Rights of Nature?

Agreed with this fully! I would definitely agree with some sort of Rights of Nature. Although I do believe that we should utilize the products of nature, we should do everything in our power to do so in a sustainable way. A great example of this is the way we work with the Forest in some regions. By choosing which trees to cut and when, we have actually managed to benefit the ecosystem by allowing for better growth in the remaining trees. Selection CuttingI do agree that one could worship a God through worshipping his handiwork, so I am not sure why Phat would think differently, he will have to explain that.However, you are absolutely right on the wonder and awe that we are filled with upon the sight of something beautiful in nature! I spend a lot of time up in the Ponderosa Pine forests of Northern AZ and I feel a calm sense of peace everytime I am there. There is definitely a spiritual quality to the entire experience. I remember going to Yellowstone when I was a kid and seeing all the diversity of life, the amazing expanses of trees; it was simply awe-inspiring. Enough so, that I still remember all the details of that trip twenty years later!Another thing to consider is that this awe, or spiritual feeling isn't only coming from being in nature. If you listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson discuss viewing the Cosmos, you can tell that for him that is a spiritual experience. Nature provides us many things to look upon in wonder and awe, we just need to take the time to do so.But, to end this on topic...Yes, I would vote for Nature's Rights to a certain extent.

I think what is being discussed is that all the rights, even those that we have as humans, are simply made up rights. We have decided that not murdering one another is a good thing and from this comes our idea of a right to life. If you look at us in nature, we are woefully at risk of death from many different things, it does not look like nature gives us the right to life, rather that we decided it was important.I think looking at Jar's example of the opening to the Declaration of Independence has some merit to it and really shows this point and shows that these ideas of "Rights" are constantly evolving. Originally, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was only intended to be rights for white males who owned property. Well, we realized that it was unfair for only these people to have rights and so it was extended to black men (albeit unevenly) around the late 1860's-1870. Later, we felt that this needed to be extended toward women as well, but it is still an arbitrary decision on who we feel deserves "Rights"Recently, we have begun to recognize the sentience in many animals. This led to the thought that perhaps they deserved some of the "Rights" we make up for ourselves, such as not torturing great apes, attempting to avoid dolphin bycatch, and the releasing of most chimpanzees used for scientific research.However, the new idea is that these "Rights" should be extended for all of nature. And I would tend to agree that we should not treat nature as wastefully as our ancestors did. The problem is that as humans, we are required to use nature! It is from nature that we are able to create all of the amazing tools that have made us the most brilliant tool makers in Earth's history and allowed us to thrive throughout the world.The point is that as cognitive thinkers, we must search for ways to help nature, while continuing to utilize what we can for our benefit. Giving nature full "Rights" would be a death nail for our species, as is continuing to take whatever we want without regard for the future. Finding the balance between that which can be sustained, that which must be used, and that which should be left in peace is the important step. Stating with a blanket response that all of nature has "Rights" does nothing to explain what the rights are, how we can still thrive, and what we can use to replace that which must be given up...

See, I see this as simply a semantics argument. Sure, we could word it this way. Likewise, we can also say that until we think of something, we do not assign a right based on it. We have a right to property in the United States, but even that can be taken away, with the idea of eminent domain. It is the loopholes in "Rights" and how we apply them with such different pressures that makes me think that they are far more arbitrary than simply discovered rights. If it was inherent and we recognized it, then there should be no issue with it remaining that way unimpeded at all times. However, we see that our "Rights" can be adjusted based upon the needs of the many. That can never be done!

Dronester, you are missing what everyone is saying completely. It's not that it SHOULD be arbitrary, but rather that it IS arbitrary. This is why the rules on who has "Rights" changes as the society around these "Rights" grows, learns and realizes the errors in some of its thinking. Also, when you think about nature, you must remember the multitude of ways that it would like (Obviously personifying nature here) to make our entire species go extinct. It is the way of things and most species have been wiped out, so it seems the right to life for us is not important to nature.We make up the rules, and they tend to follow whatever society is creating these rules. Should Blacks, Natives, and women have gotten Rights when America was founded? Yes. Was that likely to happen in the society where the Declaration of Independence was signed? No. and Thomas Jefferson even said that it was a battle for future generations to fight because those who tried in those meetings had failed.Should we create laws that protect nature? Yes, but not at detriment to our own societies. We must find balance.Oh, and jar was saying he would not suuport a law that gave gorillas the "Right" not to be tortured. This does not mean he would not support a law that says, "Humans, do not torture Gorillas." It's the term "Rights" that is at issue. We determine the rights, there is nothing innate in it.Look at it this way, if only three species were left, humans, chimps, and gorillas...would we still see the same right to life of these two other species or would or decisions have to change with a need for protein in our diet?

Sadly, yes that could be the way it would divide up...survival would become the necessity. Now, are you saying there are only three races, but all the rest of the species still exist? Or that only these three races of humans remain on the entire planet?In scenario one, nothing would be required to change, we could still get our dietary proteins from other species. So, the three races could remain working together.In scenario two, it could end up as races against one another for survival and food, or it could end up separated not by race, but by geographical location or some other arbitrary standard. If the only source of protein was other humans, I think historically we have already shown that they are willing to kill and eat human in those situations where its death or that.

But, is there an inherent right to exist? I am pretty sure that most sperm and egg cells do not go forth to produce a life form, then you have the amount of pregnancies that end before completion. Add in the fact that no one thing is guaranteed to exist for even more than one second and I cannot see how this Right to Exist is inherent. I would say that because a bulk of the "equipment" used in reproduction is waste, there is an inherent right to not exist, since after all most things won't.Also, none of us exist unimpeded...we are impeded by sexual urges, hunger, desires and greed, thirst, and many more items that our brains and bodies demand of us. Our own mind impedes us at times.Also, there is no inherent danger in standing on a cliff, unless one is not careful (Then you get acted upon quickly by gravity). There is an inherent danger in falling, but the cliff has nothing to do with that, it is gravity and the lack of a cliff being there anymore.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

That was my fault, you did say inherent right to exist unimpeded. However, as I have stated, none of us is able to exercise this right as we are all impeded, whether by natural disasters, monetary concerns, troubled minds (i.e. - depression, schizophrenia, etc.), Natural requirements (Food, water, shelter), and many other things. But, that bolded part is the point. It is not many of us that live impeded, but all of us just by the process of living. Every living thing is impeded. Are plants impeded when there is a natural drought? Are small mammals impeded when a new predator they did not evolve to escape moves into the area? The point is, what good is an inherent right, if it applies to something that is not even possible. You can say we have this, but that no animal can hope to achieve it...or we can deal with what we can achieve, finding ways to lessen our impact on nature through our arbitrarily created "Rights", while still attempting to use nature to create the tools we must use as tool using animals. (lots of the word use in that sentence. Lol) But the danger is not the cliff edge. Put me in a spacesuit on a planet with very little gravity and the fall would be completely different, yet it is still a cliff. It may be arguing from a position of the unlikely, but it means that the cliff edge itself has no inherent danger without the presence of gravity. I could agree that there is an inherent danger to gravity, but the cliff edge without it is just a beautiful place to look out from. Agreed that this is the case. However, reduce the mass, such as the situation above, and you reduce the risk. And since mass is determined by the gravitational pull on an object, reduce the gravity, reduce the risk. Again, this is why I state the real danger in the cliff is gravity's existence.Also, as far as your other point about inherent right to exist unimpeded, I really would like to know what the point is of an unattainable right, unless you can point me to some examples of someone living completed unimpeded. After all, even Siddartha, The Buddha, had to eat one rice grain a day according to the legends, so his hunger still found a way to impede him from his desire of giving up everything during his time as an aesthetic.

Except for the fact that that is not at all what I said, well done!What I stated was that the inherent danger is not because of the presence of the cliff, but rather the presence of gravity. I agreed there is an inherent danger to gravity, as seen by falling objects, meteorite impacts, and a human falling to his or her death. But the cliff in and of itself is impartial and unimportant to this because without the gravitational effect, there would be no way to fall and receive injury. Or, if the effect was lessened, one could fall from a much higher cliff without injury than one could on Earth. While the moon has no air resistance, you could still fall off a cliff almost 6 times as high as you could on Earth, I have jumped and landed on my feet from a ten foot roof, so technically, I could jump off a 55-60 foot cliff on the moon and stick the landing....the danger is not inherent in a cliff.But, you knew when you posted this that you were only quote mining the first portion of that entire explanation. Quote my entire thought or don't waste your time debating against arguments that were not even made.

No, I did not write several strained paragraphs describing. I attributed the cause of falling to the actual cause of falling and even was willing to concede an inherent danger from that force.Inherent - 1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".While you can fall from cliffs, with less or no gravity the danger of cliffs is no longer present, so it is not a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute, except when in the gavitational conditions necessary to make it dangerous, such as Earth. The inherent danger is characterized in the force of gravity, not the cliff. What about a parachute, couldn't that save me from this guaranteed danger? I believe I have seen something called base jumping.I will give you that there is an inherent danger to gravity, but not to the cliff edge because it is dependent upon gravity to be dangerous.

I have to agree with jar, we are not the only tool makers on this planet. An argument can definitely be made that we are the most efficient tool makers in history, although whether or not our efficiency is a beneficial thing to nature is not quite decided at this point.If we can find a way to bring sustainability, such as is done with forest service work in the United States through selective cutting, into our tool making processes then nature will definitely see the benefits of these practices.And of course Beavers, ants, the other great apes, and many other animals create tools. I think one of the most interesting uses of the environment to benefit a species is the use of sand kicking as a corral by dolphins. Although, many would say that this is not a tool, I feel that it is because it is separate from the self and being used with intent. There used to be Youtube clips of this from Discovery's Planet Earth Series, but it appears the BBC has removed them from Youtube. Perhaps you can find them.I am amazed that you would think we are the only tool users in history, especially considering the number of tools that chimpanzees have been seen using, including sticks fashioned into spears: Chimps use tools to hunt mammalsIt is blantantly obvious to anyone who pays attention that tool use is something that many animals use and is not a uniquely human trait.

Yes, although I apologize for that video not specifying how the spears were made. I found an article that does explain that the process is more than just breaking off a stick. Rather, the chimpanzees break off the stick and then use their teeth to fashion one end into a point. Chimps use "Spears" to Hunt MammalsSo, this displays not only the concept of the understanding how to use something, but it also shows that they modify the item to make it more efficient at the task required. If there is any better example of creating a tool, I cannot think of it.I also agree with Rahvin that you are making a distinction that is unwarranted. The ability to make tools is separate from the intelligence and ability to find and use them. And as humans we have simply continued to build upon previous technology. I will always agree that we are the most advanced tool users this planet has seen. However, this does not mean that the chimpanzees won't learn ways to make their spears more advanced or that dolphins will not take the idea of the dirt net and the nets they see us use and find something in the ocean that could act as a net in open water. The ideas are there and they definitely show the intelligence necessary to make tools because the ideas show imagination...now, these animals just need to find ways to improve on the idea that works.However, to your original question....Yes, I have.