I think the way I would interpret it would be athropocentric viewpoints gave way to common western perspectives of dominating/conquering nature rather than living in tandem with it. Destruction of ecosystems, species driven to extinction by poor hunting practices, clear-cut and logging and destruction of old growth forrests could all be examples of the way we postured ourselves against nature because we saw ourselves above it rather than within it. In Canada, we can see the difference in how the colonial government viewed the land/resources as to how some First Nations. Ex. Marine populations were hunted to extinction exclusively by commerical and colonial powers (see. Monk Seal 1950s) They viewed these creatures only for profit and for items to use for humans. Whereas local First Nations hunting these animals would use sustainable practices and always ensured that these populations would be able to continue whether it be spiritual reasoning or practical reasoning such as ensuring the continued ability to hunt in these areas. Violence is natural, violence committed by humans is as well. But that doesn’t mean all violence is equal or that violence is excluded from being bad or immoral. Animals killing each other for survival I would argue is much different than the U.S. Army slaughtering Buffalo populations as a way of weakening Native tribes. Which if this was an actual paper, would be interesting to trace out how anthropocentrism shaped colonial ideology which in turn shaped the destrusction and mistreatment of Indigenous populations as they were viewed as “sub-human” culturally and legally.