From the National Post April 12 '11: www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Human+rights+proposed+birds+bees+trees/4598924/story.html Hmm? I shall have to have a talk with my Holly Tree (Ilex aquifolia) & persuade it not to have several hundred children every year.
Well, if it at all accords with the essential requirement of a legitimate rights regime-that it be intertwined with consequent responsibilities-you should be able to sue the Holly for infringement. Ilex v. Lysichiton. Failure to recognize this would simply entitle trees; the result a holly legallly entitled to spread...
OK. Sound like you might be the guy to represent me. Lysichiton americanum would like to make a claim that Ilex aquifolium et al. are infringing my rights as a forb, by indulging in profligate, excessive & irresponsible reproduction both sexual & possibly asexual. The rights of mine they are infringing uopn are the right to peacefully & spaciously occupy my traditional ecological niche, stealing nutrients that are my right as a first-comer & creating year round shade, rather than the deciduous, seasonal kind, which ihinders my growth. 2 questions: What would bwe the court of competent jurisdiction? Will you accept payment in highly aromatic chemicals that I synthesis routinely?
Unfortunately, I'm on permanent retainer with Phyllostachys, Fargesia & Sasa Unlimited, and as you can imagine, they keep me pretty busy. Re: court of jurisdiction....UN resolution, so I'd try the Hague. Good news is that UN support should qualify you for humanitarian assistance; so at the very least, you'll score a white Landcruiser. Bad news is the Dutch are renowned plant hybridizers, and might look unfavourably on your natural showiness. Makes centuries of floriculture look bad. You say "highly aromatic". With due respect to the human rights that are now inherent to you as a Skunk Cabbage, I say "stinky".
"Stinky"? Some beetles find me warm, moist & irresistible! Phyllostachys??? I despise those oversize, puddle-jumping chopsticks! You're no help. My spadix will wither & I shall turn vegetative & sulk.
It seems to me that the broader conceptual intent of the initiative is being trivialized, instead of being argued against on its merits/language/philosophy/scientific basis or lack thereof.
Wording similar to this also appears in Ecuador's constitution - Pachamama is recognized as an entity with full rights the same way that people of all tribes and nations are. Applying this seems to be the stumbling block, since the power of the multinational corporations is often greater than that of the Ministry of the Environment (who are responisble for Pachamama's rights in Ecuador). Interesting concept, though. I hope that they can work the wording around and get it passed.
Sorry, Daniel. You are quite correct. I was sidetracked by the silliness of the headline. The actual proposal is quite wonderful. Take it away...
Well, I'll differ. Satire aside, if you read the content of the thread, you'll find a summary critique of the concept. As per my first comment, the core of any rights regime is agency: to be included in a moral (ie. rights) framework, an entity must be capable of acting as a moral agent, which is to say, the entity is entitled to rights, but must also be capable of conceiving of and respecting the rights of other beings withing the framework. Doesn't the very suggestion that non-human things should have human rights (note: not tree rights, not slug rights...human rights) render it absurd from the start? A core part of existing human rights legislation involves respect for differences in religion. I'd suggest that since antiquity, the notion of "mother earth" is particularily religious....after all, numerous cultures through history have conceived of a patriarchal cosmos, a combination of mother and father, or a genderless view. One cannot encode subjective definitions into universal legislation. To do so is a de facto violation of human rights at the start. And within these frameworks, the extension of rights involves intent. It is not at all absurd or silly to suggest that in such a regime, plants can be sued for infringement. There is historic parallel...at one time, in English courts if memory serves..mideaval period I think...people sued birds, pigs, etc. on account of a lack of clarity in legal definitions. How can we be sure, in any case, that the rights extended are the right ones? Without proper consent, from this perspective the exotic plants that grow at the UBC botanical garden are prisoners; how did you gain the right to harvest their seed, take their cuttings? Was consent sought from the plant, and how do you know this? The removal of invasive species infringes on a plant's right to life. Salad is murder. It cannot be otherwise, if we are serious about extending human rights to the non-human. Recall that the indigenous perspective that this motion seeks to impose globally is one in which plants converse; in which animals consent to be killed after extended supernatural discourse. From this perspective, one can negotiate with the non-human and get consent. Does this strike you as a sensible way for UBC to proceed from now on? Ritual communion with plant spirits prior to accession? Such apparently silly questions--not silly to those who hold them as a matter of culture, but silly when transposed onto a western view-- become entirely valid in relation to such a model. It works well enough for indigenous peoples: but this is a very particular perspective, and human rights are inherently about avoiding the particular, and only recognizing the base universal interests to which we all aspire. The thing about rights regimes is this: the 'broader conceptual intent' might be nice, but rights are pratical matters, and constitute the grounds for litigation and sanction. It's far more than wording: it's an issue of world view, and the very stuff by which societies and economies rise or fall. This isn't simply a declaration, remember: it's an attempt to legally encode an entirely novel, and according to philosophers, highly problematic, moral framework. After all, viruses are also a part of "mother earth"; is vaccination infringement? The only possible avenue would be to take a utilitarian approach, but this itself is troubling: from such a perspective, the life of a retarded child is less worthy than that of a healthy pig...Again, this ground is well trod in moral philosophy. None of this presumes the broader intent is not noble. But this could be achieved through other motions. The direct push for 'rights' is the issue, and I won't be the only one to highlight the absurdities in it. You'll find extensive literature on the topic, some of it centuries old, saying pretty much what I'm saying here, albeit much better. It leads to some very troubling conclusions. Geez...that was way less fun to write. Happy to let it go now.
Had I been asked what I meant by broader conceptual intent, I would have said: "conservation of species and care for the life-sustaining systems of the planet", so I suppose that's where the miscommunication is. I don't think efforts to conserve and sustain should be trivialized, even if I may not agree with the approach / scientific basis / philosophical or moral underpinnings, etc. The "hows and whys" of any approach should be critiqued (sometimes savagely) in order to find the best approach that works, or, as you said:
Daniel you said "I don't think efforts to conserve and sustain should be trivialized". My intent was the exact opposite, although my comments were silly & satirical. I do strongly believe that the "Western Capitalist" model of economies & societies is inherently unsustainable & inimical to a huge range of other species, including Lysichiton americanum. Anthropomorphization (pretending that other things have human attributes) & value-judgement of organisms is a large part of the problem, not the solution IMO. Think Beatrix Potter, Disney & Kipling. These other life forms in reality have an existence & attributes very alien to modern Western mankind. Unless this attitude is part of a coherent & integrated world-view, the results are consistently awful (IMO). Buddhist beliefs & those of many of the indigenous peoples of the Americas can handle these values & inter-relationships between man & other species better, but seem destined to die-out in competition with aforementioned "Western" system. Also the indigenous cultures historically existed with low population limits imposed by factors that are not acceptable today (famine, disease, drought, a generally short life span in societies with some darn tough beliefs & moral codes) I am not concerned for the Earth in the long run, but I believe that mankind's tenure is going to be very brief. Lysichiton will scent the air of post human forests & get nibbled by some herbivorous animal long after our "civilization" is compost & mineral soil components. Just think about the "Rule of 72" in relation to GDP. human population & resource extraction....go on! I know it's hard to play the tape through, but I am glad I have done it. woodschmoe....you are impressive in your erudition. Let 'er rip again. I loved it, it might not be fun to write, but it was thought provoking to read.
It sounds like a waste of time. A lot of people in a lot of places are already attempting to protect forests, soils and species anyway. Even if they wanted to issue rights, humans don't fully understand earth anyway: where it came from, where it could evolve to, etc.. They basically have the cart before the horse. Take this one comment for example: QUOTE ""We're not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow," he said. "But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you [cause to] disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits." So what are the "limits"? It means that Mother Earth will not tell us, but boards, commissions and governments will start imposing their opinion and will. So in the long run, its more a matter of governing rights rather than the planet's rights. Which leaves us with the present system which can always be fine-tuned, and seems to work okay. Also, earth, or the universe, has extinguished species anyway. If it can do it, why can't we do it? I'm not advocating that we do extinguishing species, but just pointing out how this idea can't be defined.
It renders absurd the author's of the article in the National Post interpretation (already mirrored all over the Internet, no wonder), not the original concept. That interpretation is indeed absurd and not worthy of any serious discussion. In the original idea there is nothing about giving the Earth as a whole or any other sentient beings "human rights". Earth is much more than just one human being, it is a sum total of all human beings, and much, much more. It would be ridiculous to "give" it "human rights". The proposed rights for nature include: "the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered." It's high time to accept those rights, or may be we should call them our responsibilities re. the planet (and, implicitly, re. all the creation it nourishes, ourselves including) we live on. I am a part of IT, too, and am waiting impatiently for those rights to be accepted and respected. I want to live, drink pure water, breathe clean air. I don't need genetically modified, polluted world negatively affecting my health and the health of the people I care for. And I want the same for my children and grandchildren. The Earth rights are my own most important, basic rights, the rights I don't have yet but am waiting for.
Aside from environmental analysis? Parks? Laws to protect endangered species? Activist groups? 100 other things can be listed. Back to my earlier reply ... any definition or status given to some theoretical mother earth, would seem to be built on the foundation of all that other stuff that several countries already have in motion. So that's why assigned rights not not really do a whole lot more than just provide a statement on paper. The definition and value of the rights basically can't exceed any standards that exist. Because if the right must be defined, and the right is subjective.
