|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rights of Nature? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
quote: As a nature/earth lover, I was happy to hear that some countries have adopted the 'rights of nature' to their laws (see links below). Now I imagine many 'people' would be against ANY 'liberal' impediment to cannibalize or profit the raping of the earth or exploiting/oppressing native peoples. They would cry 'it would be bad for the economy,' all the while they attend their dying children in the hospital from poisonous strip mining runoffs or escaping toxic gruel from fracking. I would bet the good ol' usa (a place where the necessary pursuits of maximum profits over ANYthing else is paramount or where the legality of corporate citizenship is considered sacrosanct) would be the last place such laws protecting the environment would be installed. As a matter of fact, I might bet Herr Obama, ever champion of the 1%ers, is working on criminalizing and make it treasonous for even suggesting to organize 'nature laws.' But could these Nature Rights laws be a last chance solution before the earth is permanently and irreparably trashed? Or will the voices against global warming and fracking continue to scream loudly in vain, well after we left the cliff and hit the bottom in our final doom? As I witnessed too many times, often from THIS website, most people will cling to their harmful idealisms no matter how destructive to their own best interests, . . . till death. Besides the probable negative impact on the super-wealthy, is there any other negative effects from instituting 'nature rights' that I might be unaware?
quote: quote: quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
If it was merely a binary choice, I would think worshiping nature would be better than attacking nature.
But in your case, wouldn't worshiping nature, a product of god's handiwork, just be praising god's goodness? I am visiting Yosemite this year. Although I am not at all religious, in natural places of particular beauty, even I become 'spiritual.' If there was a god, I think he would be pleased by that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Ponderosa Pine forests of Northern AZ: Never heard of it. I did a quick google, and in words Phat might use, it looks, . . . heavenly. There are so many great places to visit in the western usa, thanks for another possibility. Maybe in the future, I should create another thread for western usa travel ideas.
tempe writes: Yes, I would vote for Nature's Rights to a certain extent. If your concern of the law that it includes sustainable harvesting, I could agree. If you are a musical instrument player, many ethical companies pledge using sustainable hardwoods. E.g., Taylor guitars.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
RingO writes: I believe in exploiting nature to the fullest. Of course, that means in a sustainable way Well, I haven't seen anybody in this thread argue against a sustainable system, . . . yet. (The spirit of my thread IS against strip mining, fracking, oil production, etc.. There are no sustainable systems with these items, agreed?)
RingO writes: Ultimately, it would only motivate us to find clever new ways to exploit those "rights" while convincing ourselves that we weren't. Ahhh, . . . but with nature's new rights, wouldn't it also find clever new ways to exploit her right's while convincing itself that it weren't? Unless you have a better solution, you are sounding like a defeatist. So, . . . what have you got?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
I was surprised to receive so many hostile remarks against 'mother nature' . . .
But, I don't think anybody read my links. Giving rights to nature isn't so much about protecting nature, it is about protecting society from companies that poison our environment. With these legal tools in place we can prevent/reduce toxic dumping that corporations feel entitled to do in YOUR backyard. This is bad, does anybody want this in your backyard . . . Garbage Scavengers of the world.
Dumped in Africa: Britain’s toxic wasteChildren exposed to poisonous material in defiance of UK law Dumped in Africa: Britain’s toxic waste | The Independent | The Independent Please reconsider your stance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
What do any of those pictures have to do with Nature having any rights?
It would help if you read my links in the opening post.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
RingO writes: Then why not skip the silly rhetoric and talk about society's rights? Ringo, the part of society's rights was fully illustrated in my opening post's links. While I suppose my opening post could have been clearer about this, the reader is also partly responsible for reading the entire post. BTW, one of the reasons I post in the forum is to practice my writing. I think my style is often not as clear as it can be, so any constructive criticisms is welcomed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Tang writes: And most importantly, the sea gulls neither know nor care and will shit on my car regardless. But what about creatures with more sentience? Sure, sure, we probably unanimously think lowly creatures such as wasps, guinea worms, or politicians should not have any protective rights. But what about: Dogs? Dolphins? Primates? For them, how would you know it is necessarily a made-up right?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Tang writes:
We grant rights but they do seem at tad arbitrary.Drone writes:
For them, how would you know it is necessarily a made-up right?Tang writes: Because we made up the arbitrary rules. How else? Hi Tangle, I think I am late to the party and beating a dead horse with this post because it seems Oni and Straggler have effectively covered this already, but let me try in my own words . . . 2000 years ago, the idea of innate rights for anyone but royalty was probably seen as ridiculous. Then about 200 years ago in america, leaders proclaimed rights for 'common' individuals (but not black people, nor native americans, nor women). Fast forward 200 years, it seems there are now inalienable rights to ALL citizens (in theory). But in India, there is still a caste system that has much inequality. Maybe in 200 years Indians will see that all people have innate rights too. But right now, for Indians it seems rights SHOULD BE given arbitrarily. Does this seem fair/correct/ethical? Now, do you still feel, like the Indians, that any rights for Indian's lower-class, (like recent history's black people, native americans, and women) . . . be simply 'made up,' or be "arbitrary"? If you were one of these groups, would you feel it a kick in the head to know that any rights you have now is based on arbitrary, made-up decisions? Sooo, if we could do a little extrapolating from history, and apply it to the future, why would giving added rights to sentient animals be necessarily arbitrary? I don't think it too unimaginable that someday, like history's slow march to civilized behavior, minimal rights would be afforded to most living things. And, as a bonus, by piggybacking these new found rights to nature, we can also give extra legal tools to combat corporations that hope to poison your child.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Jar writes: I am not in favor of a law that says gorillas have the right not to be tortured. Sheesh, and they say gorillas are the ferocious beasts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Jar writes: It's the added bullshit like "... corporations that hope to poison your child" that keep folk from ever taking you or your position seriously. You don't necessarily have to visit a third world country to see just how far corporations would poison an environment for profit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Tang writes: You've confirmed your own point - people make up the rules that suit them and they change over time. SHOULD granting rights to blacks, women, and native americans be arbitrary? If not why?
Tang writes: That's one hell of a non sequitur If you didn't read my OP, you may erroneously think it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Jar writes: Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary. You publicly stated that giving rights to blacks, women, and native americans SHOULD be arbitrary??? I guess I have nothing more to add. Ummm, . . . kudos Jar, . . . well done.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Tang writes: No, everyone SHOULD have he same rights. But they don't and the reason they don't is because some people don't agree with me and I can't make them. Okaaay. So what would be some of the reasons for their disagreemnet with you? Why would some people (cough, cough, Jar), believe that rights SHOULD be arbitrarily given to blacks, women, and native americans?
Tang writes: Opinions on morality depend on your own position in society and the times and the country you live in. Hmmm, are these good reasons? Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Tempe writes: Dronester, you are missing what everyone is saying completely. It's not that it SHOULD be arbitrary, but rather that it IS arbitrary. How am I misunderstanding the following? . . .
Jar writes: Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary. Tempe writes: We make up the rules, and they tend to follow whatever society is creating these rules. Do we really need to "make up" rules/laws for certian ideas, like murder or rape? Really?
Tempe writes: We determine the rights, there is nothing innate in it. That is where we are disagreeing.
Tempe writes: 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 our decisions have to change with a need for protein in our diet? What happens if I trade species with race? Can this argument be credibly seen in parallel?:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024