homocentrism vs. ecocentrism

Arguments for an ecocentric attitude:

Premise: Humanism=homocentrism. Humanism is almost never ecocentrism. There are exceptions, but I want to keep this as simple as possible.
Premise: Also, many of these arguments are anthropocentric in nature, but this is really meant to be debated with a homocentric thinker (e.g. almost every human alive.)

• Nature for the sake of itself- it's unnecessary for nature's existence and well-being to justify itself to humans.

• Humans depend on ecosystems for their livelihood, regardless of technology.

• Humans depend on nature for happiness (just think of "life" without trees, water, etc.)

• Nature is underrepresented.

• Nature supports all biomes, ecosystems, species, organisms- they have a right to live.

How do we know?

Many were here long before the homo sapien evolved.

• As we've seen, destruction of Earth's processes is often the direct cause of natural "disasters".

• A majority vote. There are more of them (as in- species that are not human) than there are of us. If they could speak, not that they need to, they would probably vote for a world that is safe for them to live in.

~*~

• What if entire races of people went extinct every hour?

Not that many world cultures haven't gone extinct. Languages die all the time. People are so ready and willing to hop on the boat to help other people but rarely to help other species, and even less frequenly will they donate their resources to preventing the destruction of major systems. Why? The reason can't be selfish, because it's blatantly obvious, even in our capitalist societies, that we can not exist without natural spaces and organisms.

People feel so much compassion and empathy for the starving children in Ethiopia, so much that they think sending them food or trying to help them to industrialize will actually...in a long term sense... contribute to their well-being. From an ecocentric point of view, the thing to do is to donate birth control and to provide sexual education.