Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TedMerTed t1_jeflrhf wrote

Reply to comment by kentgoodwin in Ecuador court upholds ‘rights of nature,’ blocks copper mine proposed for biodiversity hotspot in cloud forest by erikmongabay

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