Discuss: If Nature Had Rights

Right on brother!
But what about the animals?
Who will speak on their behalf?
The wolf, the whale, the salmon the quail
The pigs and the cows - don’t laugh!
Much of the land we cultivate
To feed the animals we eat
Could be restored to a natural state
If we could get by with less meat
(from EcoEpic & Other Poems)

Dear Ken Ingham,

Thanks for your comments.  People like you help all of us by remembering that someone has to protect biodiversity and the integrity of Earth.

Humanity has been warned repeatedly about the threat to humanity, to life as we know it, to the viability of recognizably frangible global ecosystems and to the integrity of Earth and its limited resources that could be posed to humankind by the unbridled growth of absolute global human population numbers. Because we want human beings to be fed and to have jobs so they can feed themselves and their families, the growth of human numbers has lead great thinkers and scientists to regularly remind the human community of the impacts of unregulated human propagation, unrestrained consumption and rampantly expanding production activities in our planetary home.

Every possible bias, rhetorical device and “spin” appears to have been employed to deny the mounting evidence of the potential for impending ecological calamities and economic disasters from the near exponential growth of human numbers worldwide. Recently, good scientific evidence of climate change, about the way the world works, has been systematically discredited; leading elders of the political economy have consciously conspired to mislead the public by misrepresenting the science and by turning climate science into a “political football” of sorts; ideological groups sponsored by super-rich, large-scale corporate ‘citizens’ have spread uncertainty and confusion in discussions about the nature of the biophysical world in which we live; and controversy has been manufactured where none would have otherwise existed.

The illusion of meaningful debate has been foisted upon the public by leaders who are evidently intent on “poisoning the well” of public discourse by knowingly and selfishly fostering disinformation campaigns for the purpose of enhancing their own financial interests........come what may for our children, coming generations, global biodiversity, the environment, and the Earth as a fit place for human habitation.

The elder guarantors of a good enough future for the children appear to be leading our kids down a “primrose path” along which the children could unexpectedly be confronted with sudden, potentially colossal threats to human and environmental health that appear to be derived from human-driven, converging global challenges such as pernicious impacts of global warming and climate change, pollution of the air, water and land from microscopic particulates and solid waste, and the reckless dissipation of scarce natural resources. All the while, these leading elders remain in denial of the fulminating ecological degradation by willfully declining to acknowledge, much less begin to address, humanity’s emerging, human-induced predicament. One day, perhaps sooner rather than later, our children could have extraordinary difficulties responding ably to that with which they could soon come face to face; that is to say, because their leaders have so adamantly refused to acknowlege God’s great gift of the good science of biological and physical reality, our kids will not even know what “hit” them, much less why it is happening.

Please note the concerns I am trying to communicate are expressed much better today by Cameron Smith at the following link.

http://www.thestar.com/Article/297574

As always, your thoughts are welcome. 

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001

As humans, we obviously depend on Nature for our survival. Nature has fed, sheltered, and provided for us since the beginning of our existence, and so far, that has worked out just peachy. However, as humans, we are naturally a greedy species. As we have become more and more established as a civilization, we have become less and less concerned with acknowledging the environmental teat from which we suckle. We are so concerned with our own personal gain and development that we seem to forget where our resources come from. We don’t care that the rainforests are being destroyed as long as we get our bottomless refills of paper for the copy machine. We don’t care that at least one animal species dies out every year as long as we can get our new trendy and expensive fur coat.  In the case of the tribesman, he did not take into account the well-being of the hyena’s life until it personally affected him. I think that it is a serious problem that we as people don’t take into effect the damages that we commit until we are directly affected. I believe that if it takes us being sued by a plant to realize that we need to take better care of our environment, then so be it. I don’t really think that paying someone else for environmental damages is going to make the environment any healthier. However, I think that treating Nature as if it had rights will make the world actually CARE about what is happening to our environment, while at the same time making people see that nature is more than “a conglomeration of objects that could be owned.” This way of thinking may lead to a healthier Nature in the future instead of the steadily increasing concept of a doomed one.

Humans have and always will exist with nature.  We are just a small piece of the puzzle.  Mankind could not survive without nature.  Nature provides us with food, water, shelter and many other things that humans must need in order to survive.  Although, man does tend to abuse nature and we are reminded of what nature can do to us such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters.  If man respects nature, nature will respect man.

Man’s relationship with nature is like marriage.  The relationship has to be a “give and take” relationship.  One cannot be dominate over the other.  For example, if man were to continually cut down trees and never replant them, eventually there would be no trees left to cut down.  So, to keep this from happening man must stand up and give a voice to nature.  It is important to have groups such as the Sierra Club to fight for the rights of nature.  If we did not have groups like this then nature would be left vulnerable.

There is a continuous cycle that helps keeps man and nature balanced.  Man is a highly developed and powerful species created by nature.  Sometimes that cycle is thrown off when man does not treat nature with respect which makes the balance between nature and man unstable.  Man will always depend on nature for their survival and nature will always depend on man for their survival and when man and nature have a mutual relationship, then the cycle is balanced.

Cullian makes a good point about having to respect nature. I agree that if we do not properly care for nature then one day we will indeed fail to “recognize the right of a river to flow.” However, appointing us as “guardians” seems not only extreme, but hypocritical. By doing this we would give ourselves power over nature and this is basically saying that we are better that nature. And this seems to somewhat contradict the point the Cullian is trying to make. How are we supposed to be equal to nature if we have this power over it?

Also, how is being able to sue someone for cutting down a tree beneficial to the tree? In the end, the tree won’t benefit at all, we will. We’re basically just using this tree for our own well being.

We as humans already benefit so much from nature, so much to a point where we couldn’t survive without it. What we need to do now is appreciate nature, not abuse it.

The comment made by Bill Chrisholm on Jan 02 reads, “It is further acknowledged as a self evident truth that humankind is part of Nature.  That Nature is made up of interconnected and interdependent systems and species, and that all species and ecological systems should be accorded respect.”
Agreed.  Whether we choose to recognize it or not, we are fully and completely a part of nature.  The image found in the print issue exemplifies this.  The eye in the picture is gazing across both water and air, to regard a wild tangled mass.  Although the eye appears to be apart from it, or perhaps sees itself as a separate entity, it is in truth deeply connected.  As a species, we are part of nature, interconnected with other systems and species.  For every action we take there is an opposite and equal reaction.  We have this power and it is crucial that we do not abuse it.  It is essential that we maintain unity between ourselves and our surroundings, according everything its proper respect.

The idea that a humans should be held legally responsible for the damages that they inflict upon nature is not an old concept. Be it for spilled materials, destruction of habitat or the killing of endangered species, humans are already being punished for the negative effects they have on nature. The problem is how far we take the issue.
Presented in the article is the opinion that we should act as protectors of nature, and those who say, cut down a tree, pay for the tree. Enforcing a rule such as this would not only tax the legal system due to extreme prevalence, but be incredibly hard to enforce. Also, if we were enforcing a rule effecting trees, how about the atmosphere, would all humans, companies and governments then have to pay for there CO2 emissions every year? If these are the criteria we are held to then every member of the human race is a criminal. Most countries would be bankrupt and the world economy completely destroyed if we all of a sudden had to pay for all the damages we have done over the years.
Humans, being a part of nature should respect it’s balance and attempt to maintain it, though not through legal any obligation, but a moral one. The truly unnatural thing in this discussion is the societal influence on how humans interact with nature. Does a bear only kill what it needs for fear of a lawsuit? The problem is how separated we have become from the natural world. With most of the population living in large cities and metropolis’s, with people not seeing non-human animals in any environment but in a zoo, a cage, homo sapiens have become so disassociated with the rest of nature. Until we fix this, the worlds problems, the animals problems, will never be seen as what they really are. Our problems.

In order for nature to have the right to sue humans for its ‘overuse’, and in order for these rights to be fair and equal to everyone, both man and nature, it would then seem necessary that man would be able to sue nature back. It’s not a fair use of our powers and law if we allow nature to sue us, and then we can’t do it back. If a tree falls on your house and destroys a part of it, can you really sue that tree? No, of course not. You can’t sue hurricane Katrina just because it happened to blow by one day and destroy an entire city. If we can’t sue nature it shouldn’t be able to sue us. We can’t survive without nature and nature can survive without us, we already now that.  The issue isn’t that nature should be able to sue us; it’s that we should just be able to maintain a safe balance between preserving nature and using it for ourselves. We can’t stop natural disasters from happening, but by maintaining a balance, we can stop ourselves from taking too much and possibly destroying ourselves.