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

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#51

Post by dsizzle »

dfxm12 wrote: post #49
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.

It makes sense to say corporations have responsibilities though, unlike animals. Maybe you're saying the responsibility part isn't necessary?

I agree with your thought, but not sure how to make the responsibility part fit in.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#52

Post by BiteCode_dev »

dahak27 wrote: post #38
vletal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not in MY garden you don't, you little photosyntard!

smack a leaf with the back of my hand

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#53

Post by musingsole »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #42
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".

Many still do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#54

Post by musingsole »

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…

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

As personhood is legally expanded it only follows that other consequences of it will change as well. If it's traditional for personhood to stipulate responsibilities but personhood is too good of a defense for these assets, then I'd bet the responsibilities will shift into a different classification. We already have similar splits between personhood and citizenship.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#55

Post by musingsole »

zestyping wrote: post #25
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?

You ask these questions like they can't be answered by a trust for the river. The river being granted personhood allows other legal entities to form around it and make arguments for its interests.

It does make sense. Using "personhood" in this way has been the status quo for half a dozen other types of entities for going on generations now. Your complaints here strike me as similar to complaining about the use of "they" for the genderless out of a "but it's plural!!!"

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#57

Post by musingsole »

visarga wrote: post #35
imgabe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I encourage you to look into existing water markets. These agreements exist effectively just in far more words across far more contracts. Personhood could simplify a complex monster.

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#58

Post by vegetablepotpie »

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…

We downplay the impact systems have on human behavior. Let's look at the claim that people have a need to buy oil, and that oil companies merely meet demand.

In America, most people cannot buy groceries without having access to a car. Car ownership is not required de jure, but it required de facto because of a lack of alternatives. America used to have transportation choice. Anywhere where there was transportation diversity, car, tire, oil companies bought out public transit and shut down the operations. On April 1974, San Francisco mayor and antitrust attorney Joseph Alioto testified that "General Motors and the automobile industry generally exhibit a kind of monopoly evil", adding that GM "has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and tire companies...for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit [0].

Oil (and other) companies stimulate demand for their products. When consequences occur, the modus operandi of corporations is to shift blame to their customers. The concept of personal carbon footprints are the result of a PR campaign by British Petroleum [1].

I think the reason 100 companies is a meme is because it resonates. It feels right, but the counter arguments are convenient, easy. It resonates because it hints at phenomena that we can't see directly, but have tremendous influence on our lives.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#59

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nature Is Becoming a Person

#60

Post by jklinger410 »

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 term responsibilities is very loaded here. Can you elaborate?
Post reply on HN