Nature Is Becoming a Person • Hacker News Board

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#21

Post by hosh » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:36 AM UTC

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.

I think I see where you are coming from. I think "responsibility" is a human social construct, but there is a concept that can be generalized for any living system. Plants have a role in the ecosystem with their photosynthesis. So even though they might not have the same kind of agency and volition as humans and photosynthesis is something plants _do_, nevertheless, a plant's relevancy to the ecosystem it belongs to is with their photosynthesis. The ecosystem would not function without it -- or if it does, it would be an entirely different kind of ecosystem.

I think in Carol Sanford's talks on living systems, the unique contribution a living system has for the ecosystem it lives within makes it non-displaceble.

Whether that should be recognized in our legal system, and something that helps humans participate in the ecology ... I don't know. The idea of legal personhood, at least, acknowledges that a living system is its own whole (if we are not just using it as a legal fiction), and it seems to me a stretch to say that a river "wants" legal representation. That sounds like the kind of stuff pre-modern tribal shamans do. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my book, but I don't know if our modern society is ready for that.

On the other hand, it could work as a balance to corporations having legal personhood.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#22

Post by HPsquared » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:38 AM UTC

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.

This could be turned round - are you implicitly assuming a human with limited ability has less value? Mere skill isn't the same as being a "good person", after all.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#23

Post by ciconia » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:44 AM UTC

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…

> Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests of these "persons" are, and to actually pursue those interests, and to judge whether those humans acting on behalf of these "persons" are actually acting in good faith (and what do we do if they aren't?).

No it doesn't. All we need to do is to acknowledge that non-humans are not lesser than us, and that our most important responsibility as humans is to not abuse our mental and technological advantages.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#24

Post by chongli » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:45 AM UTC

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.

They’re limited in the sense that they don’t have the ability to advocate for themselves in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. They’re entirely dependent on others to advocate for them. That’s what makes them different from a typical adult human.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#25

Post by zestyping » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:05 AM UTC

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…

If a river can sue, does it have property rights? What happens to the damages paid? What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? It cannot make decisions. This doesn't make any sense.

How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#26

Post by blueflow » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:05 AM UTC

ciconia wrote: post #23

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…

> Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests of these "persons" are, and to actually pursue those interests, and to judge whether those humans acting on behalf of these "persons" are actually acting in good faith (and what do we do if they aren't?). No it doesn't. All we need to do is to acknowledge that non-humans are not lesser than us, and that our most important responsibility as human…

Determining what is "abuse" and what not is not a given, this is why this discussion is required.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#27

Post by vletal » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:10 AM UTC

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.

It's a role not a responsibility. Responsibility would imply that they can be hold accountable for not delivering. Such as blaming plants for not taking enough CO2 from the atmosphere.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#28

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

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.

Person is a legal concept, too.

Of course infants and intellectually incapable adults are limited persons in the legal sense: they have fewer duties, but also fewer options. For example, they won't be accepted to a pilot school.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#29

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

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…

> both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights

the problem with legal persons is that we hold them to the same standard as a natural person but their ability to do damage far exceeds anything a natural person can do. terrible decisions are being made by groups that do not reflect the individual. Many crimes are committed by legal persons are only punishable by losing trust from shareholders (lying to investors is much easier to get away with for legal than for natural persons - e.g. they're not crimes for legal persons in the same sense), a natural person would often go to jail for similar actions. Tobacco industry or oil industry would have no executives because they'd all have be doing time. the Sacklers would be hanging from a tree, and Elon Musk would be have to pay taxes.

> Seems to me this "personhood" concept mainly muddies the waters

there is nothing wrong with designating whole regions as off limits to humans. Ban any form of tourism or commercial exploitation etc in parts of the world is the only option IMHO.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#30

Post by roca » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:06 AM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #22

unglaublich wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This could be turned round - are you implicitly assuming a human with limited ability has less value? Mere skill isn't the same as being a "good person", after all.

No, not at all. I'm a Christian and it's dogma for me that all humans carry the image of God and have intrinsic worth independent of their abilities or utility.