Ecuador's Folly: "Why We Call Them Human Rights"
I have a piece in the current Weekly Standard about Ecuador granting "rights" to nature. (I wrote this several weeks ago, but for obvious reasons having to do with all of the political news lately, it was delayed until now.) From my column:
I quote the relevant provisions, analyze how the "rights" of nature might be implemented and the potential anti-human consequences thereof, and recap other anti-human exceptionalism agendas being adopted in Spain (Great Ape Project) and Switzerland (individual plant "dignity). I conclude:Rights, properly understood, are moral entitlements embodied in law to protect all people. They are not earned: Rights come as part of the package of being a member of the human race. This principle was most eloquently enunciated in the Declaration of Independence's assertion that we are all created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This doctrine of human exceptionalism has been under assault in recent decades from many quarters. For example, many bioethicists assert that being human alone does not convey moral value, rather an individual must exhibit "relevant" cognitive capacities to claim the rights to life and bodily integrity. Animal rights ideology similarly denies the intrinsic value of being human, claiming that we and animals are moral equals based on our common capacity to feel pain, a concept known as "painience."
These radical agendas have now been overtaken by an extreme environmentalism that seeks to--and this is not a parody--grant equal rights to nature. Yes, nature; literally and explicitly. "Nature rights" have just been embodied as the highest law of the land in Ecuador's newly ratified constitution pushed by the country's hard-leftist president, Rafael Correa, an acolyte of Hugo Chávez.
Some might say that Ecuador is a small country not worth much concern. But the concept of nature possessing rights seems to be spreading. The CELDF--which was only founded in 1995--brags that it is fielding calls from South Africa, Italy, Australia, and Nepal, that last of which is crafting its own leftist constitution.There is a profound malaise and nihilism loose in the West,and it is causing us to turn away from the values that bring human freedom and prosperity. It isn't too late to revere course, but that will be hard since so many remain inaware that these potentially epochal changes are even taking place.
Others might say that worrying about nature's rights should take a back seat to less abstract concerns such as the financial crisis and the war on terror. But consider this: The central importance of human life is the fundamental insight undergirding Western civilization. This tenet is now under energetic, and increasingly successful, attack. If such antihumanism prevails, we won't have to worry about nature having rights, but about human beings losing them.
Labels: Ecuador. Nature "Rights." Human Exceptionalism. Wesley J. Smith. Weekly Standard.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:31 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
I don't really get the "nature rights" movement. I mean, Animal Rights came out of Animal Welfare - the proper care of animals that humans use for food and companionship. That I can understand. But where the heck did this one come from?
I have a hard time believing that it cropped up from Animal Rights, because if so, then what are animals supposed to eat? Is Bambi over there grazing on the green grass commiting herbicide? What about elephants that damage their parade grounds. If they knock over trees, how do we punish them?
At some point this whole thing caves in on itself, because if you're going to claim that everything in nature is better than human beings, you're going to set nature at a standard above ourselves. The only problem is, if nature is above us, and nature is pretty rough on itself (dolphins rape their females from time to time and will sometimes kill calves to get the female dolphin to pay attention to them, instead of the babies, and that's just one example), then what's to stop us from following nature's example?
Oh, but humans know better. Well, so what? If we're below animals, then we have the right to imitate them. We only have to be concerned about our actions if we are somehow above animals and therefore stewards over them. Same goes for plants.
Besides, if a deer stag rapes a doe, what's the attitude of the nature lover who thinks that animals are somehow elevated over humans? I mean, if you won't put up with a man raping your sister, then you should do something about animal behavior, but animals are better than humans, so human behavior can only imitate animal to get better, so raping your sister is acceptable, right?
It kind of bites itself in the back. The logic flaws are big enough to drive a truck through.
Tabs: Welcome back. You were missed.
This came out of radical environmentalism. I mention the group in the piece. I have also written about it here. Do a blog search and you can find the group and explore its desire to destroy property rights in favor of rights for nature.
Which, of course, means those in power will decide what happens, with what resources, and when.
So it's an end to democracy in any form and a sort of elitism that takes us back to the feudal days. Back when kings were kings and men were chess pieces. I remember this weird website (I'm sure I posted somewhere on this blog once or twice) where people were extrolling the virtues of killing off all of humanity. They were encouraging Sodomy, Cannibalism, Sterilization, and Suicide. When asked by a reporter why he didn't kill himself as an example to others, a key member of the group said that his job to make sure other people got his message was more important than killing himself. In short, he was too valuable to kill, even though he wanted everybody else dead.
I know these are different movements, but I see the same strain in both. Someone is more important than someone else. It sickens me.
And you were missed, too, Wesley.
Control of man by controlling men who believe they have the anarchist right to claim Religious environmentalism over man by claiming a tree has a right to life. The more I read of these folks the more I realize they have little respect for the real natural world where a death of one organism supports the life of other organisms. They seek Angelic Nirvana by disposing Man's right to live as a part of nature and not apart, from nature.
"If such antihumanism prevails, we won't have to worry about nature having rights, but about human beings losing them."
I wondered if we could say it another way, that our rights would be meaningless if ecosystems, plants et al have the same rights. I think that too has been another way of saying this at SHS.
I must repeat this point, although it is so commonly made... it is so important.
We shouldn't "Kill the Plants", but there is absolutely no problem with killing a soon to be born child - a human - simply because it is the "woman's choice".
Here's something... I want the CHOICE whether or not I can kill the plants!
Here is another point. It comes from folks such as Ingrid Newkirk who drive this New Age Nirvana. They consider man to be a cancerous blight upon the earth. Thus their hatred for humanity is recorded but nobody seems to notice just how badly they want to destroy our social networking which is dependent upon Natural Resources. It is a failure of society to listen to such descriptive narrative by such as Newkirk and not see them for the sociopaths they are against their fellow man. The natural world is set up on a biodiversity which DEMANDS that survival attained through life derived from the deaths & alterations of other species. These new age Nirvanians might not like that reality but they should learn o adjust without all the shame they hold for being a living human and not a dead human.
I recently listened to the podcast on this topic. You mentioned that because nature now has "rights" that means that bacteria, and even swamps, have rights, equal to that of the farmer.
It made me think: how can we now treat disease with anti-bacterials, or even pro-biotics. Since these germs now have the same rights as humans, can the hard-leftists now come in and sue me and my doctor for using and prescribing a lethal agent. Wouldn't that be tantamount to genocide?
It seems preposterous, but what would prevent them?
Hi Salt Racer: This is the problem with using terminology inappropriately. The constitution makes nature rights co-equal with those of people. But nature is unable to exercise those right and so it will be people, primarily radical environmentalists. So, in theory, there is nothing that would prevent what you suggest except common sense. But that is sorely lacking.
We have lost our ability to engage in critical thinking and are, as a consequence, lurching. The consequences are really unpredictable, but they won't be good.
Thanks for stopping by.
For orders from lvl60 to lvl70,we will leave 100 gold per level. l2 power leveling
鐵板神算
算命Speed dating風水租車婚紗攝影室內設計新娘化妝婚紗
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home