The theory of anthropocentrism says that the world exists for humanity.  Believers in this philosophy would say that humans can rightfully try to benefit as much as possible from the environment.

These arguments are obviously objectionable to the environmental movement.  Environmentalists would argue that animals have the right to coexist with humans in nature, and some would also add that nature has inherent value beyond its use to humanity.

Many environmental philosophies encompass some degree of anthropocentrism.  Even environmentalists often argue in a favor of saving the environment for the sake of humanity.

Perhaps the area where anthropocentrism most commonly occurs is politics.  A tradition of disregard for the environment, and the fact that plants and animals do not vote, had led to a primarily human-centered perspective in some decision makers.

Opposition to anthropocentrism is widespread.  The simplest argument against it is that animals have feelings too, and action toward animals must bear a certain degree of morality.

Most theories that oppose the anthropocentric notion have some opinion on the Greater Value Assumption.  This says that individual humans are more valuable than other animals, but rejects that other animals are worthless.