>>1842583I would highly recommend you read Asimov's short story called Darwinan Pool Room.
>even then it's only from a purely human optic.I actually agree with this, however most moral biocentrists presuppose the value of protecting this ecological status quo. If you're completely removing the value of species and biodiversity protection (making it relative between catastrophic states) then I would say this lens is justified. However most "biocentrists" really are referring to a worldview that presupposes humanity.
>in order to guarantee the continued existence of our species we need to reduce our comfort and dramatically curb our numbers; we need to go back to a more humble and natural lifestyle. Civilization is predicated on "diminishing time preferences" (forward thinking), and I would argue that the dismantling of theism on a massive scale has placed us into a state of non-civilization and therefore made us incapable of fulfilling our role as stewards. Biblically there's nothing against simple living, in fact ascetic practices would encourage traditional living, fasting, responsible agriculture, and frugal approaches to comfort. The problem is the state of capitalist realism and neoliberalism, not God.
>human rightsThat was made up by the enlightenment. There's nothing in biblical theology against reducing our numbers through celibacy. In fact I have discussed with my priest about the idea that "go forth and multiply" is not a moral command, but an admittance for this specific case.
>Anthro-appreciation and anthropocentrism aren't the same thing.I completely disagree, your view that placing humanity above the natural order somehow equates to a lack of responsibility is found nowhere biblically. To demean humanity's role to guard creation is to reject an appreciation for humanity because humanity is the only element of the ecosystem that can protect things as they are. The antichrist hides in the belief that humans cannot fulfill God's wishes.
