Le décryptage du génome humain autorise désormais une manipulation du vivant humain. Mu par un souci de perfection, l'homme exploite aujourd'hui ce qui participe à son essence même, son génome. La diversité intraspécifique humaine s'en trouve perturbée, la vulnérabilité génétique de notre espèce augmentée. Or, si notre humanité, élément fondamental de notre singularité, se construit à partir de notre code génétique, elle peut aussi être défaite par l'application systématique à l'homme des biotechnologies. Sont concernées non seulement la survie de l'humanité comme communauté humaine, mais aussi, en chacun d'entre nous, la persistance de l'humanité de l'homme. L'espèce humaine, centre névralgique de notre humanité, doit dès lors être préservée. Elle est en effet cette unité vivante de nature rationnelle qui, dotée de son propre dessein d'où résultent les vies particulières, unit les générations dans l'espace et le temps et sous-tend l'homme. Le droit se trouve donc investi d'un rôle pour lequel il n'était sans doute pas préparé : préserver la nature humaine elle-même. L'analyse du droit positif relatif à l'utilisation du génome humain nous révèle combien la protection de l'espèce humaine est insuffisante. Cette carence du législateur nous contraint à penser d'autres voies, plus efficaces, pour préserver notre humanité contre les risques générés par une manipulation irréfléchie de notre génome. Pour ce faire, l'espèce humaine, pont intergénérationnel véhiculant l'essence de l'homme, doit être appréhendée, non comme objet de droit, mais comme sujet de droit. Il faut en outre repenser le concept de responsabilité à l'aune de celui d'altérité. / Decoding the human genome now authorizes a manipulation of human life. Driven by a desire for perfection, the human being now operates what is involved in his very essence, the human genome.As such, diversity within human species gets disturbed and genetic vulnerability increased. Therefore, if our humanity, the essential element of our singularity, is shaped according to our genetic code, it can also be broken by the systematic application of biotechnology to humans. These might include not only the survival of mankind as a human community, but also, in each of us, the persistence of human element.The human species, the key point of our mankind, should therefore be preserved. It represents a sensible living unity with its own design which gives birth to multiple lives of individuals, unites generations in space and time and subtend the human being. Law is thus facing a new challenge: to preserve the human nature itself. The analysis of positive law on the use of the human genome reveals that the protection of the human species is very insufficient. This failure of the law makes it necessary for us to think of other ways, more efficient, to preserve our mankind against the risks caused by reckless handling of our genome. To do this, the human species, inter-generational bridge carrying the essence of man, must be understood not as an object of law, but as a subject of law. We should also rethink the concept of responsibility with respect to the otherness.

An outgroup can be defined as that which is perceived as different or dissimilar from oneself. The Interspecies Model of Prejudice (TIMP) predicts that negativity to human outgroups align with animal negativity. Human-centered and anti-egalitarian beliefs have shown to correlate with outgroup rejection. Experiencing a close relationship to nature has, on the other hand, been linked to outgroup acceptance. The aim of this study was to investigate the valuation of animal charismatic appeal overall, and as a function of outgroup acceptance - rejection. An online survey collected data on animal image ratings, attitude instruments, psychosocial and demographic factors from 231 high school senior students in the greater Stockholm area. Images of human-similar (anthropomorphic highcharismaticmammals) versus human-dissimilar (feral low-charismatic insects) animals were used to, respectively, predict the attitudes anthropocentrism, ethnocentrism and nature relatedness. Overall, mammals were rated significantly more positively than insects. The findings also suggest support for TIMP. It may be inferred that animal charismatic appeal is linked to individual differences in outgroup cognitions. Anthropocentrism and ethnocentrism associated negatively with general animal liking, and were predicted by insect negativity once significant covariates adjusted the models. Nature relatedness correlated positively with animal liking and was predicted by insect positivity. Our valuation of animal charisma may, thus, be linked to our appraisal of their more or less human-like qualities. Our valuations are proposed as underlied by identification mechanismsthat may guide our varying tendencies to divide the world into ‘us and them’. The findings could be informative of psychological factors involved in intergroup behaviors and environmental concerns.

This thesis examines the EU´s framing of its climate policies before and during the Covid-19 crisis. Based on previous research concerning economic crises and climate policy in the EU, it is expected that environmental policy will be downgraded in importance or set aside during a severe crisis. The research question is analyzed through a frame analysis of official EU documents concerning climate and economic recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. The thesis finds that the European Union mostly frames its climate policies in terms of a ‘green transition’, by means of a ‘just transition’ and by principles of a ‘circular economy’, before and during the Covid-19 crisis. The results suggests that the Covid-19 crisis has not weakened, or substantially changed the framing of climate policies in the EU, at the time of writing. In contrast, the crisis is often framed as an opportunity to accelerate the transition towards a sustainable society. The comprehensive set of policies; the European Green Deal, the role of the Commission as a policy entrepreneur, and the increased public support for climate action are discussed as explanatory factors to why the Covid-19 crisis has not caused climate policy to be downgraded or side-lined on the political agenda.

Since mindless actions of the South African society persist in the form of environmentally degrading behaviour, the sustainability of healthy eco-systems is constantly threatened. Practical ways of acquiring environmental literacy is necessary to develop environmental responsible behaviour of citizens. Theory-based research on nature-based extreme sports participation rarely acknowledges its positive transformative value on society. This neglect roots, in part, from naïve or novice misconceptions that motives for participation are primarily risk-focused in pursuit of an adrenaline rush. Thrill-seeking theories often make anthropocentric assumptions of a rivalry human-nature relationship to showcase individual prowess. As a result, “extreme” is naïvely associated with “out-of-control” or “reckless” actions. Phenomenological traditions from Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty navigate a hermeneutical understanding of a bodily-being-towards-death in such high-risk sports activities. This interpretative phenomenological analytical study considers the lived experiences of 10 expert South African nature-based extreme sports participants who take calculate risks. Their first-hand narrations provide evidence, which derails the naïve stigma and identify voluntary high risk-taking as a by-product of participation. For some, the extensive period of time spent in the wilderness, where their survival depends on the collaboration with natural elements enable a realization that humanity is part of a larger functioning network. Findings from semi-structured interviews present an eco-centric outlook on the facilitative role of participation, in eco-sensitivity. Flow and mindfulness are recognised as contributing factors in the display of pro-environmental behaviour of nature-based extreme sports participants. How participation encourages an intimate bond with and sensitivity of nature, which permits a setting for extraordinary physical and psychological changes, is explored. From this study, eco-centric management principles can be discovered and its educational principles incorporated within schools and sport organizations to become more ecologically sensitive and just. / Dissertstion (MA (Human Movement Science))--University of Pretoria, 2019. / Biokinetics, Sport and Leisure Sciences / MA (Human Movement Science) / Unrestricted

Ways of understanding, living, and communicating with non-human species, and more specifically endangered species, have been thought of dualistically and hierarchically in Western cultures. This type of thinking is harmful when examining environmental issues that involve more than just humans, which is arguably all environmental issues. By enforcing a nature/culture dichotomy, humans are seen as separate from nature and therefore they can ethically excuse themselves from dealing with environmental issues that happen "out there" in nature. This thesis explores two manifestations of this nature/culture separation as it continues to threaten wild orca populations in Puget Sound. The first is because of an anthropocentric culture and the second is because of the capitalist socio-economic system. The anthropocentric part of this type of thinking raises humans up on a pedestal, above all non-human species. It gives humans the excuse to only care about issues that affect them directly. The capitalistic part of this type of thinking enforces human's exploitation and commodification of nature. I argue that anthropocentrism and capitalism together create a human/nature relationship that harms nature and benefits humans. This relationship is illustrated by a small population of orcas, called the Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW), off the coast of Washington State that are endangered because of human interference. Lack of prey, toxic water pollution, and excessive noise from boats caused them to become endangered, and these issues are produced by Western society's anthropocentric attitudes and capitalistic systems. The SRKW's will go extinct if the environmental destruction of Puget Sound doesn't end and it will only end if the anthropocentric attitudes and capitalistic systems are dismantled.

This diploma thesis is inquired into the problematic of anthropocentrism and it' s relationship with the living nature. It is obvious that the anthropocentrism contributed to the current ecological crisis. The author is trying to delimit the definition framework of anthropocentrism and to find it's social, scientific even religious roots and to find the possible ways out of the crisis. The author also presents the key-concepts and theories that are non-anthropocentrically based and that are presenting the possible alternative attitude to the environment connected with the transformation of human values. Concretely it engages James Lovelocks Gaia Theory, Arne Naesses deep ecology and ecosophy or the Fritjof Capras new paradigm. Farther away it also follows the possibility of practical change of our life-concepts and as it's example describes the new concept of voluntary simplicity and New Age.

This thesis examines the existence of posthumanism in the dramas of Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, and William Shakespeare – the three most prominent playwrights of the early modern period. Posthumanist theory, which gives scholars the opportunity to look at past works in a new and unique way, attempts to re-locate the human in the diverse creatures and objects in the world we inhabit. By applying posthumanist theory to older works, we can better understand the early modern period and its writers as well as their relevance to the present. Their plays’ messages serve as warnings that work to guide humanity in the right direction if we are willing to listen. Current events show us the dangers of continuing down the path of our present course. In short, by looking to the past I hope to chart the course of posthumanist interpretation on literature and our own species in the future.

Även om bevarandebiologi finner sina rötter inom ekocentrismen, är bevarande idag oförnekligt centrerat runt människan och hennes behov. En del forskare menar dock att detta synsätt kan komma att underminera syftet med bevarande. I en snabbt förändrande värld med klimatförändringar och förlust av biologisk mångfald har biologers roll aldrig varit viktigare, inte minst blivande biologer. Men vad anser biologer att syftet med bevarande är? Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka om biologers och biologistunders anledningar till bevarande är grundade i mer ekocentriska eller antropocentriska värderingar, samt om det finns några generationella skillnader mellan dessa grupper. Vidare undersöks även om det finns några skillnader i hur biologigemenskapen känner på det personliga planet och hur de anser man bör agera i praktiken. För att svara på dessa frågor framställdes en webbaserad enkät som över 300 arbetande biologer samt biologistudenter på universitetsnivå svarade på. Varje deltagare fick en poäng för ekocentrism utifrån deras svar på enkätfrågorna för att underlätta kvantitativa statistiska analyser. Majoriteten av deltagarna visade över lag på en stark benägenhet mot ekocentriska värderingar när det kommer till syftet med bevarande. Den statistiska analysen visade inte någon signifikant skillnad i poäng för ekocentrism mellan arbetande biologer och biologistudenter eller mellan generationer. Deltagarna uttryckte även en skillnad i deras personliga värderingar, som lutade mer mot ekocentriska värdegrunder, jämtemot hur man bör utföra naturvårdsåtgärder i praktiken, där ett mer antropocentrisk och monetärt perspektiv ansågs användbara och i vissa fall nödvändiga. Bevarandeetik är långt ifrån en simpel dikotomi mellan ekocentrism och antropocentrism, och de kan lätt bli komplext med tanke på alla olika involverade intressenter. Biologers idéer om att en antropocentrisk utgångspunkt är det bästa eller enda sättet att förmedla naturens värde till allmänheten, organisationer eller myndigheter riskerar att vara kontraproduktivt för det långsiktiga syftet med bevarande. Det resurstörstiga vinstbaserade samhället vi är en del av kommer inte att förändras över natt, men vi kan definitivt utbilda och uppmuntra både unga som gamla till naturupplevelser i hopp om att skapa en bättre förståelse om och relation till naturen. Inte minst borde vi uppmuntra biologer att agera utifrån deras ekocentriska värderingar. / Even though conservation finds its roots in ecocentrism, the main reasons for protecting nature today are undeniably centered around humans and their needs. Some scientists argue that this way of regarding nature might undermine the purpose of conservation. In a rapidly changing world with climate change and an ongoing loss of biodiversity the biologist’s role has never been more important, particularly future biologists. But what are biologist’s reasons for preserving nature? This study aims to better understand if professional biologists’ and biology students’ reasons for conservation are based on more ecocentric or anthropocentric values, and if there are any generational differences among these groups. Furthermore, it aims to find out if there are any differences in how biologists personally feel and how they think one should act when implementing conservation measures. To answer these questions an online questionnaire was created and answered by over 300 university-level biology students and professional biologists. Each participant was then given a score for ecocentrism based on their answers to the questionnaire, to facilitate quantitative statistical analyses. Most participants showed a strong overall inclination towards ecocentric values regarding the purpose of conservation. The analysis showed no significant difference in the score for ecocentrism between either students and working biologists nor among generations. The participants also expressed a difference in their personal values, which leaned more towards ecocentric values, versus how one should act, where they saw the usefulness of an anthropocentric and economic way of valuing nature. Conservation values are anything but a simple dichotomy between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, and they can easily become complex with the many different stakeholders involved. Biologists’ beliefs that an anthropocentric approach might be a good way, sometimes the only way, to make the general public, organizations or governments understand the value of nature might be counterproductive to the purpose of conservation. The resource hungry profit-based society we are a part of will not change overnight, but we can certainly educate and encourage young and old people to experience nature in the hope of creating a better understanding and bond with nature and nevertheless encourage biologists to act upon their ecocentric values.

No description available.

Ever since the environment and nonhumanity became major ethical topics, human-centered worldviews have been blamed for all that is morally wrong about our dealings with nature. Those who consider themselves nonanthropocentrists typically assume that the West’s anthropocentric axiologies and ontologies underlie all of the environmental degradations associated with our species. On the other hand, a handful of environmental philosophers argue that anthropocentrism is perfectly acceptable as a foundation for environmental ethics. According to Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, "If reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies, a nonanthropocentric ethic will advocate the same [environmental] policies as a suitably broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism" (Norton 2004:11). Norton notes that although adherents to either ism may disagree about the relative importance of the various reasons they have for advocating such policies, they nevertheless share an equal commitment to protecting the environment. Because any form of anthropocentrism must fundamentally favor humanity over nonhumanity, nonanthropocentrists are nevertheless concerned that such favoritism is "nothing more than the expression of an irrational bias" (Taylor 1981:215). They reason that only a nonanthropocentric ethic can guarantee that policies do not arbitrarily favor humans when their interests conflict with those of nonhumans. I argue that critics of convergence fail to appreciate that Norton’s hypothesis is limited to ideologies that he deems "reasonable" and "suitably broad and long-sighted," or else they misapprehend what these terms imply. When it comes to ethics, nonanthropocentrists and anthropocentrists alike vary along a continuum according to whether their overriding intuitions are more aligned with individualistic or collectivistic axiologies and their associated timescales. The most unreasonable, narrow, and short-sighted ideologies are those that are the most individualistic. It is at the collective end of the continuum that Norton’s proposed convergence takes place. I defend a version of anthropocentrism that I term ecological anthropocentrism.