An Ironic Illustration of how "Nature Rights" Could Bring Human Thriving to a Screeching Halt
Well, this is rich: The President of Ecuador is one of the first to be on the receiving end of the ridiculous granting of "rights" to nature that he put in Ecuador's new constitution. It seems Correa wants to open up some of the country to mining, which would increase the prosperity of the population. No can do!, say opponents. That would violate the rights of nature. From the story:
I have no idea whether the mining plan is good or bad. But, it should be judged by determining what is best for the people of Ecuador, which includes analyzing the hoped for benefits of the harvest, while also keeping in mind our duty to conserve and protect the environment, both because there is intrinsic value in that, and for the benefit of posterity.[Ecuador President] Correa insists that responsible mining is necessary for Ecuador's development....But Dr. Byron Real López, an expert in environmental law, wrote in a recent report that the Mandate "is concerned with solving important issues...such as the corruption surrounding the indiscriminate granting of concessions. But the proposed law ignores the ecological and social conflicts that mining activity causes...and thus would tend to aggravate them." López argues that the proposed law would violate a number of provisions in the new constitution, such as those protecting the rights of nature and indigenous communities.
What did Correa expect from this hair brained scheme? Granting rights to nature puts flora, fauna, and perhaps even minerals, on an equal footing with people, giving the no growthers just what they need to stymie prosperity and human flourishing, because, thanks to the new constitution, natural resources are now people too.
We can now see how nature rights, if the concept spreads, would bring most productive human activities to a screeching halt as the earth firsters would have constitutions on their side. What a stupid idea, but one fully in keeping with the cultural currents pushing us toward human unexceptionalism.
Labels: Ecuador. Nature Rights. Interfering with Human Thriving.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:06 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I don't see it as what's best for people vs. what's best for the environment, or for non-human animals, or for that matter for plants, and I don't understand why SHS seems to view it in those terms either. I do understand why SHS regards it as against humans' utilitarian interests to refrain from exploiting and abusing animals and the environment, and how SHS perceives that not using what is around us hobbles "human progress." But the kind of progress that hobbles is the same which has created the mad science that now wants to breed humans with other primates, after years of having tinkered with other species via breeding, now cloning, etc. It's not a contest. A party has to be willing to enter a contest to be in one. It doesn't demean humans to consider that the environment and other animals have rights too. It makes us barbarians to do otherwise. The environment, nor the President of Ecuador, nor the other species, have no desire to demean us. I understand the theoretical/philosophical point SHS is making but find it based on a defensive premise against the wrong enemy.
Lanthe -
In a way I understand your thinking because I do sympathize with it, though for very different reasons from yours.
To my mind, we don't own the planet, or the animals on it, but we are permitted to use both as long as we do so properly, because eventually the Owner is going to want His property back. Right now it's on loan to us.
As such, while I disagree with you about medical use of animals, I agree with you that animals and nature do seem to have some rights, not because they're on par with human beings, but because since they overall are the propert of someOne else, we should treat them respectfully.
But there are limits. Humans were made in someOne else's image, not the rest of the world, though personally I think the survivor's guilt we feel toward other animals is our guilt at dragging them down with us when our fist parents took an apple break they shouldn't have.
But I digress. I think that first we have to put the needs of all humans at the fore, and then consider what's best for our borrowed planet, because the emphasis our Creator always put on us was to first love God, then our neighbor as ourselves, and then the care and keeping of the rest of the world was later on in the list. Still important, and by treating the planet properly we show our exceptionalism, but still, human needs should come first.
T.E. -- I understand your logic but I don't agree with abnegating responsibility and assuming that Someone Else owns everything, and has given us special status because we are made in that SomeoneElse's image. I think that we are the property of ourselves, as the other animals, and "nature," are the property of themselves, and that acting responsibly is part of all of that, if property even comes into it at all, and either way, we have to be responsible. It's enough to notice that when we do not do right, we end up paying for it, and that equation does not even require the hypothetical involvement of a Creator. Simple works best.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home