• (Kipnis, 2015, p. 44) upholds agency to non-human entities such as plants. Why is this important? Well, agency becomes the term that means to act. If we give agency to animals, then, this downplays ideas of what It means to be human very much.

  
  

• However, I want to also guide you to different critiques.

  
  

• (Joy, 2008) says we need ethical principles or boundaries in place when we deal with novel forms of the connections technology has to humans, a result of the European enlightenment epoch.

  
  

• Industrialization and urbanization have increased the use of technology. The idea of technology exploding or exerting human control is concerning. With such restrictions or boundaries in place, Joy (2008) says we can fully understand what it means to be human in the 21^st century. Because, if we use an analytical lens and see how technological advancements are improving then we can also see how it changes the idea of humanity, as, for example, robots become scientifically invented.

  
  

• Does this change your ideas of what it means to be human?

  
  

• Or changed your ideas on identity?

  
  

• This plethora of information would uphold much capacity in the brain for my readers, technology is changing frameworks.

• In conclusion, I have evidenced how the anthropocentric lens is damaging and defining what it means to be human to tackle issues collectively. Being human in the 21^st century can also be seen as a form of modernity in which technoscapes have allowed for technology to transversally travel globally allowing for the body to become a symbol of technology, such as robots. I have shown you a plethora of perspectives on this matter, not just one perspective. I believe we need to consider how technologies are becoming part of our world, or, more so, a part of humanity.

Aristotle. 1905. Aristotle's Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring: Houghton Mifflin Company, 44(12), p.2.

Castree, N. and Nash, C. 2006. Posthuman geographies, Social & Cultural Geography, 7(4), pp.501-504.

Foreman, D. 1993. Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, 4(2), p.9.

Joy, M. 2005. Humanistic Psychology and Animal Rights: Reconsidering the Boundaries of the Humanistic Ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(1), pp.106-130.

Kohn, E. 2013. How dogs dream: Amazonian natures and the politics of transpecies engagement: American Ethnologist 33(3), p.2.

Kipnis, A. 2015. Agency between humanism and posthumanism: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(2), pp.43–58.

Light, A. 2002. Contemporary environmental ethics: From metaethics to public philosophy. Metaphilosophy,3(1), pp. 426-449. 

Latour, B. 2010. Coming out as a philosopher: Social Studies of Science 40(4), pp. 599–608.

Meyers, S. 2008. Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online: College Teaching, 56(4), pp.219-224.

Rae, G. 2014. Anthropocentrism: Encyclopaedia of Global Bioethics, 1(1), p12.

Slyvan, G. 2002. Anthropocene Frontiers: The Place of Environment in Western Studies. Western American Literature, 53(8), pp.21–30.

Thompson, B. 2013. Environmentalism and Posthumanism: Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 21(2), pp.63-73.