The debate opposing Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism involves a false dilemma: the anthropocentric approach, when properly understood, leads us to the same conclusions as an ecocentric approach, because human interests and ecological interests ultimately converge. More than merely converging, in fact, they are inseparable throughout; an anthropocentrism that does not encompass ecocentrism is an anthropocentrism that fundamentally misrecognizes its own commitments.
Our choices matter. "We do not have a choice not to alter the world. This is not unique to humans. All life affects other life."
If survival is a plausibly universal human interest (at the level of humanity considered holistically, at least), then such interests include a healthy, stable, and sustainable ecological context. Given our dependence on global ecology, if human and ecological interests were to be opposed, the ecological consequences of pursuing supposed human interests (to the exclusion of ecological interests) will eventually rebound against human interests—a contradiction. My argument, then, is that any apparent conflict is best understood as being symptomatic of an incorrect understanding of human interests. A purportedly anthropocentric argument justifying actions that are contrary to ecological interests is not, in fact, anthropocentrism rightly understood.
Ref: Unifying Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism. Emmelhainz, R. (2016)