Smash Negativity Team

Biocentrism Debunked: A Comprehensive Explanation of theTheory

biocentrism, science

Biocentrism is a worldview that emphasizes the importance of life and organisms as the starting point for any study of the cosmos. Biocentrists believe that life is fundamental to the universe and that our brains have a profound impact on the environment around us.

Despite its popularity and appeal to some, the scientific community has remained dubious about biocentrism. Here, we’ll examine how biocentrism debunked and separated fact from fiction by debunking its key assertions.

What is Biocentrism Theory?

Simply expressed, biocentrism holds that all living things in the universe are equal. As a result, we must treat everyone equally. The phrase biocentrism is derived from two Greek terms, ‘bio,’ meaning life, and ‘kentron,’ meaning center.

Biocentrism discusses issues such as the entitlement of all life forms to self-preservation and the moral responsibility of all living organisms.

Let’s take a quick look at the following terminology to better comprehend biocentrism.

Environmental Ethics

From a moral and ethical standpoint, this philosophical field investigates the link between humans and the environment. It tries to figure out the best method to interact with the surroundings. There are several schools of thought in environmental ethics, and one of them is biocentrism.

Moral Positioning

The state of an entity that entitles it to moral attention from other entities is referred to as its moral standing. In other words, when an entity has moral standing, others should consider its well-being.

Furthermore, moral standing suggests that an entity has inherent worth. That is, it is valuable in and of itself, not because of its applications. Several attempts have been made in environmental ethics to establish a standard for distinguishing what entities have moral standing and what do not.

According to biocentrism, the sole non-arbitrary criterion for evaluating inherent worth and granting moral standing to an entity is life itself. As a result, all living things, including non-sentient life forms, are worthy of ethical concern.

Several ideas support biocentrism’s ethical position. One is the teleological viewpoint, which holds that every living thing has its purposes and that possessing such goals shows inherent moral worth.

Another biocentrist ethic is that the world we perceive is created by life and consciousness. To establish this hypothesis, it mainly relies on quantum physics’ observer-effect theory.

According to biocentrism, our perceptions of space and time are merely instruments for animal comprehension and do not exist outside the mind. Biocentrism says that human life is no more or less valuable than any other living entity. When it comes to their well-being, an earthworm or a roadside wildflower has the same rights as you.

The four basic norms that people must follow while dealing with other living creatures are proposed by biocentric ethics as follows:

1. Non-maleficence

Humans must not cause direct or indirect harm to other living beings.

2. Non-interference

Humans should not disrupt, restrict, redirect, or accelerate an organism’s pursuit of its goals.

3. Fidelity

No one should manipulate, exploit, or deceive other living beings to further human objectives.

4. Restitutive justice

When humans accidentally hurt living beings, restitutive justice should be taken to restore ethical and moral equilibrium.

The Universe isn’t Aware

The biocentric worldview is based on the belief that consciousness is not essential to the cosmos. However, there is a scarcity of scientific data to support this argument, which is not supported by our current understanding of physics and cosmology. The concept of a conscious cosmos is founded on philosophical conjecture and human belief rather than observation and science.

Consciousness is not Required for the Existence of the Universe

According to the biocentrist viewpoint, the universe could not have existed without the presence of consciousness.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this claim. With current scientific concepts such as the Big Bang theory and physical principles, consciousness is not required to understand the beginnings of the universe.

Physics and the fundamental forces that control it can be understood and predicted using mathematical equations and empirical facts without invoking consciousness as a fundamental property of the cosmos.

Life on Earth is not the Center of the Universe

jeremy müller, pexels, 6444367.jpg

According to the biocentrist viewpoint, all other explanations of the universe circle and are dependent on the existence of biological life.

However, the scientific community has dismissed this idea as being excessively anthropocentric. The vastness of the universe, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and planets, demonstrates that life on Earth is not fundamental to or unique to the universe but rather a minor and local phenomenon.

Furthermore, the vast bulk of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy, which do not require the presence of life to exist.

Biocentrism Contradicts Established Scientific Theories

frank cone, pexels, 10002074.jpg

The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are two instances of scientific theories that have been thoroughly explored and proven, which biocentrism opposes. Biocentrism has been discredited.

For example, the theory of relativity, which describes the behavior of things at high speeds and in strong gravitational fields, can explain the behavior of the universe without requiring the presence of consciousness or organic life.

Similarly, the quantum mechanics hypothesis, which explains how subatomic particles act, does not require awareness to be true. As a result, contemporary scientific consensus and empirical evidence do not support biocentrism.

Predictions that can be tested

Scientific theories are distinguished by their ability to generate predictions that can be evaluated, confirmed, or refuted by real-world data.

As a result, biocentrism is incapable of making predictions that can be independently validated. Biocentrism’s arguments rely on subjective interpretations and philosophical conjectures rather than empirical data and objective observations.

Biocentrism is not a scientific theory because it makes no testable predictions.


Although biocentrism is an intriguing philosophical concept, it is not backed by scientific data and does not align with widely held scientific beliefs.

The notion of awareness as a fundamental quality of the cosmos, the priority of biological life, and the lack of testable predictions are among the key reasons why biocentrism is viewed as disputed and speculative within the scientific community.

When it comes to describing the universe and how it works, biocentrism falls short of scientific scrutiny. As new facts and theories emerge, the scientific process and our knowledge of the cosmos are vulnerable to change. To be acknowledged as a credible scientific explanation, a concept or idea must be supported by actual data, be testable, and adhere to established scientific norms and theories.

While the philosophical appeal of biocentrism is clear, when it stands up to empirical data and established scientific criteria, it falls short. To evaluate scientific assertions, we must apply reason and skepticism and base our understanding of the world on facts and evidence.



Leave a Comment