Apparently, conservationism and preservationism though anthropocentric are resource conservation and development. The focus here is still on the value that humans can gain from the physical transformation of resources, but it at least recognizes that there are limits to material growth: there is not always more where something came from (Fox 153). Specifically, conversationism is moderately anthropocentric because it recognizes limits; considers wise-use of resources thus avoids wasting resources; considers next generation of humans, and sustainable development sits here for the most part.
Still quite anthropocentric, too, is preservationism because it underscores men’s benefits derived from Nature. It, however, values a pristine Nature, intact and untouched by signal; biodiversity store; recreation space; symbolic monument, therapeutic space; associated with non-consumptive values, e.g., spirituality, psychological health. While ruthless developer views Nature only insofar as it is beneficial to humans, and its usefulness being a means to an end, both conservationism and preservationism have longer-term focus than the unrestrained exploitation and expansion approach.
The two further follow from the acknowledgement that there are limits to growth, and is informed by the humanitarian ideals of respecting the freedom and dignity of every person and serving the well-being of all humans ( Hattingh 72). This implies concern about the interests of fellow and future humans when men decide upon courses of action (Fox 153).
In extreme opposite is the ethical position of Nature or Intrinsic Value which sees Nature as valuable for its own sake, that it is “not a means to an end but rather an end in itself”’.
This is also considered as ecocentric because of its emphasis on ecological rather than the value-laden scientific approach. It gives a holistic picture of the balance and harmony of Nature, that is the interrelatedness of humans and non-humans in a community life.
The third ethical position is Radical or Transformational Value which includes Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism whose emphasis is on how the root cause of the environmental problems must be addressed; transformation is thus expected as a result. Like ecocentrism, both also believe that Nature has intrinsic value. Deep Ecology, however, rejects materialism and consumerism of any kind because all aspects of Nature are valued equally irrespective of usefulness to humans. Similarly, Bioregionalism defines humans alienated from place in which they live. Instead, they need to live in place/region in small, sustainable communities; respects diversity of ecological and social relationships; rejects capitalism and consumerism; globalization, technology and industrialization; uses indigenous knowledge and wisdom; and emphasizes poetic living. Life is therefore mystical, visionary and spiritual in character. Both deep ecology and bioregionalism share the politics of transformation as their common factor, highly promoting that transformation must be definitive, incisive and fundamental in addressing the root causes of environmental problems. Transformation is not only on men’s consciousness, but also of behavior and societal structures.