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

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#31

Post by roca »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #29
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 sharehol…

On your first point, I agree.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#32

Post by bserge »

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…

Just humans fitting everything into their borderline retarded systems.

Claiming resources by force and by right has become too hard, so now they'll claim protectorate or something over resources that are "threatened" by other humans.

In the end, it's just another way for this species to fight itself.

We are so fucked. Could really use some aliens right about now.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#33

Post by roca »

astrange wrote: post #18
roca wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you, that meme is highly misleading. To some extent company behavior is just aggregate customer behavior.

However, it's not the whole extent. For example Exxon knowing about the CO2 greenhouse effect in 1982 and keeping quiet about that knowledge is problematic behavior that is not excused by customers' desire to buy fossil fuels IMHO.

I'm not wedded to the Exxon example. If you prefer, substitute any company that willfully breaks environmental protection laws to increase profits.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#34

Post by roca »

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…

Indeed, I agree that one of our most important responsibilities as humans (arguably the most important if you take a generous interpretation) is "to not abuse our mental and technological advantages" --- to each other as well as to the natural world.

But we have to be honest that we possess those advantages, and that we have special status as the only species that has responsibilities. In that sense non-humans are indeed lesser than us.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#35

Post by visarga »

imgabe wrote: post #11
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?

If you do that does that mean we also have to pay for using its potential energy in hydro plants? Same for fishing, shipping, irrigation or tourism. Could be lucrative for the river. Some countries depend on one or two rivers for their livelihood. The rivers could be the richest persons.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#36

Post by leggomuhgreggo »

I think is potentially more sinister than it seems: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/w... >A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting “sustainability.”

In and of itself a policy giving legal standing to the environment seem really promising — and no doubt in certain instances, that's probably the case. But we should be careful to distinguish between policy nuances and what tradeoffs may be at play.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#37

Post by amelius »

unglaublich wrote: post #15

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.

Yes, nature is not a single person, it's all future people. We're outnumbered.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#38

Post by dahak27 »

vletal wrote: post #27
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.

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.

If my plants ever stop photosynethizing you best believe they're getting a beating

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#40

Post by dgb23 »

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.

It's not about a "superiority complex" but about limited responsibility and independence.
Post reply on HN