Anthropocene, as Professor Jim Fleming recalled during the very first lecture, has been proposed as the name of that geological epoch that is the period of Earth history during which humans have decisive influence on the state, dynamics and future of the Earth system. Mankind, taken as a whole, is a mighty geological force and we failed in our duties that come from that responsibility. On the contrary, we caused changes in erosion and sediment transport, and we changed environmental conditions in the biosphere both on land and in the sea. As a response to the human effects of the Anthrpocene, as Professor Keith Peterson pointed out, we don’t need a new humanism. Rather we need a “non-humanism”. Anthropocentrism, also known as homocentricism or human supremacism, has been posited, by some environmentalists, as the underlying reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to exploit most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to draw attention claims of a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to the non-human world. Ecofeminist Val Plumwood has argued that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrism in feminist theory. Plumwood calls human-centeredness “anthrocentrism” to emphasise this parallel. According to Plumwood, human centeredness cannot be tolerate not because of its effect on the oppressed, animals and nature itself, but because of its distorting effect on the oppressors, on human identity and human society. The structure of human-centeredness not only constructs nature as subordinate and as denied self; it constructs dominant human identity and virtue in those cultures which endorse it as the identity and virtue of the master. The effect on these cultures is damaging, and the dualized treatment of those social groups and aspects of the culture which are associated with nature and the body undermines all ideals of equality, democracy, and freedom.