Anthropocentrism, in its original connotation in environmental ethics, is the belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to human ends. Environmentally -concerned authors have argued that anthropocentrism is ethically wrong and at the root of ecological crises. Some environmental ethicists argue, however, that critics of anthropocentrism are misguided or even misanthropic. They contend: first that criticism of anthropocentrism can be counterproductive and misleading by failing to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate human interests. Second, that humans differ greatly in their environmental impacts, and consequently, addressing human inequalities should be a precondition for environmental protection. Third, since ecosystems constitute the “life-support system” for humans, anthropocentrism can and should be a powerful motivation for environmental protection. Fourth, human self-love is not only natural but helpful as a starting point for loving others, including nonhumans. Herein we analyze such arguments, agreeing with parts of them while advancing four counter-arguments. First, redefining the term anthropocentrism seems to be an attempt to ignore behavior in which humans focus on themselves at the risk of the planet. Second, if addressing human inequalities is a precondition for environmental protection, biodiversity protection will remain out of the scope of ethical consideration for an indefinite period of time. Third, anthropocentric motivations can only make a positive contribution to the environment in situations where humans are conscious of a direct benefit to themselves. Fourth, ‘self-love’ alone is an inadequate basis for environmental concern and action. We also explore the question of agency, shared responsibility, and a fair attribution of blame for our environmental predicaments.

Over the past five decades, scientists have been documenting negative anthropogenic environmental change, expressing increasing alarm and urging dramatic socioecological transformation in response. A host of international meetings have been held but the erosion of biological diversity continues to accelerate. The lack of effective political action begs the question as to why. Herein we contend that part of the answer may lie in the anthropocentric ethical premises and moral rhetoric typically deployed in the cause of conservation. We further argue that it is essential to advance moral arguments for biodiversity conservation that are not just based on perceived human interests but on ecocentric values, namely, convictions that species and ecosystems have value and interests that should be respected regardless of whether they serve human needs and aspirations. A broader array of moral rationales for biodiversity conservation, we conclude, would be more likely to lead to effective plans, adopted and enforced by governments, that are designed to conserve biological diversity. A good place to start in this regard would be to explicitly incorporate ecocentric values into the recommendations that will be made at the conclusion of the fifteenth meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been scheduled to be held in Kunming, China, in October 2020. Article impact statement: Ecocentric ethical rationales are needed in international research and meetings to build support for biodiversity conservation policies and practices. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Anthropocentrism in Western (modern industrial) society is dominant, goes back hundreds of years, and can rightly be called ‘hubris’. It removes almost all moral standing from the nonhuman world, seeing it purely as a resource. Here, we discuss the troubling components of anthropocentrism: worldview and ethics; dualisms, valuation and values; a psychology of fear and denial; and the idea of philosophical ‘ownership’. We also question whether it is a truly practical (or ethical) approach. We then discuss three troubling examples of anthropocentrism in conservation: ‘new’ conservation; ecosystem services; and the IPBES values assessment. We conclude that anthropocentrism is fuelling the environmental crisis and accelerating extinction, and urge academia to speak out instead for ecocentrism.

Cross‐boundary fluxes of organisms and matter, termed “subsidies,” are now recognized to be reciprocal and of roughly equal importance for both aquatic and terrestrial systems, even if terrestrial input to aquatic ecosystems has received most attention. The magnitude of aquatic‐to‐terrestrial subsidies is well documented, but the drivers behind these subsidies and their utilization by terrestrial consumers are characteristically local‐scale studies, limiting the inferences that can be drawn for broader geographic scales. We therefore built and analyzed a database of stable isotope data extracted from 21 studies worldwide, to identify both landscape‐scale (catchment) and local‐scale (100‐m riparian zone) variables that may affect the diet of terrestrial predators in riparian ecosystems. Our meta‐analysis revealed a greater magnitude of aquatic‐to‐terrestrial subsidies (>50%) than previously reported, albeit with large geographic and inter‐annual variations. Moreover, we demonstrated a large effect of landscape‐scale factors on aquatic‐to‐terrestrial subsidies, particularly anthropogenic land use and tree cover. Local human population was the only relevant factor at the local scale. We also found that studies on landscape‐scale and anthropogenic land use effects on aquatic‐to‐terrestrial subsidies are strongly under‐represented in the ecological literature, which limits the general inferences that can currently be drawn about landscape effects. We suggest that landscape‐scale studies could improve our understanding of how land use and environmental change might influence future patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem function.