to classify Peter Singer as a biocentrist. As a utilitarian, he would be more properly classified as a sentiocentrism. Utilitarianism doesn't value "all living things", just sentient ones. GojiBarry (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]