Rights of Nature?

Rights for nature?Does anyone really think nature cares?We cannot rape nature, we can only use the stuff.We can use the stuff in a way to sustain our species or we can use the stuff in a way that will eventualy make us extinct. Ol' Mother Nature could care less.What ever poisons we produce, whatever noxious putrid remains we leave behind will become food for something which will be fed upon by something else and nature will just ... go on.The only real "rights" nature has is the right to outlast us and the right to not give a fuck once we're gone both of which will be exercised in due time.

OK you said it nicer than I did. We'll go with yours.

Mother Nature responds on humans proposing Nature's Rights: Gaia Speaks

Before humans came along with our penchant to create pointy sticks, chariot wheels and rights, was there something there for Dino? If so who was around to feel any kind of infringement? How were those rights defined and defended?Rights didn't exist until we came along to make them and everyone's definition and appointment of rights differs around the world and throughout history. Isn't this about as subjective and arbitrary as things get (by my subjective and arbitrary definition of "subjective and arbitrary" that is)?Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits.

You mean like listing a house, building or church in the National Historical Registry? It cannot be altered, not even painted, without the approval of some committee.I wouldn't say the house has a "right" to preservation and protection. I would say the owners have lost a right. The right to tear it down.But we capricious humans are liable to personify any thing or concept, so, yes, "society can decide to accord moral worth/consideration to things which are non-human and then make laws on that basis." We do it all the time.

Then why engage in a protracted symantical quibble? What is to be gained by this?

So what is wrong with any of these subjects? Are you saying they are somehow wrong?The Chicken is right, you know. A cliff is damn dangerous when gravity is around. And thank god. You ever see a cliff with no gravity? Just sits there all wimpy and limp. No challange whatsoever. To get to the top all you have to do is push off slightly with your toes and you just hover oh so gently rising up to the top. How dull and boring.And I suppose you're going to find some way to say ringo is wrong? When something is legal then there are no other options, are there. It's legal. Period. And when it isn't then it's not. You deny this? Where's your head?And in god's name what is wrong with a weed-free garden? That is the goal of every gardener. My garden is weed free, or would be if I had a garden ... and it had no weeds in it.So stop with the negative waves already. They've got a good thread going here. It's just oddball enough to serve as a most excellent counterpoint to that seriously heated thread over there with the other red line on it.---------------------------------I needed that. Thanks, dronester.Edited by AZPaul3, : catharsis