Rights of Nature?

I don't believe in personifiying nature in either direction. I believe in exploiting nature to the fullest. Of course, that means in a sustainable way, so that future generations can continue to exploit it in a sustainable way (what Phat might understand as "good stewardship).Recognising the "rights of nature" would put its needs in competition with our own needs. Ultimately, it would only motivate us to find clever new ways to exploit those "rights" while convincing ourselves that we weren't.

Correct. The battle is already lost. At best, we can hope to salvage something from the defeat.All I can suggest is blood, sweat, toil and tears. Granting "rights" to nature is certainly not a solution.

Then why not skip the silly rhetoric and talk about society's rights?

You'd have to have different bounds for gorillas and guinea worms, wouldn't you?

Sure, and for millions of species, we can set millions of different standards - or we can categorize. I personally like to categorize by the number of legs. Two-legged species get the most rights. Four-legged species are for eating - but we treat them well until we eat them. Six-legged species are on shaky ground, rights-wise and any species with more than six legs is just begging to be killed on sight. Of course, legless creatures such as fish (eat) and snakes (kill) have to be shoehorned in arbitrarily.But you're not really on topic, are you? The question isn't whether "should" we "give" "rights" to "nature". It's how we can treat nature in a way that's most convenient for us.

I don't recognize that nature has inherent rights to live unimpeded. The lion impedes on the zebra and th zebra impedes on the grass. We have a responsibility not to impede on either one too much. But are we responsible to "nature" or to our own offspring? Yes. We recognize rights when it's convenient. I recognize your right not to be punched in the face and in return you recognize mine. The social contract is full of such arbitrary reciprocal granting of "rights".We also pontificate about rights such as equality when we don't mean it. And my socks have a degree in Art History.

Anything that's edible automatically loses some rights.

Well, that hasn't happened yet.... First, we recognized their right not to be bought and sold like a hammer. Then we recognized their right not to be lynched for looking at white girls. Then we recognized their right to use the same drinking fountains. Some of those great leaps forward were made because it was more convenient than putting up with boycotts, etc. If we had just issued a blanket recognition of their right to equality, based on principle, we could have done it in one step (and gotten further than we are now). So we, the people, just woke up one morning and said to ourselves, "Hey, the rights of black people are being infringed on. Well, we can't have that any more."I don't think so. That realization comes one person at a time for individual reasons. One person grows up with the maid's kid as his best friend and he says to himself, "This guy should be able to sit beside me on the bus." Another person's maid doesn't show up for work and she says to herself, "We have to change the rules on buses so I don't have to do my own housework." And another person in an ivory tower says to himself, "We have to treat black people equally because it's the right thing to do."There are probably more ebony maids than ivory towers.

Of course we do. It isn't murder if the victim is wearing a different uniform. It isn't muder if he's about to kill a child. Are you really suggesting that all homicides should be treated the same? Really?

No problem. If she said, "Yes," it isn't rape. If she changes her mind and doesn't testify against hm, it isn't rape.Now will you withdraw your silly question?

Nonsense. Your own definition says, "the unlawful compelling...." When it's lawful it's lawful and when it's unlawful it's unlawful. When it's compelling it's rape and when it's not compelling it's not rape. The victim can change her mind about whether or not she was compelled and about whether or not she's a victim. It's all relative.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

If you say to George, "I'll meet you at noon," and he doesn't show up until three, you tend to conclude that he came at his own convenience instead of the prescribed time. If people "deserve" certain rights but they aren't granted untill a century later, that suggests that the convenience of the granters had higher priority than the "need" of the grantees.How would the delay be explained except by convenience/inconvenience? I think not. You can't speak up until you have the right to speak up. First, some white people decided that black people "should" have rights - but nothing was actually done about it until it became convenient for a significant number of white people.

Let's put it another way then: You are given the "privilege", if you prefer, not to have your inherent rights infringed on.I can give you a piece of cake or I can give you the opportunty to eat the piece of cake you already have. Either way, you only get the cake that I let you have.

Not unlike flint knapping.(I find it ironic that we can sit here in front of our silicon marvels and still be impressed by flint knapping.)