Here‘s a great way to bring about the collapse of civilization: declare that Mother Earth has equal rights with humans and give anyone standing to represent Mother Earth in court in challenging any activity by anyone else. In practically no time, the gears of industry would grind to a halt, agriculture would shut down, and the resulting problems would no doubt be blamed on greedy capitalists.
So of course the United Nations is apparently considering a proposal to do just that. This proposal was brought before the United Nations by Bolivia, which is about to pass its own Mother Earth law. This law gives Mother Earth the right to life, diversity (good-bye agriculture), water (good-bye industry), clean air (good-bye cities), equilibrium (good-bye science), and pollution-free living (good-bye just about everything).
The law also creates an “office [or Ministry] of Mother Earth” that will implement the law. Any “exercise of individual rights is limited by the exercise of collective rights in the living systems of Mother Earth,” says the law. “Any conflict of rights must be resolved in ways that do not irreversibly affect the functionality of living systems,” and the office of Mother Earth gets to adjudicate such conflicts.
This idea goes back to at least 1972, when a lawyer named Christopher Stone asked, Should Trees Have Standing? Stone’s theory, later expanded upon by environmental historian Roderick Nash in The Rights of Nature, was that society has steadily expanded the concept of “rights” to include, first, kings, then the nobility, then all male property owners, and later non-property owners, women, minorities, and children. It was only natural, Stone and Nash felt, that this expansion would soon include trees and other parts of Mother Earth.
Yet there is a serious flaw in this reasoning. When we say a men or women have rights, we mean they are self-aware beings with personal preferences and able to make responsible decisions about their lives. The concept becomes murkier when talking about the mentally impaired or children, who are supposedly unable to make responsible decisions. To protect their “rights,” someone else is assigned to represent them. But this creates a clear conflict when the representative has something to gain or lose by the decisions they make on behalf of the beneficiary, and such conflicts are the staple of soap operas and tabloid newspapers.
The concept of rights becomes murkier still when applied to non-humans who have no way of expressing their preferences. What do sheep want? What does a plant want? An individual sheep or stalk of corn probably doesn’t want to be eaten, but species like sheep and corn that have made themselves useful to humans have proven enormously successful, while species dangerous to humans, such as smallpox, have been driven to near-extinction. Thus, what a sheep “wants” could be different from what sheep genes “want.”
With Kamagra Oral Jelly you won’t just feel like a tadalafil generic canada man again however will likewise enhance your future sexual coexistence significantly. Buying generic medications online is the most affordable and feasible treatment, these are ED drugs but now the question arises, how to take the medicine? To get the best flavors of your choice as all the flavors may not be available all the time. viagra sildenafil canada The trick is buy generic viagra a shift in the front wheel. Having Kamagra Polo after a heavy fatty meal can delay the action of robertrobb.com best levitra price. “For the purpose of protecting and enforcing its rights, Mother Earth takes on the character of collective public interest,” the Bolivian law states, adding, “The interests of society, within the framework of the rights of Mother Earth, prevail in all human activities and any acquired right.” While something may be lost in the translation from Spanish, it sounds to me like this is saying that the “collective public interest” will legally prevail over individual rights.
This creates another problem. Not only does the Ministry of Mother Earth have to represent the rights of non-sentient beings, it also has to represent the “collective public interest.” No individual can properly determine that collective interest because all individuals–yes, even government officials–have their own interests.
Say I plow 100 acres of native grassland and plant corn that might feed 1,000 people. Yet self-declared representatives of Mother Earth may challenge my action saying that replacing the grassland with corn reduces plant diversity, while self-declared representatives of the collective public interest may argue that the public needs grasslands more than it needs corn. How can any ministry or court determine who is right?
The Bolivian law also says, “Neither living systems nor processes that sustain them may be commercialized, nor serve anyone’s private property.” The fundamental assumption is that living systems are better off managed collectively than privately. Tell that to American bison, which nearly went extinct, or two species of North American elk, which did go extinct because they were managed collectively. Under U.S. common law, that meant anyone could shoot any bison or elk, and no one could protect them from being shot by claiming them as private property. Naturally, early settlers quickly replaced the bison and elk with cattle and sheep, which could be protected as private property.
Advocates of Bolivia’s law piously say they do not want to shut down all industry or bring an end to civilization. But we from long experience that environmental laws that give people rights to legally challenge activities on private land can end up significantly delaying, and eventually discouraging, economic development. The ministry or courts who try to “balance” the needs of people with those of Mother Earth will end up making decisions that outside observers will view as arbitrary and capricious.
Such a process makes businesses hesitant to invest in projects that can be delayed and have a high risk of not receiving approval at all. The result is everyone is poorer. Moreover, the administration of such laws is generally inequitable, with a few people paying most of the costs for environmental protection measures that supposedly benefit everyone.
We are much better off relying on private initiatives to protect nature. As people become wealthier, their interest in protecting the natural world grows, and they are more willing to dedicate a share of their income to such protection. Ultimately, it is likely that societies that rely on such private initiatives will end up protecting more of “Mother Earth” than societies that stay poor because they impose so many obstacles in front of economic development.
We’ll be able to test this theory if, as Wired suggests is likely, Bolivia passes this law but the United Nations does not. That means we only need to see how well it works in Bolivia. It will either do nothing at all, in which case environmentalists elsewhere won’t push for it, or it will impose huge costs on Bolivians, in which case environmentalists elsewhere will love it.
Different people have different values and value things differently.
I saw this story a day or two ago, and thought it was sheer lunacy. What is the excuse for giving a beetle or blade of grass the same “rights” as a human? Of course, there is no logic at work here. It is impossible to divine the desires of a blade of grass, and insects do not have “desires” as we interpret them. Which is why there will be “wise” planners who make these decisions for all the poor critters who aren’t able to “speak up”.
Who wants to bet that Dan is fully on board with this drivel? Maybe he can get a good-paying job with the “Ministry” of Nature.
Wow, highwayman beat me to this one. Why I am not surprised that he’s OK with this proposal? You could move to Bolivia, highwayman. Since you’re basically a vegetable, this law would protect you too.
Highwayman, I see you’re back after your html tags embarrassment.
You have just produced a fine reason for private property and against collective solutions, since the former recognises and accommodates differences in opinion and the latter, being one size fits all, does not.
Oh, and the end point of the latter is one or both of the destruction of industry and the environment, which nobody, not even you, prefers.
AntiPlanner: Advocates of Bolivia’s law piously say they do not want to shut down all industry or bring an end to civilization.
JK: Oh, bovine excrement!
Shutting down industry and “cleansing” the Earth has long been a goal of the lunatic fringe of the green movement.
What do you think climate change is all about (or earlier, stopping the coming ice age)?
One even likened low cost energy to giving children machine guns (or was it a powerful car?)
The problem is that the lunatic fringe of the greenies are getting accepted as mainstream.
Thanks
JK
This is no doubt an interesting solution to the problem. There is a long history of such endowment of human rights to non-human entities in America with some successes and failures (Endangered species act, Corporations as “individuals” to name a few).
To me the crux is that despite the intent of laws, not all individuals are equal in court (think: white collar or Johnny Cochran). Also, enforcement is 99% right?
This also reminds me of some work I’ve been doing on the Net-0 front. Many governments, companies and professions have stated, for example, that “all commercial buildings in area X will be carbon net zero by year X,” without understanding that much of what makes a building energy efficient is beyond their control (i.e. these entities can do all they can to create efficient buildings, but it’s the occupants that ultimately determine energy use).
I suppose, as someone who cares about things outside of my little self-interested bubble, I’m happy to see various organizations take on these issues, but I wish the solutions created were a little more realistic and calculated (i.e. even if the UN passes this rule there is no way they’ll be able to enforce it. That’s a sure sign you’ve passed a bad one).
No environment, no precious economy. It is the simplest thing to grasp.
Amazing how a small minority doesn’t want to understand that fouling your nest is a bad idea. The rest of the population is too cheap and lazy to stop doing it. Ah, well. We’ll learn when it is too late, if we learn at all.
DS
Of course we know that the posting is part of an organized campaign. They always are.
DS
Come on Dan. We’ll be long dead before that day comes. And we all know that making sure our grandchildren don’t have debt is how to ensure a prosperous future. Things like flammable water, diminishing nonrenewable resources, poison food, water and air are the issues of tomorrow that the market will fix if we just let it work. Duh!
What a surprise! The leftists are fully on board here! I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: is there any government program related to zoning/smart growth/environmentalism/green, no matter how preposterous, that you are not in favor of.
I suppose I should apologize for my comment (#10). I often berate my opponents for such tactics. That said, I’m not “fully on board,” as my previous comment (#7) clearly indicates. I’m happy to see various organizations take up the charge, but am not convinced that the UN proposal will do anything, particularly for America and other superpowers.
This has been noted before, with perhaps a more appropriate headline. Check out the comments also, which are superb.
You shouldn’t be on board at all, bennett. Let the crazies like Dan & Highwayman reflexively support this insanity.
Good link, MJ. Poverty is the only thing this bill will create.
One man’s ‘superb’ is another’s ‘wow, that’s an extremely low bar’, I guess.
Little wonder the rubes are harrumphing their comical umbrage at the law: The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts that’s enough to marshal the usual suspects, surely.
DS
And I rest my case…
No environment, no precious economy. It is the simplest thing to grasp.
Let’s extend the brilliant Danny Boy logic: No CO2, no photosynthesis. It is the simplest thing to grasp.
It is those climate change opponents that are stopping the earth from progressing. Their extreme conservative views want to keep climate the way it has been and won’t let it progress into an era of greater rights and freedom for all critters.
For millions of years a few species have been able to dominate and enslave billions of other species by isolating them and literally devouring them and stealing all their resources. Trillions and trillions of plants and animals are allowed to work just enough to store some food, only to have the climate-subsidized upper class steal their work and literally sucking the blood of them and eating their children.
Let’s end the climate subsidies and let the earth progress, creating new opportunities for the underclass of species. Let’s reject the selfish wealthy species that don’t want to lose their ability to enslave the disenfranchised species.
A thought: Odds of long-term species survival point to the human race dying out at some point, and perhaps even some point “soon,” correct?
The Earth will be sticking around though, long after a super-volcano has vaporized the people who proposed this measure.
Not that we shouldn’t keep our “nest” clean in the meantime. But isn’t it a little silly to anthropomorphize Earth as a mother?
It’s a rock in an obscure solar system that has temporarily been endowed life-supporting capabilities. Its indifference to your reality and mine couldn’t be more pronounced.
But isn’t it a little silly to anthropomorphize Earth as a mother?
Lots of indigenous societies have done this for likely thousands of years, as devices to aid memory in the absence of written records. As our ancestors did as well.
DS
George Carlin once said “The Earth is fine……People are screwed”. Don’t anthropomorphize the Earth. Cherish, take care of it; thats fine. But don’t anthropomorphize it. Ted Turner tried that. We don’t have a blue faced superhero who can solve our problems in thirty minutes including commericials. Nearly everyone has beliefs that tie the Earth to ones conscience. Whether you call it Gaia or Mother Earth or something. Everyone “wants” to save the planet but how??? We need to think with our brains and not our hearts. We know it would take much more land to grow food organically than on efficient conventional farms. We know recycling is expensive and largley unnecessary (with the exception of major metals). Mother Nature is a cruel, manipulative bitch but she runs the show.
We need to expell the doomsday cheerleaders from the discussion. The problem is………..discussion and research is boring; Why do that when you can stand on a soapbox. We need fewer Jenny McCarthy’s and Bono’s. We need more Randal O’Tooles and Milton Friedmans and Norman Borlaugs.
We know, of course, with time that Borlaug’s ideas were only temporary solutions; the new varieties were one strategy that can last, but the pumping of aquifers and lavishing N on fields cannot and will not.
We will need much, much, much more cleverness that what we have displayed thus far to overcome water shortages and resource scarcity. You cannot substitute water or soil, no matter how hard you wish or how often you think that Cornucopianism works in reality.
DS
That was an excellent example of saying absolutely nothing with the maximum number of words. Something planners excel at.
Metrosucks; Wow, highwayman beat me to this one. Why I am not surprised that he’s OK with this proposal?
THWM: I never said it was “OK”.
I just said that other people value things differently.
Yet Metrosucks, you want to tell other people how to live their lives.
I just said that other people value things differently.
So you tacitly approve of socialist morons who value the “rights” of vegetables over human life, right?
I’m pro-choice, but I’m not going to get into a Roe vs Wade debate with you.