Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nature Is Becoming a Person

foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#11

Post by imgabe »

kingcharles wrote: post #2

This movement to make animals and natural features of the environment (mountains, rivers, lakes etc) fit the definition of a "person" for legal purposes has been gaining a ton of momentum over the last decade and is incredibly important for the future of the environment. It will allow these rivers etc to sue entities for damaging them, and can stop harmful developments that are in the planning stages. It didn't help…

Sure, the river can sue people who pollute it, but if the river floods my house can I sue the river?

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#12

Post by trabant00 »

aradox66 wrote: post #5
roca wrote: post #3

Normally, both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights. But a gorilla or a river obviously can't have responsibilities... Therefore at most they can be considered a rather limited kind of person, more like a human infant or an intellectually incapable adult than a regular human or an organisation of regular humans. Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests o…

Non-human natural persons absolutely have responsibilities. The plants are responsible for photosynthesizing, the fungi for decomposition, etc. They do their holy work and we all get to stay alive, if we hold up our end of things as well.

Just because they can't market those responsibilities in a format that we are used to doesn't mean they don't do the work. It's just like the quiet worker in an office who does his job but is never noticed because he can't/doesn't care about selling his work to others.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#13

Post by rapind »

roca wrote: post #8
aradox66 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-human natural persons absolutely have responsibilities. The plants are responsible for photosynthesizing, the fungi for decomposition, etc. They do their holy work and we all get to stay alive, if we hold up our end of things as well.

Perhaps "duties" is a clearer word here. It is not the duty of plants to photosynthesize. It's just something they do. It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.

Is it really Exxon that’s the problem? Consumption is something we as a species seem evolved to do.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#14

Post by unglaublich »

roca wrote: post #3

Normally, both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights. But a gorilla or a river obviously can't have responsibilities... Therefore at most they can be considered a rather limited kind of person, more like a human infant or an intellectually incapable adult than a regular human or an organisation of regular humans. Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests o…

The fact that you consider infants and intellectually incapable adults as "limited kinds of persons" says enough about the superiority complex that underlies the problem of humanity exploiting all natural resources.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#15

Post by unglaublich »

Humanity has been reaping scarce natural resources for centuries. We have never paid a price to nature, or to future beings that would have wanted to use those resources, because they cannot defend themselves. This is our biggest mistake.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#16

Post by Borrible »

Ah, like in the olden days? Back then, when everything we gave a name, thereby got a a soul?

"Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology."

Adorno, T. W., and Max Horkheimer. [1947] 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment, translated by E. Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#17

Post by zzedd »

gumby wrote: post #4
kingcharles wrote: post #2

This movement to make animals and natural features of the environment (mountains, rivers, lakes etc) fit the definition of a "person" for legal purposes has been gaining a ton of momentum over the last decade and is incredibly important for the future of the environment. It will allow these rivers etc to sue entities for damaging them, and can stop harmful developments that are in the planning stages. It didn't help…

Why not? The joint stock corporation (a marvelous invention, but just a machine) has, though misunderstanding of Latin, gained all sorts of personhood in US law at least. It’s only fair that this be extended to animate, and perhaps inanimate, objects as well.

good observation. i'm a director of a corporation that has "personhood", but my local creek is more alive, performs more important roles than the corporation (just a stack of paper in a safe or the bank account it controls).

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#18

Post by astrange »

roca wrote: post #8
aradox66 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-human natural persons absolutely have responsibilities. The plants are responsible for photosynthesizing, the fungi for decomposition, etc. They do their holy work and we all get to stay alive, if we hold up our end of things as well.

Perhaps "duties" is a clearer word here. It is not the duty of plants to photosynthesize. It's just something they do. It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.

> It is important to distinguish these two concepts, because if you equate them, then for example it is the duty of Exxon to destroy the environment. And this whole discussion presumes that humans and collections of humans like Exxon actually have a duty to not destroy the environment.

Well, this is a true statement. There is a meme "100 companies are responsible for climate change" which implies the companies could change their ways and customers don't have to do anything, but it's not true; we keep them around by buying oil and then we burn it.

The only way it could be different would if they could make carbon-neutral synfuels but it doesn't seem like this is happening.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#19

Post by hungryforcodes »

unglaublich wrote: post #14
roca wrote: post #3

Normally, both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights. But a gorilla or a river obviously can't have responsibilities... Therefore at most they can be considered a rather limited kind of person, more like a human infant or an intellectually incapable adult than a regular human or an organisation of regular humans. Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests o…

The fact that you consider infants and intellectually incapable adults as "limited kinds of persons" says enough about the superiority complex that underlies the problem of humanity exploiting all natural resources.

Compared to healthy, functioning adults how are infants not limited?

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#20

Post by dsign »

unglaublich wrote: post #14
roca wrote: post #3

Normally, both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights. But a gorilla or a river obviously can't have responsibilities... Therefore at most they can be considered a rather limited kind of person, more like a human infant or an intellectually incapable adult than a regular human or an organisation of regular humans. Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests o…

The fact that you consider infants and intellectually incapable adults as "limited kinds of persons" says enough about the superiority complex that underlies the problem of humanity exploiting all natural resources.

99.9999% of natural resources in the universe are atoms of hydrogen in stars. We can't say that those atoms of hydrogen are a person, what we are really saying is that our probable intention to "exploit" those atoms of hydrogen makes us a vermin. I'm, of course, terrible opposed to that notion.
Post reply on HN