Talk:Biocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Explanation
I'm having trouble understanding this term. If you center your worldview around the "whole universe", then how are you really centering around anything at all? Isn't this essentially (to coin a term) acentric? Sarge Baldy 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The appended "whole universe" is incorrect and inaccurate
[edit] On biocentrism or futurism
Let me try again:
NO DIRECTION HOME
You know, stones tend to fall down, they usually do. Unless you launch them with a certain speed, which is called escape velocity, at least 7,9 kilometer per second. When Hitler launched his V-2's, his so-called Vergeltungswaffen, on London, he wasn't thinking of spacecraft and exploring the universe, but his scientists led by Werner von Braun were aware of the possibilities of the immense speed those rockets were capable of. Now let us look at history, the whole, seemingly complex and chaotic road that led to the firing of this weapon in the beginning of 1945 which could, launched out of The Hague, reach London in about five minutes. One may ask where to start this history, in the Renaissance, in Old Greece, or with the caveman, maybe with the extinction of the sauriers or even further back in time. I suggest we'll go as far as the first unity capable of duplicating itself and thus setting into motion a biolocigal mechanism, skip all the details and facts of evolution and also the details of human history, horrible or not, many, maybe too many books have been written on the matter of coincidence or a more or less logical or even determined route with just a few sidesteps, like the nose of Cleopatra. Let us just jump into the reality of today. For example, the actual state of space investigation and the posibble development of space colonies in the next, let us say, 30 years from now. It is clear that if people are to survive in such a condition outside the motherplanet for a lifetime, their environment will have to be a small copy of their natural environment and that is why experiments on this project were called, for example, Biosphere II. This may come true and be reality within 50 years, who knows? Let us suppose it does happen in that not all too far future. Does it ring any bell? Is my association with procreation pure madness or just what one politely should call a hypothesis and nothing more. (Since I am working on this idea for quite some time, before I had a letter published in Nature, correspondence, 7 january 1982, containing in other words the same, I am aware of the reactions. People seem to think that a certain plan is necessary but, sorry, reality does not work like that; it is just a biological mechanism if it works out or not.) It seems hard to understand, this possibility of a determined process leading to independent copies of the biosphere – very basic and in this this case on a planetary scale. This defenitely is not a metaphore but analogy and language cannot do without it. The main problem, I suppose, is the unwillingness to accept the idea of being an instrument of living nature rather than the steward. Maybe the right subject or category should be not “biocentrism”, but “futurology”
I would like you to take in consideration that it maybe wise for a prisoner to know his whereabouts. And not being just a rolling stone.
Roeland A. de Bie, july, 6, 2006, Amsterdam
86.82.24.167 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Ecocentrism?
Is there any difference between this and Ecocentrism? Perhaps they should be merged. --Salix alba (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strange letter
An anonymous user appended the following text to the article, with the edit summary on "biocentrism", a discussion started on the Erasmus University Rotterdam in 1980.
Aan: <Wikipedia.nl> Onderwerp: Biocentrism Datum: zondag 2 april 2006 2:40
Dear Sir,
" Reffering to the word 'biocentrism", I may remark that the word was used in a letter to Nature, january 7, 1982. (Following, if you wish, hereafter). As far as I know the word did not exist at that time, but that is of no importance, so the more the contents. The crucial statement is: mankind and all its cultural products are an integral part of the overall living system, the biosphere. So mankind is in no way the caretaker or even gardener of this planet but a functional part of it. My statement is: every living planet, every biosphere will eventually develop a species able to create a biosphere II, a child, just as the very beginning of life did, but on a totally different scale. We call it the development of spacecraft and the possibility of self-supporting spacecolonies. It may also be an inevitable and necessary process and a logical outcome of the beginning of all life: reproduction, finally on a planetary scale. Maybe hard to accept but at least worth a discussion."
© Nature Publishing Group 1982
I have no idea what the context of the letter is, but it clearly didn't belong in the article, so I moved it here. Wmahan. 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is bordering on being incorrect
Biocentrism is primarily used in the context of ethical theory, not ontology as the term "existence" implies. Unless someone can make a strong argument for leaving it as existence, I think it should be changed to "moral concern."
- I agree. Feel free to make that change. --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the section regarding the transgender flavor of the word should be transported to a different page, they have no bearing on one another.
- I disagree. I think we should simply mention that biocentrism has several meanings. --Loremaster 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
