Some expressions of the crisis of civilization have to do with climate change, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and land use change, alteration of nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, chemical pollution and plastics (macro, micro and nanoplastics), the water crisis, ocean acidification, among others. Added to this is a deep political crisis in which ultra-conservative forces are gaining ground in the face of the failures of proposals that in theory were more humane.

Geobiohumanism is a way of posing a renewed humanism to extend to all species on the planet in recognition of the condition of co-inhabitants of the earth in search of continuous flourishing in perspective of cultural bioethics. This implies recognizing large gaps for both human well-being and well-being with ecosystems and species.

Given the seriousness of the civilizational crisis, it is important to overcome the exacerbated anthropocentrism that has led to the current situation, the colonialism that subordinates ways of thinking, being and acting in the logic of capital domination that has led everything to be expressed and treated in terms of substitutable capitals, the speciesism both human and fellow species that has led to so many processes of oppression and exclusion, the patriarchy that has led to the subordination of women's contributions to the flourishing of life.

It is therefore necessary to generate openness, in the first instance to biocentric, ecocentric, geocentric and cosmocentric approaches, and in the second instance to the celebration, exaltation and respect for life in all its manifestations. The opening towards more biocentric, ecocentric, geocentric and cosmocentric approaches in no way implies underestimating the importance of attention to humans, recognizing that there are still many gaps within humanity itself. It is therefore essential to continue to support the full exercise of human rights. To which are now added the rights of nature, the integration of which constitutes biocultural rights.

Political, historical and economic processes have led some peoples to seek power and accumulation through warlike, social or symbolic domination over other peoples considered inferior, even sub-species or sub-human. This has justified conquests, colonization, slavery and the plundering of wealth, resulting in a highly unequal world in which there are groups of countries considered developed and another large group of countries considered backward. But the wealth of some has been achieved at the expense of the poverty of others.

To a large extent the central cause of the civilizational crisis is due to a globalized economic system and is ubiquitous and powerful, although it shows the paradox of revitalization and crisis at the same time. The current civilizational crisis shows, as Carlos Maldonado (2020) mentions, that the West is a civilization that was born sick, but at the same time there are signs of a new civilization. This is evidenced by the multitudes scattered around the globe that are generating alternatives to development as proposals for Good Living, full life, beautiful life, tasty life, degrowth, ecovillages, struggles for just transitions, struggles for universal basic income, slow science, animal rights, animalism, veganism, among others that are deployed from the political souths (In the geographical norths there are also political souths).¹

To propose a perspective of Geobiohumanism poses several challenges. One of them involves providing answers to those proposals that point out that if human injustices have not yet been eliminated, how can we speak of extending the moral community to all living beings. It is not a matter of exclusion or polarization, both the orientation towards human welfare and the orientation towards the welfare of ecosystems are important and both deserve to be addressed. Even more so if wildlife and domestic animals have always been neglected and hence ecological justice movements have started to become active. Of course it is important to continue, as already mentioned, the struggle for a dignified human life (but not at the expense of fellow species). It still hurts the war made everyday, the dictatorships that crush human rights and cut off the future.

We are aware that the population is growing exponentially, and therefore the need for food and other goods important for human well-being is also increasing substantially. It is therefore necessary to take on this important challenge without deepening the current crisis. There are important approaches from the perspective of territory, landscapes, agroecology, agroforestry systems, regenerative agriculture and livestock, sustainable cities, just transitions, among others, that shed light on how to meet human needs taking into account respectful relationships with nature. Although in most cases they are isolated, scattered situations, it is necessary to rescue them and make them visible and valued. It is not possible to solve the same old problems with the same tools that generated them, as Einstein said, since a vision of transforming innovation is required.²

A challenge that cannot be avoided refers to the vertiginous advance of technoscience, especially those related to artificial intelligence, which constitutes a great opportunity to expand human capabilities, but at the same time generates fears about the consequences that cannot even be anticipated. It depends on how the technology is assumed if it is to be more respectful or to continue being aggressive with the environment. How to tame this process of technologization without dehumanizing humanity even more.

The civilizational crisis affects not only the human being but life in general. Even the planet can fend for itself but not the human being who is highly dependent on the planet. This has a direct implication and it is that the bet for a utopia that gives meaning to human existence has to do directly with the cohabitation between humans and non-humans (better called, more than humans, other-than-humans). Many attributes previously thought to be exclusively human are also visibly present in some animal species. Thus it is now known that language is not required for thinking, as demonstrated by zoosemiotics and ecoethics.

Even sentience is not reduced only to the fact of having a central nervous system. This implies then the extension of the moral community to the whole human species and to all the species of the Earth. It means recovering an ethics, rights and biocultural justice that integrates on equal terms the rights of humans but also biocultural rights. Human development can no longer be done at the expense of the life of other beings on Earth. This is what we have been doing as a civilization and has caused the threat to the integrity of the Biosphere. Specifically, this means the loss (extermination) of biodiversity. Although extinctions are natural processes, the current extinction, unlike the previous ones, is anthropogenic and its intensity has accelerated exponentially.

Consequently, in the utopian image it outlines a society

1. It generates and consolidates conditions for the unfolding of all the capacities, faculties and potentialities of human beings, individually and collectively, in harmony with nature.
2. That generates the material (objective) and subjective conditions for the celebration and respect of all expressions of life on Earth, overcoming the vision of nature only as a basket of resources, goods and services, inputs, merchandise or natural capital. This implies a dignified life for all living beings and their happiness.
3. Recognizing the diversity of histories, cultures and religious beliefs, to be capable of dialogue, empathy and solidarity in order to face great challenges.
4. To better manage renewable energies.
5. In which wars have been eliminated and the demilitarization of peoples has taken place because it would no longer make sense.
6. That takes into account with the same level of importance the human rights and the rights of nature. This implies the elimination of expressions of racism, speciesism, sexism, among others.

All these proposals involve:

1. Recognize that there is one and only one human family and that all expressions of life deserve consideration, respect and dignity.
2. Deep reconciliation involves recognizing that we are all part of the web of life on the Planet and that we all need to care for and protect each other.
3. Recognition of the seriousness of the civilizational crisis and that we all have a role to play in reversing the situation. Either we are all there or it will affect us all. The hope of fleeing to other ends of the universe is not the solution and, if it were feasible, it would only be for a few.
4. The necessary task of imagining together the future of humanity in alliance with the Earth.
5. The deployment of other ways of relating, such as sentithinking and corazonar.

None.

The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

1. Arroyo R. Geobiohumanism. In: Devés E, et al., editors. Problemáticas internacionales y mundiales desde el pensamiento latinoamericano. Theories, Schools and Networks, Concepts, Doctrines. CLACSO. 2024. p. 301–310.
2. Maldonado CE. The West, the civilization that was born sick. Bogotá, Colombia. Ediciones desde abajo. 2020.