Disguised Anthropocentrism

This world has been defined by humans, to be for humans.
Placing humans at the center of the world is called anthropocentrism. The anthropocentric view of the world has resulted in environmental destruction. Mountains, rivers, savannahs and forests are considered by humans as their resources, objects to master and use as they wish. This view also allows humans to regard animals as "natural resources", as objects to master and use as they wish.

That is why the environmental movement, which is considered to be one of the strongest opponents to the anthropocentric concept, is considered as a natural ally of the animal liberation movement. However from many aspects many environmentalists are anthropocentric just as much.

Many environmental groups are actually reinforcing the anthropocentric viewpoint despite criticizing humanity’s behavior, since their concern is resources depletion, conservation of landscapes they enjoy, and the future generations of the human race. Pointing out that earth’s resources are limited is neither radical nor inventive in regards to questioning humans’ place in the world and it doesn’t undermine humans’ absolute control over the planet. They are concerned with the world’s oceans, lands and forests since their destruction would put at risk what they also see as their own planet, not because it is already hurting their nonhuman residents.

Environmentalists Between Meals

Despite what seems as challenging humans’ global occupation, many environmentalists are actually anthropocentrists in a green suite.
They seemingly challenge anthropocentrism, but what can be more a show of support in anthropocentrism than animal product consumption?
Consuming animal products doesn’t only make environmentalists more anthropocentric but it actually makes them non-environmental, given that factory farms more than anything else are responsible for ecological damages they fight to prevent.

Eco-Fascism

Not all the environmentalists are so prominently anthropocentric. Some don’t see what they call nature as a human resource, but they are in a severe misconception regarding it.
Usually referred to as deep ecologists, many environmentalists argue that nature has intrinsic value, meaning a value in itself irrespective of its use to others.
While some are Biocentrists - believing all living beings possess direct moral standing simply because they are living, most are Eco-centrists - believing that ecosystems possess direct moral standing simply because of their “functional integrity”.

Aldo Leopold's "land ethic" which is taken as the paradigm for environmental ethics argues that: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise." The biotic community, an abstract term is the basic moral unit, not an actual living, sentient individual. Individuals are completely expendable. According to environmental ethics, a true environmentalist is concerned with the abstract not with the actual. It is the quantity of animals and species on the planet that matters, not the quality of their lives. Maintaining populations is the goal, not their living conditions and certainly not how each member feels.

In his landmark book A Sand County Almanac, Leopold calls for moral consideration of rocks, rivers and trees while enthusiastically advocating for hunting. He infers this conclusion from his presumption that the value of something is derived from its contribution to the “integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community”.
Like in fascist ideologies, the continuity of the group is much more important than the well-being of its members. The land is much more important than the living conditions of its residents. The system is much more important than the individuals forced into it. This is not merely a theoretical criticism, policies aimed to target individuals of “invasive species” who “interfere” with the local ecosystem are very common in many countries.

However, earth, nature and the environment are notions, concepts, not sentient beings.
They can’t feel. The earth doesn’t suffer, its inhabitants do. The air doesn’t care that it is getting poisoned and rivers don’t mind that they are being polluted, it’s the residents that mind.
The suffering of every sentient being is meaningful and all consumption cause suffering. That is the reason to manage a simple and green life. Because destroying the environment is another form of animal abuse. It is animals’ suffering that should be the motivation, and not avoiding "harming" non-sentient terms such as the earth and the environment.

There is nothing deep in arguing that rocks are moral patients. On the contrary, arguing that everything is a moral patient as long as it is functional to the system, is philosophically as shallow as anthropocentrism.
The viewpoint is still an anthropocentric one, since the systems that should be protected are the ones humans have decided to protect. And it is humans who decide when a biotic community reached its integrity, stability, and beauty so it must be preserved. And worst, ironically, it is humans, the most destructive species on earth with no comparison, who are assigned with the duty of protecting these communities.
A truly deep ecological concept is to at least reduce the number of humans if not to totally eradicate them from the face of the earth.
We don’t think the human race should be eradicated because it hurts the planet, as we don’t seize earth as a moral entity. We think the human race must be eradicated because it systematically hurts the planet’s residents.

Deep Anthropocentrism

Environmentalists are often considered as natural allies of animal liberationists. But conceptually and practically the differences between the two are fundamental.

For the two philosophies to be similar, one must observe everything and everyone that humans use as similar. Only then the two philosophies who challenge humans’ use of animals as well as plants, rivers, mountains and etc. are similar. But the entities in the ‘objectified by humans’ list are radically different. Almost all of the animals used as resources are sentient, and all the rest on the list are not. That crucial difference between the two philosophies is not only greater than the similarities, but it also makes the most significant common denominator (challenging anthropocentrism) to lose its meaning.
Environmentalists who consume animal products are not challenging anthropocentrism no matter how many times they say they do, but reinforce it by supporting the cruelest, least environmental and most anthropocentric system ever in history. So not only are they not our natural allies they are not even their precious nature natural allies.