
According to some anthropocentric philosophers, human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. Which I stand in this case. I consider human beings has higher power to consume all the natural resources on earth. But, an anthropocentric approach must have limitations in using the natural resources.
It’s hard to believe, but there was a time when humans considered the Earth a sacred entity , something that needed to be protected at all costs. So everything that they need and want is given to them. We cannot deny that the more we get older the more we become ambitious and it turns out as the negative effect of anthropocentric approach.
Many ethicists find the roots of anthropocentrism in the Creation story told in the book of genesis in the Christian bible , in which humans are created in the image of God and are instructed to “subdue” Earth and to “have dominion” over all other living creatures. This passage has been interpreted as an indication of humanity’s superiority to nature and as condoning an instrumental view of nature, where the natural world has value only as it benefits humankind. That is why some believe that we humans are the superior of all living creatures and non-living creatures on earth. Earth provides all the needs and wants of human beings, it gives food to eath, water to drink, and place to stay. But as the year past by, human becomes abusive in all living things in this planet and that turns to destroy earth itself, and one of the biggest problem that anthropocentric gives is an overpopulation due to the motto they believe to sustain life
In conclusion, anthropocentric approach gives both a positive effect to human beings and a negative effect to environment, but if we humans control to use the natural resources it might be a solution to create a balance between living things and non-living things.






