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

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#41

Post by Balero »

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?

Only if you pay back rent for squatting in its flood plain.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#42

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

Borrible wrote: post #16

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.

That was my first thought too: "We used to call her Gaia".

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#43

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

akira2501 wrote: post #6
gumby wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The burgeoning concept of the "Natural Asset Corporation" still leaves me queasy, though. I wonder if this is just groundwork to make it a reality.

Feels like NFTs applied to forests and coral reefs and stuff. What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world. Sell your woodland hash and log the real trees; nothing stops the "double spend".

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#45

Post by alangibson »

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of legal personhood, but if we extend it to certain types of businesses then we absolutely must extend it to the environment. Otherwise, get ready to live on Arakis.

It's happening in drips and drabs with domesticated animals anyway.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#46

Post by tremon »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #43
akira2501 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burgeoning concept of the "Natural Asset Corporation" still leaves me queasy, though. I wonder if this is just groundwork to make it a reality.

Feels like NFTs applied to forests and coral reefs and stuff. What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world. Sell your woodland hash and log the real trees; nothing stops the "double spend".

What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world

As I understand it: it works mainly by changing the legal standing. Right now, nobody can sue for destruction of habitat because they would have to prove firstly how they are personally affected by said habitat. By using Natural Personhood as proxy, anyone can sue, using the Natural Person to provide standing.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#48

Post by robertlagrant »

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.

> 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.

No, those are not about responsibility. Is a river responsible for someone drowning in it?

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#49

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

and it would be simpler to pursue conservation ends without it.

I doubt it. Look at corporate personhood and how it applies to Citizens United, being able to sue and tax a corporation, etc. Also look at how conservation protections have been put in place over the years compared to corporate protections. Treating corporations as a "person" opened the doors for a lot of simpler legal tools.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#50

Post by ausbah »

leggomuhgreggo wrote: post #36

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 o…

next step will to be to put it on a blockchain
Post reply on HN