Biocentrism vs. Science

by Lewis Loflin


Summary: two differing belief systems go by the name "biocentrism" and neither are scientific, but have heavily influenced a number of scientists. with massive government funding of research and politics compromising scientific ojectivity, and being used as the basis government policy this should raise alarm.

Before we get into this let's note there's two types of biocentrism. The original definition predates the work of Dr. Lanza. Genocidal environmentalists that believe Nature, animals, etc. have "value" in themselves that outweighs human welfare and hope the "right virus" comes along to wipe out humanity. See Toxicity Of Environmentalism.

Dr. Robert Lanza as far as I know has no such views, but believes physics based science should be replaced with biology based science. Science as defined is based on materialism with no room for spiritualism, thought, or other abstract concepts. His ideas simply don't apply to the scientific method right or wrong and like many others he desires to get away from applied science and technology to life and "consciousness" which he really never defines.

I'm a believer in empirical science, the scientific method, and though technology and engineering we can overcome many of our problems. But I put individual human welfare first something many are rejecting today. I have no use for religion or mysticism in public policy. If I had a "religion" at all it's liberty.

What percent of the atmospheric CO2 has mankind allegedly added in 200 years? It's 0.01%. How much has global temperatures risen since the end of the Little Ice Age 200 years ago? Try 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, barely background noise.

The "science is settled" they claim until we find out that science has been redefined to include social sciences, political ideology, and in extreme cases an utter disregard of human welfare in the name of "wildness" and the "intrinsic" worth of Nature for its own sake. Refusing to include cost is irrational something only religious fanatics engage in.

Be it state or Federal most of these complex laws are passed as a vague framework that relies on unaccountable "experts" to make the real laws and regulations nobody voted on. In addition these "experts" are given enforcement power that is too often abused - many end up as crusaders. But what if many of these "experts" hold ideas such as humans are a virus or their job is to protect "wildness" not public health or safety? Or simply"wildness" of Nature over human welfare? Or that Nature is a being itself with rights?

What if these bureaucrats have joined with or working with outside radical environmental groups holding such beliefs?

The problem for Dr. Lanza is he needs to renounce the other definition or rename his ideas.

Many are following ideas such as biocentrism desire to replace physics and chemistry based science and materialism with the mystical idea that "life and consciousness" that advocates like Dr. Robert Lanza M.D. admit "may resonate with aspects of Eastern religions or certain New Age philosophies." Others have called this a "brand of quantum mysticism". I wasn't surprised at the number of "scientists" that buy into Lanza's work from people that collect billions in public money and are called as "expert witnesses" on government policy:

"... Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call to all of us" -David Thompson, Astrophysicist, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
"The heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correct ... So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it-or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private-furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with it ... should help you on your personal journey to understanding." -Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University.

Science has nothing to do with "your personal journey to understanding."

"It is genuinely an exciting piece of work ... and coheres with some of the things biology and neuroscience are telling us about the structures of our being. Just as we now know that the sun doesn't really move but we do (we are the active agents), so it is suggesting that we are the entities that give meaning to the particular configuration of all possible outcomes we call reality." -Ronald Green, Eunice & Julian Cohen Professor and Director, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College

Science has nothing to do with your "being" or things that "give meaning" to your life.

"[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuries ... placing in perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." -Anthony Atala, renowned scientist, W.H. Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Material science has nothing to do with "greater truths surrounding our existence" that belongs in the realm of religion.

"Having interviewed some of the most brilliant minds in the scientific world, I found Dr. Robert Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness original and exciting. His theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient traditions of the world which say that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world." -Deepak Chopra, Bestselling Author, one of the top heroes and icons of the century.

Chopra is a mystic.

"It's a masterpiece ... combines a deep understanding and broad insight into 20th century physics and modern biological science; in so doing, he forces a reappraisal of this hoary epistemological dilemma ... Bravo" -Michael Lysaght, Professor and Director, Center for Biomedical Engineering, Brown University
"Now that I have spent a fair amount of time the last few months doing a bit of writing, reading and thinking about this, and enjoying it and watching it come into better focus, And as I go deeper into my Zen practice, And as I am about half way through re-reading Biocentrism, My conclusion about the book Biocentrism is: Holy shit, that's a really great book! -Ralph Levinson, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Science has nothing to do with one's "Zen practice".

If one thinks atheists and scientists don't have a religious tendencies you are mistaken. Vinod Wadhawan notes (12/14/2009) that: The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a consciousness product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution.

According to the idealists, the mind creates all of reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a brand of quantum mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this idea makes Darwin's theory of the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant...

This is troubling to the extreme as the fascist nanny state relies on "science" to shape government policy in particular with the out of control EPA.

What if this "religious" thinking is applied to public policy in particular environmental and health issues?

The other definition of biocentrism is placing "the rights and needs" of nature, rock formations, animals, plants, pets, entire ecosystems, etc. as equal to or more important than human welfare. This is applying personhood to non-human objects and runs against our traditional ethics.

While the two views are not the same both interject mystical, spiritual, and political beliefs into science opposing strict scientific materialism the basis of modern technology and industry that has eliminated more suffering and human misery than all the silly religion or spiritual nonsense ever concocted.

This is a clear conflict of interest and possible threat to human welfare, so where are the safeguards from these kinds of people making rules and regulations imposed on the public?

Before the rise of the Scientific Revolution there was a muddling of science, religion, and abstract philosophy that made understanding simple chemistry and physics impossible - now we are moving back to very thing that made real scientific advancement impossible.

Without clear safeguards or purging science of religion and political activism the alternative is to greatly limit the power of those government agencies that use science to justify their funding and power.

While polls show a high level of trust in scientists, the products of science and technology are mistrusted and even hated. In "Scientists Should Fight Postmodern Public Values" (October 20, 2106) Alex Berezow asks,

"How should scientists respond to the rising tide of anti-scientific sentiment in the world? The backlash against modern technology is widespread: Protests against genetic engineering, vaccines, chemicals, modern agriculture, neuroscience, nuclear power (and almost any other form of power), animal research, and embryonic stem cell research threaten to hold back, if not reverse, decades of progress. What can scientists do to address this problem?"

It seems too many scientists such as those listed above are popular because they engage often in mysticism or esoteric babble is why they are popular while technology the real products of science are held in contempt. Dr. Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at the prominent French institution CNRS voices concern over this issue:

"Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a 'participative democracy'."


"However, science is not a matter of democracy – it is about the application of a method, and it is an elitist activity, open to all provided that one learns and applies the scientific method. Scientists should be able to 'reflect upon and revise their own opinion without injunction from postmodern political correctness.'"

Or facing retaliation and legal sanctions merely for violating climate correctness or inquiry into politically unpopular subjects. Too many "scientists" depend on public funding and are susceptible to political retaliation.

Science isn't based on popular vote. See Post Modernism Attacks Reason, Science, and Culture

Yet scientists are trusted on one issue only - predicting temperature change of a fraction of a degree 100 years into the future.

Even Dr. James Lovelock author of the Gaia hypothesis has criticized how his ideas have become a religion.

Quoting Science under Siege by Michael Fumento,

Noting that one (allegedly) scientific theory the Gaia theory actually claims that the earth is a living organism, essayist Charles Krauthammer writes that "contemporary environmentalism . . . indulges in earth worship to the point of idolatry." The godhead (or goddess head in this case) is mother earth which has become for many a spiritual being in her own right.

See Ages of Gaia and Environmental Religion

See the graphic Science Vs. Environmentalism

Why did a liberation theology (Marxist) Priest from Argentina who become Pope chose to adopt the name of the patron saint of ecology St. Francis of Assisi? Because he believes in the nonsense idea nature is equal to human beings. Many who believe in the "intrinsic" value of nature for its own sake place the welfare of nature over the welfare of humans.

Science has nothing to do with religion, New Age mysticism, socialism, or Gaia. Yet we have a political coalition all keen to remake society in their own fantasy world utopian image, fill their bank accounts, or gain power. Science if it gets in the way must be redefined.

The real dispute is empirical science based on observed facts and open debate versus hypothetical computer models and the "authority" of experts many with other agendas. I reject the merging of social science, spiritualism, and socialist ideology into science, which crackpots like Pope Francis and Dr. Lanza advocate.

What does Al Gore say about the 'science' behind climate change? Quoting his book Earth in the Balance:

"As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."

Science has nothing to do with social justice, Scriptures, or ecology as defined today.

President Trump needs to call a real climate conference open only to real climate scientists including those that are banned from publishing in scientific journals for political reasons. This must be open to the public and participants must be forced to disclose their methods and data something climate alarmists refuse to do. This should also EXCLUDE those receiving government grants or having connections to political activist' organizations.

There is to be no discussion of policy - empirical science only. It's time they be forced to prove that 0.01% of the gasses in the atmosphere somehow controls the entire climate.

We need to pass a law that mandates those obtaining government research grants must release all data and research material to the public domain as public property. No exceptions or no grants.