Darryl Robinson
In this article, I unpack the extremely widespread misuse of the terms ‘anthropocentric’ and ‘ecocentric’ that has spread like a virus throughout the current ecocide literature. Numerous scholars denounce any consideration of human interests as ‘anthropocentric’. Scholars repeatedly echo the claim that an ‘ecocentric’ provision must feature an absolute prohibition, with no allowance for human impacts. These are demonstrable misunderstandings of both terms, which are drawn from environmental ethics. Ecocentrism is concerned for all living things, including humans. Furthermore, ecocentrism does not ignore basic science. Hence it recognises that humans, like all creatures, cannot survive without drawing from and impacting the environment. While numerous ecocide commentators reject any balancing between human and non-human interests, this ironically precludes the sophisticated assessment that an ecocentric position requires. To exclude consideration of human well-being is ‘misanthropic’, not ecocentric. This widespread error in ecocide literature has led to prescriptions that are scientifically ungrounded and ethically untenable. It has impeded the needed nuanced debate. This is one of two companion articles that aim to foster a ‘second phase’ of the ecocide debate, a more mature discussion conversant with environmental ethics, science, and the limits of criminal law.