New Ecuador constitution would give nature inalienable rights 14

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Jonas Posted 6:00 am
   03 Sep 2008

   Mmm, questionableI'm not so sure whether nature can have rights. Rights imply that the subject of those rights can present a conscious case before a court to defend these rights.
   It's the same with animal rights. Animals have no rights, because they do not communicate their cases in courts.
   There are other moral formulas that can be used to respect and protect nature. But rights?
   Also, I don't think this non-human-centered way of thinking makes sense. The only reason why we should respect nature, is for our own survival. Not because of the survival of nature.
   Nature doesn't care about us, and it will always survive.
   See Slavoj Zizek: nature has no rights, because it doesn't care about us. Our only duty is the will to protect ourselves, through nature.
   Ecology without Nature.

   Permalink

2. 

   Russ Posted 8:22 am
   03 Sep 2008

   well then JonasYou certainly must be against corporate personhood.

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 10:29 am
   03 Sep 2008

   Incorrect AnalysisJonas is wrong about the reason that non-humans don't have rights.  There are humans who are legally incompetent and who's needs and desires are advocated for by a guardian, so the ability of a being to present a case is not an issue.
   The second part of Jonas's post reveals the real reason that non-humans don't have rights in most human societies: most humans, like Jonas, are anthropocentric and don't care much or at all about other forms of life, except as they're needed for humans.  Jonas's and Mac's hostility toward other forms of life is the extreme end of the spectrum, but even those who don't harbor such hostility still think that humans are better and more important than other forms of life.
   BTW, good point Russ.

   Permalink

4. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 10:34 am
   03 Sep 2008

   One and the same...See Slavoj Zizek: nature has no rights, because it doesn't care about us.
   Most humans don't care for each other either.
   So, why should we have rights?
   The only reason why we should respect nature, is for our own survival. Not because of the survival of nature.
   The two are one and the same.  Nature's survival and our own are linked.  Therefore, the existence of both should be respected.
   Besides that, respecting nature just on the basis of our own survival hasn't worked very well so far.
   We end up trying to control Nature's existence to meet our own needs and improve what we percieve as our chances of survival by "improving" our lifestyle.
   But we inevitably alter it to such a great a extent that it ceases to become Nature at all.  Thus, we end up destroying that which supports us and replacing it with an inadequate substitute...ourselves.
   And as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, humankind cannot support itself alone, and we cannot control or take the place of Nature, no matter how well planned or ambitious our goals are.
   Therefore, Nature has the right to exist in its own form.
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   Cacaoatl Posted 11:36 am
   03 Sep 2008

   Humans Are A Part of Nature Not Apart From NatureHuman beings need to stop acting as if they are not part of the natural world. Humans, like every other life form on this planet evolved as a part of the natural world. Just because our big brains and our opposable thumbs allow us to shape our environment doesn't give us the right to shape the environment to the detriment of other living creatures. We need to learn to live in tune with with nature and the natural forces that have shaped us for 2 million years otherwise our anthrocentric society is doomed to self destruct from global warming, water pollution, garbage, and ecosystem collapse.

   Permalink

6. 

   guade00 Posted 1:36 pm
   03 Sep 2008

   The language is getting a little fuzzy here.Why not rights for nature? This is an old topic, spoken about by Aldo Leopold in his Land Ethic. And Christopher Stone offered an engaging and robust argument for just such a concept in "Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects." 45 Southern Cal. Law Review 450 (1972).
   The notion of legal rights isn't linked to whether one is conscious or not, that much is clear; in the legal sense, rights are bound up with correlative duties. That is to say, if nature were to have rights, we humans, presumably, would have a duty to respect those rights and the rights likely would be enforced by some agency of the state.
   Creating the legal fiction is only an act of legislation away from being a reality. The Ecuadorian constitution, though, seems problematic. The rights are listed in expansive terms, but the precise duties--and who owes them--are not defined. But I like it anyway.

   Permalink

7. 

   mtvyfan Posted 5:40 am
   04 Sep 2008

   I love this ideaI think that having nature have rights in their constitution will help them preserve their resources from greedy, well, greedy Americans, of course.

   Permalink

8. 

   mreinbold Posted 8:07 am
   04 Sep 2008

   The environment has rights?And who will determine those rights? You expect to be taken seriously? You people are really losing it. But, of course, a fetus has no rights. I am speechless!

   Permalink

9. 

   Erik Hoffner Posted 12:57 am
   05 Sep 2008

   rightsThat's right, mreinbold, a woman has rights, a fetus does not.
   According rights to a river or whatnot is not as harebrained as you think, and would not require a seance. But it would likely lead to more articulate defense of natural ecosystems and therefore healthier people, women, and yeah, babies.
   Erik

   Permalink

10. 

    mreinbold Posted 1:40 am
    05 Sep 2008

    ErikYou people have really lost it.

    Permalink

11. 

    Wolverine Posted 5:31 am
    05 Sep 2008

    "[W]ho will determine those rights?"The same people who determine rights for legally incompetent people.  They're called lawmakers, guardians, executors, etc.
    But we know what the ideologies and world views of people like mreinbold are, and that's the barrier.  These people do not want non-humans to have rights, so they make up excuses why they can't.

    Permalink

12. 

    mreinbold Posted 7:24 am
    05 Sep 2008

    What about "non-humans"like fetuses? Why don't they qualify. You people are really scary!

    Permalink

13. 

    mreinbold Posted 7:28 am
    05 Sep 2008

    I am a geologistCould I help determine the rights of rocks?

    Permalink

14. 

    Fenrir Posted 11:17 pm
    08 Sep 2008

    At lastWe can see the difference between conservatives and reasonable people! Granting rights is not limited to representing yourself in court or speaking or taking place in rights forums.
    
    Thing is, conservatives want to leave nature, animals and people with different capacities out of legal protection so they won't feel bad about ignoring them.
    
    ... AND surely we do not take care of the environment JUST for our sake, that is the most egocentric argument ever and quite clueless by the way. Animals and nature deserve rights and we are to observe and learn how to protect and respect them in our social structures, it's quite simple and obvious.
    Please read Martha Nussbaum "The Frontiers of Justice".

    Permalink