Keith Peterson brought up interesting perspectives on the way in which humans interact with the natural world. We think of the Anthropocene as an era in which we critique environmental impacts caused by humans. However, Anthropocentrism, Peterson argues, is not inherently a fight for environmental betterment, but another validation of human dominion of nature, where humans are more significant than the natural world. Peterson breaks Anthropocentrism into three parts: Cosmic, Axiological, and Epistemic. The Cosmic aspect places humans at the center of the universe; the Axiological perspective places human interests above all others’; lastly, the Epistemic view emphasizes that a human perspective is inevitable. We see the natural world for its instrumentality to humans, giving meaning to things based on their function to us and for us. I think that all beings think of themselves as the center of the universe — we conduct our lives for our own purposes, and view the world as our own. However, the fact that humans are at the highest tier of the food chain (and more widely, we have the ability to put all other beings in cages), we do control the natural world and support its’ functionality to human needs. With this dominion over the natural world, we have become selfish. Instead of allowing the natural world to deplete and decay due to our own negligence, we should use our knowledge of the natural world to re-establish a more equitable relationship between the human world and the natural world. But where do we start? Peterson argues that we must acknowledge that our sense of meaning isn’t the most important one, nor is it the only one. For the Anthropocenic era, the era of human centrality, to end, we must give nature priority for a change.