Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kentgoodwin t1_jefg6mr wrote

Incorporating the rights of nature into national laws and constitutions is one of the many important ways we can recognize that humans are part of a very large family. We share common ancestors with all living things on earth and they are therefore, literally, our relatives.

This recognition is an essential element of a sustainable civilization. If you are interested in seeing a very brief description of all the elements you could check out the Aspen Proposal. www.aspenproposal.org

231

wordholes t1_jegobsp wrote

> the rights of nature

But the profits! You've just slapped a yacht out of the mouth of a poor and hungry executive. How can you people live with yourselves? Will nobody think about the profits??

46

kentgoodwin t1_jegozcn wrote

I take solace in the fact that the executive, in his/her grief, might now consider another part of the Aspen Proposal that suggests that all humans have the same suite of needs, shaped by our evolution. There are real and robust ways to meet those needs, and yachts isn't one of them.

6

wordholes t1_jegp6bp wrote

> suggests that all humans have the same suite of needs

The only needs that humans have is to serve capitalism. Work harder, peasants!

5

BeowulfShaeffer t1_jeg2bks wrote

Sure. But history suggests a ruling like this is likely to be followed by bribery and assassinations.

8

Combat_Toots t1_jegyz23 wrote

Already happened, and they drove the thugs out. These people have been fighting for this for decades and have gotten multiple mining companies to pull out.

This is just confirmation that they have one more tool to use for the future.

14

TedMerTed t1_jeflrhf wrote

What is “rights of nature”? Is it a property rights concept?

3

kentgoodwin t1_jefmm1h wrote

How the rights of nature are defined might vary with different pieces of legislation. In this case you would have to find the Ecuadorian laws that spell that out.

I am not sure what you mean by "property rights concept". A tree doesn't own property, nor does a butterfly.

26

erikmongabay OP t1_jefsr0w wrote

"Rather than treating nature as property under the law, rights of nature acknowledges that nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles." - Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, https://www.garn.org/rights-of-nature/

30

TedMerTed t1_jeg2wp9 wrote

Can’t say that I know much about it but the concept seems unworkable. Everything humans do is at odds with the rights of nature.

−8

kentgoodwin t1_jegi5z1 wrote

Actually, the status quo is unworkable in the long run. One of the things that will help save our bacon is the recognition that the rest of the family has rights too.

23

TedMerTed t1_jegjxgm wrote

This philosophy has to have ties to a need to depopulate Earth. Also, what family are you talking about?

−11

kentgoodwin t1_jego3wh wrote

If you have a look at the Aspen Proposal, you will see that it does indeed suggest a smaller population than the current 8 billion or the peak 10 billion. Fortunately, birth rates are falling everywhere and we should be able to ease our numbers down over a few centuries.

The "family" is all the species that co-evolved with us from common ancestors. Which is all the species on earth. One of the reasons humans are mucking things up, is that we only see our selves as human and not as part of a large extended family. Changing that mindset may help us fit in on this planet a little better.

8

DeLaManana t1_jeh5dz4 wrote

Enjoy this downvote. Comments that only sow doubts are worthless.

>Can’t say that I know much about it
>
>but the concept seems unworkable.

Then phrase it as a question. "How could this work?" for example. What you're doing is intentionally undermining it and sowing doubt.

6

TedMerTed t1_jeg1d5n wrote

In U.S. jurisprudence, property rights concepts would address what can and cannot be done with land. I was trying see where it would fit into our system of laws.

2

kentgoodwin t1_jeghv2u wrote

Okay, I understand. Of course, this is about more than just land, as there are beings involved.

9

Lehk t1_jegk38s wrote

It means any and all development will get mired in endless litigation.

4

TedMerTed t1_jegu108 wrote

It sounds like another step towards Marxism. The government will own everything and make decisions for everyone.

−12

beauhommad t1_jegxfdp wrote

So... would you rather we just destroy nature for the sake of profits? I swear, you anti socialist types would rather shoot our collective existence in the foot rather than take the absolutely only solution to save the only home we as a species have. The planet needs to recover and we need to stop fucking it up. If you're so concerned about population decline, it seems strange that you'd be opposed to the only viable solution we have.

15

PumpkinManGuy t1_jegjhy8 wrote

I don't know about you, but I'm not allowed to eat my relatives in my country.

−4

kentgoodwin t1_jegng0o wrote

Well, you are certainly not allowed to eat your human relatives. But the other living things, including the ones you eat, also share a common ancestry with you. They deserve a bit more consideration than we have been in the habit of giving them.

6