In the great theater of existence, humanity has chosen to play the part of a star performer, a bolt from the blue, wanting glorification, while the rest of nature has served to be only a backdrop. This metaphor of domination, where the world is the stage only for human whims and wants, has propped itself very deep into our culture and legal structures. But what if the light was never meant to only shed on us? What if living life in its full beauty consists of innumerable actors, deserving of recognition and respect?

The myth of human supremacy

At the core of this anthropocentric narration lie the intertwined concepts of anthropocentrism and speciesism. The anthropocentric view takes humans, literally, as the nucleus of all moral and existential importance and justifies human exploitation of non-human animals. Using speciesism, mostly popularized by philosopher Peter Singer, reveals the ugly side of valuing beings based on their species association. Made powerful just like racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, speciesism is grounded on mentally invented hierarchies allowing for the maltreatment of other living beings to become not only tolerated but expected.

The philosopher Paul W. Taylor has theorized biocentric egalitarianism to contest that very assumption of supremacy. In his hugely influential work, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Taylor posits that all living things are intrinsically worthy in their own right. His call for a life-centered system of ethics is an absolute departure from the very old tradition of thinking in which humans held premières. Because after all, we are but threads woven in the same intricate fabric of life. To think otherwise is mere arrogance; it is hubris.

Yet, the arrogance of human supremacy is not confined to philosophical treatises. It manifests in systems of exploitation as tangible as steel and concrete, the animal-industrial complex, for example. This vast network of industries, from factory farming to animal testing, operates under the assumption that animals exist purely for our benefit. In reality, the personifying industry as a monstrous entity is not far from reality. It devours lives, poisons ecosystems, and sustains the suffering of the billions of sentient beings alive today.

From dehumanization to recognition

However, that is not the only issue: the same way we treat those of other species bleeds into the manner humans treat one another. The very rationale used to justify the exploitation of animals was historically, and is still, wielded against marginalized human groups. The rhetoric of dehumanization would liken certain groups to animals or characterize them as "less than human" in order to rationalize their abuse. The parallels, made so starkly between the subhuman portrayal of African slaves and the Nazi depiction of Jewish people as vermin, are absolutely chilling.

Charles Patterson shows what was made by his book Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust eloquently. Patterson argues that the machinery of industrialized animal slaughter laid the groundwork for the mechanized mass murder of humans in the Holocaust. It is a comparison that shakes us to the very core, making use of juxtaposition to highlight an unyielding consistency in how we justify atrocities. To the extent that we belittle the suffering of animals, we begin to create pathways toward belittling the suffering of humans.

Toward a nonsupremacist future

But not all hope is lost. The more we become aware of these structures of oppression, the more we get to face off against them. The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court's recent Estrellita judgment, which recognizes the rights of individual wild animals, is a great leap forward. Even this progressive ruling falters at the end as it concerns domesticated animals, cementing the false notion that they exist for us. The inconsistency is stark: How can we proclaim real respect for nature while leaving billions of animals morally condemned on another side to exploitation?

What is needed is an outright overturning of ideals—where human superiority is demoted from ambition while genuineness toward all beings arises. A full commitment to the biocentric view as championed by thinkers such as Taylor would require an enviable equality in the moral universe, seeing the likeness of all creatures, whether animal or plant, domestic or wild, that picks their place in thriving circles, and an equal caring on the part of humans for all creatures in this included circle.

But how do we throw off those shackles that have exalted us? With education. In schools, colleges, and public platforms, empathy and awareness are built and encouraged to overlook their own reflection. Having the power illusion dispelled would open our eyes to our togetherness. One must challenge the power discourse that professes that the need of humans is always prima facie superior to that of other species.

Moreover, reforms in law and policy are necessary. Token gestures on behalf of animals are no longer sufficient while permitting their massive exploitation to occur unchecked. Everything from establishing stronger animal welfare laws to promoting plant-based diets and elevating sustainable agricultural practices embodies the bigger picture of our desire to reshape our relationship with the natural world.

In the end, the movement towards a more-than-human world is not an exercise in ethics; rather, it is the full reckoning of our place in the universe. The narrative of human supremacy is an old, worn-out story; it is time to change the tale into one where every being, be it human or non-human, is entitled to respect and dignity.